EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Glenn Beck's Attacks on Frances Fox Piven Trigger Death Threats
If anyone thinks that the vitriol that Glenn Beck spews on his radio and TV shows doesn't stir people to aggressive and hateful action, they should take a look at the postings on his website, The Blaze, about Frances Fox Piven.
For two years Beck has targeted the political science professor as a Marxist Machiavelli whose writings constitute a manifesto for a radical revolution.
But in recent months Beck has escalated his hate campaign against Piven, a professor at the City University of New York, former vice president of the American Political Science Association, and former president of the American Sociological Association. He labeled Piven one of the "nine most dangerous people in the world," and "an enemy of the Constitution."
Not surprisingly, this has led to a dramatic rise in ugly threats to the 78-year old Piven.
Some of Beck's followers have emailed Piven directly. One of the anonymous emailers simply wrote "DIE YOU CUNT" in the subject line. Another wished that she would get cancer.
Since September, The Blaze has published eight articles about Piven with headlines like "Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Calling for Violent Revolution" and "Piven: Violence is Okay If It's Part of Your Strategy."
In the wake of the Tucson massacre, Beck exhorted his audience to take a pledge to denounce "violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system - regardless of their underlying ideology - whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven."
The Blaze also posted an audio recording of remarks Piven made at a meeting of faculty retirees in early December. She had been invited to comment on the 2010 election. In the course of the discussion, people asked about the sociological causes of the Tea Party movement. Piven discussed what is known about the demographic characteristics of Tea Partiers. She added that she suspected that older Tea Party sympathizers were also reacting against changes in family and sexual norms triggered by the women's and gay rights movement. Piven suspects that a conservative colleague used a cell phone to record the comments featured on the Blaze article titled, "Frances Fox Piven: The Tea Party is All About Sex."
These Blaze articles, in turn, have triggered hundreds of incendiary reader comments, some of which have included death threats. Here's just a sample:
• "Maybe they should burst through the front door of this arrogant elitist and slit the hateful cow's throat"
- "We should blow up Piven's office and home"
- "I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?"
- "Another Idiot here who needs to be Euthanized!"
- "Dear Frannie, Trotsky got his in Mexico with a well applied icepick."
- "I would not be upset at all if she got hit by a car sliding in the snow during a winter storm.... yeah, i wouldn't be upset at all, i don't even consider her human."
- "Hey Frances and your "unruly mobs"! I'd like you to meet bullets! Our friendly neighborhood riot police can help you make their acquaintance!"
- "Hey Frances. Please get sick and die quickly!"
- "That old woman is nothing more than bile coming from a rabid animal. put it out of its misery."
- " The time for talk is over ! i stand with free people and my Lord Jesus, he has the ability to forgive. I do not. It will be ugly".
- "Here's hoping that this Piven hag is the first one killed in her "Grand Socialist Revolution"!"
- "Bring it B*TCH, Bring it....You are all just future moving targets."
- "Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas ready and I'll give My life to take Our freedom back. Taking Her life and any who would enslave My children and grandchildren and call for violence should meet their demise as They wish. George Washington didn't use His freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them."
- "Big Lots is having a rope sale I hear, you buy the rope I will hang the wench."
- Hey Frances and your "unruly mobs"! I'd like you to meet bullets!
- "I say they should vent their frustration by stringing up the old hippy revolutionaries like Piven."
- "Isn't it time we schedule Ms. Piven's end-of-life counseling session?"
- "OK! If it is violence she wants I think we should start with Ms. Piven."
- "I have at least 400 rounds ready for those freaking communist's when ever they are ready"
Some of these bullies have posted links to documents that reveal Piven's home address and phone number.
On Thursday (January 20), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a public interest law firm, issued a written appeal to Beck's boss -- Fox News chairman Roger Ailes -- to put a stop to the increasing threats against Piven incited by Beck tirades. The letter, written by CCR Legal Director Bill Quigley and Executive Director Vince Warren, asked Ailes to distinguish between First Amendment rights, of which they are "vigorous defenders" and an "intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods [that place that Piven] in actual physical danger of a violent response."
The letter states that the "threats must be taken seriously by Fox News," and that "Professor Piven's life could well be at stake." It further asks that Ailes "order an immediate investigation into this, and insist on a speedy and fair resolution which will stop the Fox and Beck generated threats on Professor Piven."
Joel Cheatwood, Fox News vice president, told the New York Times that the company would not order Beck to stop criticizing Piven. He had no knowledge of any threats against Piven, he said.
After news outlets reported CCR's letter to Ailes, the Blaze removed some of the incendiary comments from its website. But the following day (Saturday, Jan 22), Beck's website continued its attack on Piven. It published an article entitled, "Globalization Destruction: Piven Gleefully 'Hopes' and Explains How Countries Like China Can Shut Down USA and Bring Revolutionary Transformation."
This article provoked another wave of angry comments, including this one from an anonymous writer using the name "MILIG":
- "The cemeteries are half empty and this witch is still running around living?"
And this post from "Cylone:"
- "I'll pay up for the bullet....I"m $1.07 bid....I'll just have to let Glenn shoot her though.... he's the best shot out there... :-)"
Piven is certainly no stranger to controversy. For almost half a century, she has been a prolific writer whose more than a dozen books and hundreds of articles explore the causes of poverty, the role of government policy in lifting the Americans out of poverty, the importance of increasing voter turn-out among the poor, and the value of protest and activism in changing public policy.
Her books (many of them written with her husband, sociologist Richard Cloward, who died in 2001), include Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (1971), The Politics of Turmoil (1974), Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (1977), The New Class War: Reagan's Attack on the Welfare State and Its Consequences (1982), Why Americans Don't Vote (1988), The War at Home: The Domestic Costs of Bush's Militarism (2004), Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America (2006), and Keeping Down the Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters (2009). Piven has won numerous awards and honors for her scholarly work, which itself has been the subject of many books and articles by other academics.
But it isn't Piven's academic writings that has riled right-wingers. Instead, it is two articles in The Nation magazine, 44 years apart, that have made Piven a central character in the right wing's paranoid conspiracy theories and triggered the recent conservative crusade against her.
Beck and his paranoid posse consider Piven's 1966 Nation article, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," coauthored with Cloward, the semi-official blueprint for a radical takeover of American society. In that 6,327-word article, Cloward (a professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work at the time ) and Piven (at the time an anti-poverty researcher and activist who joined the Columbia faculty later that year), proposed organizing the poor to demand welfare benefits in order to pressure the federal government to expand the nation's social safety net and establish a guaranteed national income.
To put their strategy into practice, Cloward and Piven worked with George Wiley to create the National Welfare Rights Organization, which at its peak in the late 1960s had affiliates in 60 cities and had some success increasing participation in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program by organizing protests at welfare offices, initiating litigation on behalf of the poor, and pressuring politicians and welfare administrators to change the rules.
After years of working with community organizing groups and helping devise anti-poverty strategies, Cloward and Piven concluded that a successful anti-poverty movement had to combine grassroots protest with electoral politics. During the Reagan years in the early 1980s, they wrote a widely-read book, Why Americans Don't Vote, which examined deliberate efforts throughout the 20th century to deny the franchise to immigrants, the poor, and African Americans. They also used their contacts among unions, community groups, and social workers to help build a movement to expand voting among the poor.
Their idea led to the National Voter Registration Act, usually called the "motor voter" law, which President Clinton signed in 1993, at a White House ceremony at which Piven spoke and received one of the president's pens.
Conservatives have been attacking their ideas for decades. But the paranoid demonization of the couple by the extreme Right has escalated since Obama's election.
The story they now tell about Piven can be traced to David Horowitz, a former New Left radical who did an about-face in the 1970s and became a prominent conservative propagandist. In his 2006 book, written with Richard Poe, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, Horowitz identifies the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" outlined in their 1966 Nation article as the centerpiece of the radical blueprint to "collapse" the capitalist system.
Horowitz's idea caught on with other elements of the conservative lunatic fringe, particularly after an African American former community organizer was elected president. A few weeks after Obama's victory, James Simpson penned an article for the right-wing American Thinker entitled, "Cloward-Piven Government," describing their "malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government." The right-wing echo chamber has transformed the duo into Marxist Machiavellis whose ideas have not only spawned an interlocking radical movement dedicated to destroying modern-day capitalism but also, in their minds at least, almost succeeded, as evidenced by what they consider Obama's "socialist" agenda.
Conservative radio jockeys Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have, on multiple occasions, warned their listeners about the nefarious social scientists. "The Cloward-Piven strategy is essentially what Obama and a number of these people are following," Limbaugh told his listeners on December 18, 2009, "and its ultimate objective is to have everybody in the country on welfare, by destroying it."
Horowitz, the editor of FrontPage, a far-right magazine and website, called Cloward and Piven the "architects" of "radical change." Other right-wing outlets, including American Spectator, The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Free Republic, NewsMax, and WorldNetDaily, have all educated their audiences about how the Cloward-Piven Strategy has infected society like a dangerous left-wing virus.
Beck first mentioned the so-called "Cloward-Piven Strategy" in March 2009, three months after he began his nightly Fox News show, and over 50 times since. He often used his trademark chalkboard to connect Cloward and Piven to Woodrow Wilson, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, ACORN, the SEIU, the Apollo Alliance, the Tides Foundation, George Soros, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, and Obama -- some of the right's favorite villains. Piven and her radical colleagues are "taking you to a place to be slaughtered," Beck told his TV audience.
Beck, like his right-wing colleagues, views Cloward and Piven as dangerous radicals masquerading as reformers. On one show, Beck claimed that SDS, the 1960s radical student group, believed the road to change was "Let's blow things up," but Cloward and Piven counseled, "No, no, no, let's try to just collapse the system." Beck also said that Obama's health care proposal followed the Cloward-Piven strategy to "melt the system down and have it collapse into a new system."
On January 5th of this year, Beck promised to give viewers a tutorial on Cloward and Piven's idea, which he described as a "strategy to overwhelm the system and get everybody on the welfare and collapse the economic system of the United States." According to Beck, the Watts riots, which took place in 1965, a year before their initial Nation article appeared, "served as an inspiration for the Cloward and Piven strategy. That was it. That's -- they saw that and they went -- oh, my gosh. I have the answer."
"Violent riot inspired them to help create more riots and feel your anger and let the hatred flow," Beck told his audience. "Most people would have seen this and say, wow, we got to make sure that doesn't happen again. But not France Fox Piven. This was an epiphany for her."
"The riots was [sic] the inspiration," Beck went on. "Their solution: guaranteed income. That's communism."
At the first annual Tea Party convention held in Nashville in February 2010, Joseph Farah, editor of the white supremicist website WorldNetDaily devoted eight minutes of his 38-minute keynote diatribe to fulminating about what he called Cloward and Piven's "manifesto."
The duo's work with NWRO led to increasing welfare costs that "brought New York City to its knees" in the 1970s," Farah said. He correctly linked Cloward and Piven's ideas to various efforts to get more poor people to vote . Then he drew a direct line between the couple and one such effort, Project Vote in Chicago, which once hired a young law school graduate named Obama. Farah also repeated the inaccurate canard that ACORN was involved in widespread voter fraud. He told the Tea Party crowd that Cloward and Piven's ideas have influenced Democratic Party prescriptions since George McGovern's 1972 presidential candidacy.
Obama's purpose, Farah said, is to "increase misery and create crises." That, according to Farah, is an "old trick" that was "codified by a Marxist Columbia professor and his research assistant" [sic] -- a strategy of "orchestrated crises."
"Obama is still employing the Cloward-Piven strategy, not as a community organizer but today as the community organizer in chief," Farah explained. "He's still creating crises as a means of empowerment" -- right out of the Cloward-Piven playbook.
"Nothing's changed" since Cloward and Piven first penned their article, Farah said. "With Obama, everything is a crisis. Carbon dioxide levels. The banking industry. The automobile industry. The health care system. And especially the economy. He's going to fix all of them, he promises. How? By turning make-believe crises into real crises."
"The goal remains the same as when it was first outlined in 1966," Farah said. "It is, as the Marxists of the 1960s and early 1970s explained, to heighten the contradictions of capitalism. Bring the system to its knees, and ultimately to collapse."
In his 2010 book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, the crackpot writer Stanley Kurtz claims that a young Obama may have heard Piven speak at a conference of radical scholars and decided then and there to become a community organizer.
Piven is used to being criticized by conservatives, but last year the attacks got closer to home - literally. In January 2010 Kyle Olson phoned her in January, told her he was a college student in Michigan, and asked if he could videotape an interview with her about her most recent book Challenging Authority. Temporarily housebound and recovering from a auto accident, Piven invited Olson to her New York apartment. On February 1, Olson and a friend arrived from Michigan with a video camera. Piven offered them something to drink. Then, for about an hour, she and Olson sat at her round dining room table and talked about everything from the founding fathers to Fox News, while the friend taped them.
Two weeks later, Piven, learned that about eight minutes of the taped interview appeared in three segments on Big Government, Andrew Breitbart's conservative news website. The same outlet achieved national prominence two years ago when it published James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles' highly edited but hugely destructive hidden-camera recordings of ACORN employees. And the same website became infamous when O'Keefe was arrested in January for allegedly trying to tamper with the phone system in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office as part of another "investigation," while on Breitbart's payroll. Olson and Breitbart employed those same "gotcha" tactics on Piven.
But Olson was not a college student. He was a 31-year-old Republican Party operative, conservative activist, and would-be journalist. He runs a Michigan-based conservative advocacy organization, the Education Action Group (EAG), which primarily attacks teachers unions. Hating teachers union is a core tenent of the Republican mainstream. But branched out in the lunatic fringe, using his camera and computer to sniff out the left-wing Marxist conspiracy and its chief strategist, Professor Piven. Indeed, Greg Steimel, a researcher for the Michigan Education Association who has followed Olson's career, calls him a "Glenn Beck wannabe."
The segments of Olson's video interview with Piven posted on BigGovernment featured no major revelations about America's imminent mass socialist uprising. In one snippet, Piven remarks that Thomas Jefferson "would be stunned by the oligarchical character of American society." She also comments that when wealth and power become too concentrated, society needs a "corrective period of people rising," as they did during the Depression and the 1960s. In another video clip, Olson asks Piven about Beck's attacks on her Nation article, which he regularly blames for many of America's problems, including the financial crisis. "Can you think of anything sillier than to attribute the financial crisis to an article in a low-circulation magazine in 1966?," Piven said. She called Beck's efforts to find an easy "scapegoat" for the country's troubles typical of "right-wing ideologues."When Olson's ploy was exposed, he told his hometown paper, the Grand Rapids Press, that he regretted using a lie to get an interview with Piven. But he continued to attack, harass and mock Piven in his online postings.
In fact, Piven has never encouraged or celebrated violence in any of her writings or speeches. She's long been a proponent using the combined power of voting and grassroots protest to bring about change. In her writings, she examines the history of protest and documents how tactics such as pickets, rallies, strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, and civil disobedience - the kind of activism that once catapulted a young Baptist minister in Montgomery to the national limelight, an icon whose birthday we just celebrated as a national holiday - often pressure powerful figures in business and government to pay attention to grievances they had previously ignored and level the political playing field.
As Piven explains in her books, articles, and speeches, protest can give powerless people a voice and lead to important reforms, like the eight-hour day, women's right to vote, desegregation of public schools and universities, and increased funding for social programs like food stamps and welfare.
When protest turns violent, Piven has documented, it is typically because the police, the National Guard, or private militias and goon squads hired by business attack the protestors with billy clubs and guns.
But sometimes angry people do riot. Piven is hardly the first academic to note that when people are frustrated by the slow pace of change, or by an incident of police brutality, they occasionally resort to civil unrest. Langston Hughes, the celebrated African American writer, made the same observation in his famous poem, "Dream Deferred," written in 1951. "What happens to a dream deferred?" Hughes asked. "Does it dry up, Like a raisin in the sun?...Or does it explode?"
Neither Hughes, nor Piven, nor the hundreds of other social observers who explored why angry people sometimes explode - southern lynch mobs, Old West vigilantes, and the urban poor - were condoning violence. They were simply explaining it as a persistent reality in American history.
But Piven has also been interested in the other side of that question - why, in the face of much suffering and injustice, do so many people, especially the poor, remain passive, as if they accept their lot in life as something immutable, or blame themselves, or "bad luck," for their misfortune, rather than channel their frustrations and anger in political action, such as voting or participating in protest?
Piven's most recent Nation article "Mobilizing the Jobless," published in its January 10 issue, and which has triggered the latest and ugliest wave of attacks on her, asked those questions. In a country with nearly 15 million people officially unemployed and another 11.5 million settling for part-time work or giving up the frustrating search for a job - and with little confidence that things will get better soon -- why is there so little protest?
"So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?" Piven wrote in her 1,159-word essay. "After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn't the unemployed be on the march? Why aren't they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?"
Ever the political sociologist, Piven then tries to answer her own question. She explains that because American who are out of work, or losing their homes, are isolated from each other, dispersed in different areas, and comprised of people in different workplaces and industries, it is difficult to mobilize them. Also, she points out, many jobless people blame themselves for their troubles. "They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant," before they are ready to join picket lines or show up at rallies. "A kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible."
Piven would like to see a revival of the kind of mass protest and civil disobedience - what she calls "disruption" - that animated the labor and civil rights movements. "A loose and spontaneous movement of this sort could emerge," he says in her Nation article, but it isn't inevitable.
And if Americans did start to build a "social movement from the bottom," what should they demand from the nation's policymakers? Is Piven calling for a radical revolution to overthrow the capitalist system, as her critics allege? No. She'd like to see a new New Deal "to relieve the misery created by the Great Recession." That would mean, she says, "massive investments in public-service programs" and "big new initiatives in infrastructure and green energy."
Piven's strategy and policy agenda falls squarely within the American tradition of progressive "social democracy." But in their wacky paranoid worldview, Beck and his Tea Party acolytes consider "progressive" and "social justice" as code words for Marxist revolution.
Soon after the newest Nation article appeared, Ron Radosh - a conservative historian whose political trajectory, like Horowitz's, was from Red Diaper baby (son of Communists), to 1960s student radical, to ultra-right wing propagandist -- posted an anti-Piven screed on his website, Pajamas Media. On its own, Radosh's piece, "The Second Time is Farce: Frances Fox Piven Calls for a new Cloward-Piven Strategy for Today", would have had little impact outside the right-wing blogosphere. But with Beck fanning the flames with his relentless attacks on Piven, lunatic bloggers like Radosh get a wider audience.
It isn't clear whether Beck actually believes what he says and writes about Piven, or simply uses it to whip up his followers' anger and resentments. We'll never know what's in Beck's mind. But what's obvious is that this tactic is not simply aimed at Piven, an acclaimed academic but hardly a well-known figure in American politics. It is, instead, intended to discredit Obama's liberal policy agenda and to destroy the progressive movement (unions, consumer and community groups, environmentalists, women's and civil rights organizations, and gay rights groups) that has pushed the president and the Democratic Party to be bolder, as they did in last year's health-care battle.
This maneuver is hardly new. As far back as Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon, Republican politicians and hired strategists -- like Murray Chotiner, Ed Meese, Michael Deaver, Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and Frank Luntz -- have perfected the art of linking liberal Democrats to communists, socialists, radicals, subversives, "welfare queens," and terrorists. These ideas might seem crazy, but they are, like Roger Ailes, the communications guru for Nixon, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and now Glenn Beck's boss, crazy like Fox News.
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch recruited Ailes to turn the Fox network into a propaganda arm of the right wing of the Republican Party, a key link in the network of conservative think tanks, magazines, columnists, websites, and radio talk shows. Few people who've looked closely at Beck's background and career believe that he is the conductor of the Fox orchestra. But his hysterical end-of-the-world rants, along with his paranoid conspiracy theories and misguided history lessons, have found a niche audience, including Tea Party supporters, the Republican Party, and the blogosphere.
Piven admits to being "unnerved" by this recent wave of blog attacks and death threats triggered by Beck's incendiary rhetoric. But she's determined not to let the right-wing assault intimidate her. She's accepted several invitations to speak and is working on several new writing projects.
What she has learned from a lifetime of scholarship is that it is impossible to predict when reformers and radicals can win significant victories, like the eight hour day, women's suffrage, civil rights laws, consumer protections, and increases in the minimum wage. The only constant, she says, quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglas, is that "without struggle there is no progress." After half a century of activism, Piven isn't about to let "that blowhard" Glenn Beck silence her.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

41 Comments so far
Show AllIt's high time to sue the network behind this hatred.
Relieve Rupert Murdoch of 10% of his total assets for starters.
Only relieving the vermin of 100% of his assets would suffice.
Should *ANYTHING* happen to Frances Piven, Glenn Beck should be held socially and criminally accountable, in the form of a a lawsuit that strips him of his wealth, privatizes/copyrights any and all of his trademark catchphrases or actions (the on demand crying, the chalkboard, etc.) so that any further use by him or his imitators will result in having to pay large copyright infringement fines, and holds Fox accountable to the public.
You say it will never work?
A couple who was terrorized by the old Aryan Nations did exactly that, and as a consequence the Aryan Nations(tm) no longer exist.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
The Aryan Brotherhood is an example of organized crime not sanctioned by the DC electeds.
FOX and Wall Street are organized crime sanctioned by the DC electeds and are therefore untouchable.
By the way, the Aryan Brotherhood still exists, albeit more covert than when Butler led it.
I'm thinking you are a might confused.
The Aryan Nations is defunct militia group. The Aryan Brotherhood is a hard core prison gang.
Similar beliefs and goals, but totally different operational modes.
Community organization in America in the last half of the twentieth century, has been based on non-violent engagement with those who are interfering with the rights and opportunities of oppressed, marginalized, or disadvantaged groups. It has been a tremendous positive force. It is based on dignity and respect for all, even the adversary. Our country owes a great deal to Frances Fox Piven as one of the leaders of this movement.
Right-wing community hatred campaigns of the early 21st century, in contrast, are based on violence, disrespect for anyone who thinks differently, labeling, and an effort to dispossess those who have gained rights in our society. For that reason this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected. The crude and hostile responses to articles and website postings and articles which we see today are not free speech, they are pure and simple hate speech. Both veiled and open threats are commonplace, as documented by Dreier in this article.
I am worried that specific individuals and society in general are in danger of violence and mob action from the right. All we need to do is look back to history of Germany and Italy in the 20's and 30's to see how violence and hatred can be fomented by public figures. I believe we need concerted social action (perhaps boycotts of media and advertisers which permit or encourage this rhetoric, criminal investigations of conspiracies leading to violence, and prosecution of hate speech) in addition to ongoing efforts to help people in general understand the real, positive goals of progressives and community activists.
OLD BLUE: Wise words.
GALEN: Here's the problem:
1. You have a similar hate campaign directed at the congress-woman from Arizona, and the right wing screams "free speech." Having gotten away with this form of inciting violence, why should they stop? (I'm talking about the target on Palin's website.)
2. There are calls for violence against Julian Assange by persons in power. These creeps show NO respect for the rule of law, and yet they are, in theory, officers OF the law. Once again, the call to violence trumps that of anything remotely akin to justice.
Morris Dees (of the Southern Poverty Center) made a lot of progress suing hate groups on the basis of CIVIL (as opposed to criminal) crimes; but that was part of an era of greater tolerance and respect for law. It's doubtful he'd fare as well in the present, when the imbeciles screaming loudest into the microphones seem to be quite literally, calling the shots.
As Chris Hedges has chronicled, there IS a rise in numbers of American Fascists.
I remember when Phil Donahue had a program on pedophiles. They got to speak behind a screen to protect their identities, otherwise they would have been attacked by the audience.
What they related was that thanks to the Internet, they found their own community; and that community acted to validate, what to them, were NORMAL sexual attractions.
In the case of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et al... here the group acts to validate violent behaviors. They create a sense of NORMALCY in their numbers. What's so sad is the evident lack of scholarship, that these people are really stupid! If they knew history they'd understand that Beck is clueless. He conflates absolutely antithetical people and propositions. Since they don't KNOW the facts, they believe him!
And I feel Peter Dreier makes a mistake conflating Obama with political players who really are liberal OR progressive.
Could the hate groups be funded mostly for theater? To the degree both parties increasingly morph into one (which only respects the interests of the money class) seems to be the degree to which all this vitriol is being funded to INSURE that there still remains an appearance of vital differences, those worthy of such violent protest. Otherwise, why all the fuss? Appearances are deceiving... and perhaps in this case, manufactured TO deceive.
Smoke and mirrors have never been better funded...
It is all smoke and mirrors, including the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to make political contributions, in order to distract the public from doing something about the massive ballot fraud we have coast to coast.
None of the nonprofit groups, MoveOn, Public Citizen, NOW, People for the American Way nor any of the "progressive" groups are willing to take on the issue. I have written to them but have not received any responses.
As it is, we get the candidates in office that the companies providing the counting software are paid to report as the winner, while the elections officials are not permitted to even see their counting programs, and many of them know and look the other way. This is all being documented by blacboxvoting.org and verifiedvoting.org election after election since before 2000. 60 Minutes did a long segment on ballot fraud in 1996, but nobody seemed to care.
Even Common Dreams is not publishing articles about it, nor are the commenters on the articles mentioning that factor, despite the fact that we get only the candidates who will not rock the corporate boat, except for a few, mainly from minority districts, to make the elections look valid.
One can only assume that the American public is satisfied with the corporate control of our lives, because they are not complaining much and certainly not doing anything about it.
sue the thugs into bancruptsy.
A depressing but most excellent article regarding the demagogues in this country and in particular Glenn Beck though I question the author's premise that Obama's policy agenda is supposed to be liberal.
Perhaps one small way that Ms. Piven could demonstrate the cowardice of someone like Beck would be to challenge Beck to debate her, not on Beck's program, but in a public forum as that would reveal to America the kind of fraud that he truly is. But in all likelihood Beck would not do this because he realizes that his emotional outbursts are empty and vacuous and completely lacking in any kind of intellectual thinking.
You've made a good suggestion. But I agree that Beck's intellectual incompetence, which he tries unsuccessfully to hide behind his fact-free outbursts, would keep him from participating in such a debate, knowing he would be the laughingstock of the country, including the uninformed sheeple who blindly support him.
If the dystopian world portrayed in 'Idiocracy' ever comes to pass, Glenn Beck and his erstwhile employer, Rupert Murdoch, plus the other organs of the corporate right wing noise machine will have played a crucial part in said decline.
Amy Goodman had Piven on Democracy Now as a featured guest on Jan 14. Check it out here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/14/why_is_glenn_beck_obsessively_targeting
I label Beck as one of the "nine most dangerous people in the world," and "an enemy of the Constitution." -Bill
I've noticed when people assassinate the character of a person, it's really their ugliness coming out. So I reverse the slander to see if it applies to that person.
Any personal attack, usually reverses in this way.
" Any personal attack usually reverses in this way ". That statement also applies to the corporate MSM. You can be sure when they demonize and attack people like Saddam, Chavez and others it is also their ugliness coming out.
As reactionary whites become the fast approaching minority they become more dangerous to everyone else.
I agree. This is something we progressive whites don't like to discuss, because we are, without our consent, in the group that is expressing their racism and threatening and committing violent acts.
I used to think Barack Obama would get more cooperation from the right than would Hilary Clinton if she became president, but that was before I realized how virulent and ugly the racist reaction to him would be.
the Left needs Glen Beck, Murdock and Ailes to show how crazy the right is.
Want to talk about undemocratic conspiracies? Look at the propoganda machine at Fox.
Is anyone else struck at the whole bizarre looneyness of Beck and the right blogosphere's attacks on the aged, obscure, semi-retried Prof. Piven? They could have picked any of hundreds of similarly obscure-outside-the-left scholars like Chomsky (well, obscure in the US even if famous everywhere else), Leo Panitch, John Bellamy Foster and the rest of Monthly Review bunch, Michael Albert, Robin Hahnel and the whole Znet/Parecon bunch - all to the left of Piven - to attack.
It is like they just sort of stumbled on the relatively moderate Prof. Piven, and knowing absolutely nothing about the US socialist left, realized that they found someone far to the left of what they previously had been able to imagine (i.e. Obama), and opened a full attack on her.
Sadly, these attacks not only illustrate the extremism of the US right, but worse, the utter invisibility of US socialist-left scholarship. When Prof. Chomsky spoke here in front to 800 people this last fall, it got zero mention in the local media - even the free-weekly. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter was there, but only in the unlikely case Chomsky would have committed a faux-pas of some sort.
SABO: I think the choice of Piven dovetails exceptionally well with their attack on Acorn, poor immigrants in Arizona, and any other impoverished (as in relatively powerless) group. They are blaming the POOR for what's wrong with America. It's a deflection device that aims the hatred so many feel for vanishing jobs and financial security at those who are lower on the financial totem pole.
For all the access the right wing has to sociology and psychology professors, there must be a provocative meme somewhere that informs (or explains) how people who feel suppressed need to feel superior to someone else. This form of identification would explain why so many sheep are led to hate those who are not responsible for their pain. They get to feel superior! And since they ARE powerless, their egos bloat on this feast to their lopsided vanities.
The fact that the right wing smear machine got such good milage out of Acorn (a lot of their listeners TRULY believe Acorn was responsible for the Wall Street financial collapse, the implosion that's undermined numerous nations' economies) makes Piven another good bet; especially when the favored tools at play include lies, rumor, suspicion, and deflection tactics.
In my mind, the give-away of the nation's air waves to despicable people like Rupert Murdoch provides a historical case in point to how far a nation will fall if its media becomes corrupted. Disgust doesn't begin to describe what I feel about all of this. It makes nearly impossible the task of educating our neighbors. What's needed is more along the lines of the "deprogamming" used on the kids that got sucked into the Reverend Sun-Moon movement some decades ago (or similar "charismatic" organizations).
Good points! There IS method in their madness. Compared to other leftists, Piven focused her work specifically on welfare and poor-people's rights, like ACORN did. Your explanation would accord with the model of Beck and others as propaganda agents for corporate power - in accordance with Herman/Chomsky Propaganda Model mass-media theory.
That is what I find so enraging about the US right. The heart of their anger is the possible loss of even the slightest amount of their selfish bourgeois middle-class white privilege. It is basically a violent revolt of selfish, spoiled, infantile, armed-and-dangerous, fucking brats. And the corporate media supports it all the way.
There is a model for what this ultimately leads to - Colombia. There, right wing thugs drag out and kill left activists and union organizers on a daily basis, and the corporate Colombian media ignores the killings, while it throws its support behind the most reactionary political movements behind the "paramilitaros" doing the killing.
I am a bit of a broken record about this, but to see where the US is headed both socio-economically and in terms of political violence, one only need to look at any central American country (except Costa Rica or Belize), or Colombia.
SABO: Well, we find something to be on "the same page" about. As for the link to South America's corrupt dictators going after the Left, don't forget Naomi Klein painted this portrait in vivid detail in her excellent book, "The Shock Doctrine." Not only did it open my eyes, seeing the same scenarios continue to play out (thanks to the bail out of corrupt Wall Street-banksters) makes reality seem like a surreal ongoing version of Theater of The Absurd. You know a sort of "This Can't be Happening." (Isn't that Dave Lindorff's phrase?)
Memory: Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. My outrage meter is ringing loudly today, so I've been letting off steam on this site.
Colombia is not a dictatorship. No dictator is going after the left. Colombia is at least as democratic as the US is. It is populist right wing groups, backed by the business community, and a sympathetic media, that run the paramilitaries that kill the union organizers. Does this sound familiar?
That makes Columbia just as corporatist fascist as the US. As for the dictator in Columbia, it's just a CIA puppet. The US-backed thugs are there to go after union organizers and anything resembling left to them.
Excellent post, Siouxrose. Very insightful. It's important to stay abreast not only of the propaganda of the Machine, but of the underlying disinformation memes. You've hit on Beck's here.
Good post Sioux.
I too have found Piven to be an unlikely choice for demonizaton by the Right. She's not very well known. Piven is a reformer, a progressive, or what used to be known as a liberal. She's not a radical. She writes for the Nation - not Socialist Worker. But maybe that's the point. During the various Red Scares of the past, the forces of reaction did go after the radicals (always small in number and influence), but the main focus was to discredit left-leaning members of the liberal establishment. Also the Red Scares of past always occurred when the actual, objective conditions provided very fertile ground for the development of a powerful left movement - like today.
OTOH, quoted from the article: "Piven would like to see a revival of...mass protest and civil disobedience."
A mass movement, especially a mass movement of poor people is one thing that could really challenge the status quo. Recall, in the last year of MLK's life, before he was murdered, he turned against the Vietnam War AND helped to build the Poor People's Campaign. MLK saw "reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced". This is not the thinking of a reformist.
But Tom, that is exactly why she has been demonised.
Cowards always attack the weak.
But I think there is possibly something else going on too.
She is being demonised as a radical leftist, which she is not.
Thus, Beck is redefining what it means to be left and hence controls the dialogue.
I think you are exactly correct. The right and the well funded GOP propaganda machine have been controlling the dialogue for years. The problem with Beck, isn't Beck. It's the fact that every time he spouts his ignorant bilge, every other media outlet picks it up and entertains it as if what he's saying has even a shred of merit. That gives him an even broader platform for his nonsense.
RE: Thus, Beck is redefining what it means to be left and hence controls the dialogue.
Makes a lot of sense!
Beck is a chickenhawk pussy whose supporters run the gamut of dumb to insane and regularly prove it.
While its perfectly acceptable for Beck to highlight Pivens work and explain why he dislikes it, he can do all of that without even mentioning her name (i.e. the work stands on its own). In fact, by doing so he would better inform his readers and prevent the emotional response that could lead to violence.
Beck's personalization and demonization of the left is the real issue here. As others have suggested, its criminal. His purpose is not to inform, but to inflame. The 'straw man' in Beck's arguments is his caracature of her. Instead of addressing the points she makes, he would rather paint a target on her face and bid his listeners to fire away, as if that would do anybody any good.
One aspect noted by the Right is correct:
'Obama's purpose, Farah said, is to "increase misery and create crises."' This is proved by Obama's actions and those of his chosen administrators. Thus, Obama is certainly the current incarnation of Public Enemy #1 and must be delinked by the Left, which is very difficult considering the delusional backing he still gets from supposedly Liberal organizations. Perhaps we should just come out and announce that any organization backing Obama will be considred a reactionary, Rightwing project made to seem Liberal.
A number of advertisers have dropped Beck's Fox show over the past couple years. Either the Media Matters or NewsHounds website keeps a list of "Who is still advertising on Beck".
Its all about money on Fox. A boycott of Beck's sponsors might work wonders.
The man that was shot in AZ, went to a public meeting and took a picture and said, "You're dead." However, after having been shot and knowing that "words" targeted someone, even that was not enough, as he was taken away for mandatory mental health examination.
Meanwhile, some of those comments on that website looked like real threats to me. Then we have tea party people stalking obama with rifles. This country is getting very, very weird, and weirder by the minute. Have people forgotten Ms Giffords already?
Did anyone in an authorized authority like the police, or the FBI look into this? Why would a letter have to be sent to Rupert and his network to ask them to stop? Ratings to Rupert mean more than human beings? Once when I was working a p/t job, a security guard that I spoke to every day asked me if he could have my phone number because his daughter was my age, and he was having trouble communicating with her. I talked with him on the phone a few times, and then one day, a woman left a message on my answer machine saying she was the MRS. of the security guard and that she was going to kill me.
It is quite a freaky thing to hear that , so I called the police, they listened to the tape, and they came over right away.They talked to the Mrs and I never heard from her or her security guard husband again. The police took it seriously, so why aren't these awful written threats taken seriously?
It wouldn't be difficult to find these people because the government has access to everyone now anyway, it seems. Weird, the police helped me, but the AZ man is locked up, but these mean spirited people, to me, are shouting FIRE in a public space. Please take care Ms Piven, because we are truly a nation of many crazy people, and it appears that there are no consequences for so many of them.
She should absolutely sue Glenn Beck for incitement.
We can see here why gun owners need mental evaluations. I know all gun owners aren't nuts but these ones are and they need to be filtered out.
Brilliant article. Many enlightened comments.
I don't get cable and have never heard Beck. So I wonder whether in his attacks on Piven and Obama as "community organizers," has he ever brought up Chicago's Saul Alinsky? (He is long since dead, so no longer a potential real target...!)
Meanwhile, the list of threats in the article is most disturbing. These people seem to define their innate powerlessness by their ability to kill an old woman who has devoted her life to empowering the powerless, including those who now threaten her.
Does Murdock have a bodyguard?
-30-
All of the hate speech is spewed by the power of petro-combustion. When the society cuts the petro-plunder, the petro-drunks will quickly sober up and come to their senses. Don't count on it happening until the fossil supplies are finally exhausted.
"He labeled Piven one of the "nine most dangerous people in the world," and "an enemy of the Constitution."
Uh... libel? Slander, maybe??? Lawsuit… anybody???
I'm looking forward to seeing how Beck, Fox, Palin, etc., will argue that they are the victims if Piven is assassinated. "How dare you accuse me of being responsible for this horrible shooting?" Beck will cry. "How dare you perpetrate this attack against the first and second amendments when you say her death had something to do with my speech?' And the truly discouraging part is that the media and our main-stream politicians will echo Beck, Fox, Palin, etc., and commentators from Fox to CNN to MSNBC will join politicians from the Democratic Party to argue that there is no direct evidence that the assassin was a right-winger. Indeed, they will argue that the assassin is a Marxist whose inspiration to violence was Piven herself. Yes, it was Piven who is responsible for the violence directed at her, along with all of the other liberals and progressives. Only the left is responsible for violence and she got was was coming.
Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Palin & their ilk are mentally deranged, and anyone who listens to any of them is a certifiable idiot! Every time one of these sociopathic cowards slanders or libels anyone, those folks need to file suit against the perpetrator & any organization connected to them, and keep it up until all of them have been bankrupted and discraced. And very definitely their advertisers need to be boycotted as well. Those useless, greedy corporations will be very careful about who they sponsor after that, guaranteed!