EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Liberal Sellouts Attack Prophets Like Cornel West
The liberal class, which attempted last week to discredit the words my friend Cornel West spoke about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, prefers comfort and privilege to justice, truth and confrontation. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members. It refuses to challenge, in a meaningful way, the decaying structures of democracy or the ascendancy of the corporate state. It glosses over the relentless assault on working men and women and the imperial wars that are bankrupting the nation. It proclaims its adherence to traditional liberal values while defending and promoting systems of power that mock these values. The pillars of the liberal establishment—the press, the church, culture, the university, labor and the Democratic Party—all honor an unwritten quid pro quo with corporations and the power elite, as well as our masters of war, on whom they depend for money, access and positions of influence. Those who expose this moral cowardice and collaboration with corporate power are always ruthlessly thrust aside.
(Mr. Fish/TruthDig)
The capitulation of the liberal class to corporate capitalism, as Irving Howe once noted, has “bleached out all political tendencies.” The liberal class has become, Howe wrote, “a loose shelter, a poncho rather than a program; to call oneself a liberal one doesn’t really have to believe in anything.” The decision to subordinate ethics to political expediency has led liberals to steadily surrender their moral autonomy, voice and beliefs to the dictates of the corporate state. As Dwight Macdonald wrote in “The Root Is Man,” those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and practical.
By extolling the power of the state as an agent of change, as well as measuring human progress through the advances of science, technology and consumption, liberals abetted the cult of the self and the ascendancy of the corporate state. The liberal class placed its faith in the inevitability of human progress and abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism. The state, now the repository of the hopes and dreams of the liberal class, should always have been seen as the enemy. The destruction of the old radical and militant movements—the communists, socialists and anarchists—has left liberals without a source of new ideas. The link between an effective liberal class and a more radical left was always essential to the health of the former. The liberal class, by allowing radical movements to be dismembered through Red baiting and by banishing those within its ranks who had moral autonomy, gradually deformed basic liberal tenets to support unfettered capitalism, the national security state, globalization and permanent war. Liberalism, cut off from the radical roots of creative and bold thought, merged completely with the corporate power elite. The liberal class at once was betrayed and betrayed itself. And it now functions like a commercial brand, giving a different flavor, face or spin to the ruthless mechanisms of corporate power. This, indeed, is the primary function of Barack Obama.
The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor.
The liberal class is incapable of reforming itself. It does not hold within its ranks the rebels and iconoclasts who have the moral or physical courage to defy the corporate state and power elite. And when someone such as Cornel West speaks out, packs of careerist liberals—or perhaps one should call them neoliberals—descend on the apostate like hellhounds, never addressing the truths that are expressed but instead engaging in vicious character assassination. The same thing happened to Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Jeremiah Wright and others who defied the political orthodoxy of corporate capitalism. The corporate forces, which have taken control of the press and which break unions, run the universities, fund the arts and own the Democratic Party, demand the banishment of all who question the good intentions of the powerful. Liberals who comply are tolerated within the system. They are permitted to busy themselves with the boutique activism of political correctness, inclusiveness or multiculturalism. If they attempt to fight for the primacy of justice, they become pariahs.
Leo Tolstoy wrote that there were three characteristics of all forms of prophecy: “First, it is entirely opposed to the general ideas of the people in the midst of whom it is uttered; second, all who hear it feel its truth; and thirdly, above all, it urges men to realize what it foretells.”
Prophets put forward during their day ideas that the mass of people, including the elite, denounce as impractical and yet at the same time sense to be true. This is what invokes the rage against the prophet. He or she states the obvious in a society where the obvious is seditious. Prophecy is feared because of the consequences of the truth. To accept that Obama is, as West said, a mascot for Wall Street means having to challenge some frightening monoliths of power and give up the comfortable illusion that the Democratic Party or liberal institutions can be instruments for genuine reform. It means having to step outside the mainstream. It means a new radicalism. It means recognizing that there is no hope for a correction or a reversal within the formal systems of power. It means defying traditional systems of power. And liberals, who have become courtiers to the corporate state, must attempt to silence all those who condemn the ruthlessness and mendacity of these systems of destruction. Their denunciation of all who rebel is a matter of self-preservation. For once the callous heart of the corporate state is exposed, so is the callous heart of the liberal class.
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...


195 Comments so far
Show AllAnother compelling piece... so who is Hedges talking to? Thom Hartmann, KVH and the puppets at the Nation, Tom Hayden, Bernie Sanders, M. Moore, well, et al, or pretty much 90 % of the News Links picked up for this forum. The people who comment on these pieces offer more insight then the so called 'progressives' named. Outside of Hedges, Nader, Goodman, Greenwald, Korten, I will take the views of Sioux Rose, OS, Socialist, and many others here... keep the fire alive, Chris...
This paragraph aptly summarizes the entire piece:
"The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor."
here is dr west's website http://www.cornelwest.com/about.html
dr west is one of the great amerikan souls who calls everyone "my brother"
he is about love, peace and justice which would explain why so many demonize him and why he never gets on the fawning corporate media
same goes for chomsky
check the website out and learn something
as for obumnmer - dr west had high hopes for him - that's sounds familiar - in the beginning but the evidence of his presidency has made him re-assess, and for good reason - obummer is not the man we voted for
i was listening to dr west tell the story a couple of weeks ago where obummer was giving a speech somewhere and dr west was in the front row. after the speech obummer went up to him and tore into him asking "who do you think you are to criticize me". obummer went on and on and finally the folks around dr west told obummer to piss off and stop talking so disrespectfully
it was quite a spectacle from the lizard obummer
dr west - my brother - love and respect to you
Yes of course the obomber Only attacks the people on the left - if obomber was truly a lefty and not a corportist thru and thru he'd go after the blue dogs etc - but he saves his vitirol for the left. He has no problems threatening and insulting progressives. The radio show Flashpoints did a program on obomber working for a CIA front company that specializes in deep cover operatives prior to obombers Community Activist stage. I believe that much more than dems who tell me he's really a liberal if those pesky rethugs weren't so mean blah blah. Mark me down as a proud member of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
Here's where we can get some really cool tinfoil:
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/colored-tin-foil.html
and
http://www.whimsie.com/aluminum%20foil.html
BTW Hedge's article is beautiful. We should all distribute it as widely as possible. This guy needs to get more public exposure, than just among the choir here on CD.
The West-Obama incident showed everything you need to know about Barack Obama and his ilk -- of which we have way too many now. Who does West thing he is? He is a guy who helped hire Barack Obama in a position known as the Presidency, the top position for a public SERVANT in the U.S. Obama works for West and all that that entails. I guess that incident isn't on video. If it were it should have gone viral by now to show the ultimate display of arrogance on the part of someone who owes his position more to people like Cornel West than even the corporations. The only thing that West is guilty of is not doing his homework and falling into the trap of the well-branded Obama.
A while back there was an article about a member of Congress who talked about threats during HCR by the Obama. There might have been more than one. I remember many of the comments at that time were not totally convinced that Obama and his crew were nothing more than vicious thugs with better speech. I have difficulty remember names, dates, etc., but I always remember the incidents, the words, the attitude. There have been many of these over the last two-and-a-half years and it paints an ugly picture of the Obama. He's vicious. I have known Obama's type in my life. Maybe that's why I voted with caution. I didn't expect much, but I didn't expect total annihilation either. But I see Obama is presently "campaigning" in Europe again (which I found rather odd in 2008, but whatever) and the crowds are treating him like a rock star. He doesn't get that response over here anymore, but I think he's still going to pull it off in 2012. He'll squeak by just like George in 2004.
Yes, he will 'squeak by just like George in 2004' ---and using the same method. Rigged elections and the two party system . Our task is then just to figure out which is the lesser evil. But we can expect evil and very hard times ahead.
"...and why he never gets on the fawning corporate media
...
check the website out and learn something" -- medmedude May 23 2011 - 11:09am
I did. Here's what I found:
Cornel West ... appears frequently on the Bill Maher Show, Colbert Report, CNN and C-Span as well as on his dear Brother, Tavis Smiley’s PBS TV Show.
I didn't know they had prophets on the corporate media ...
The problem w/ these lefty talkers is they don't allow anyone to be to the left of them. If you are to the left of the Professional left then you are considered delusional. They try to prove they are the be all end all of the left when they are actually more concerned w/ their ratings and keeping their corporate sponsors happy. I'm w prof West and Hedges on this one. The lefties in the democratic party make me sick. Torture, war, bankster bailouts, prosecuting whistle blowers and drill baby drill are all A ok if it's our side doing it is their hypocritical model.
The "lefty" Democrats you refer are not "left" or progressive. "Liberal" means a whole other thing. Hedges is correct--the liberals in the Democratic party are just technocrats concerned only with promoting their careers and the party. They're in it for money and power, not for the good of the people.
Good point. Hartmann often debates right-wingers on his show, and not very effectively either. I would love to see him shredded to pieces by a true leftist, but it will never happen because he claims he can't find any!
one real lefty hartmann talked with....
Thom Hartmann talks to Chris Hedges about how liberals are a useless lot. 07 Dec '09
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2010/02/transcript-thom-hartmann-talks-chris-hedges-about-how-liberals-are-useless-lot-07-dec-0
...peace...
The trouble in a "Nut Shell": Our Liberals are not really liberal, our conservatives are not really conservative, and our christians are not really Christian.
What I tell my kids - labels are completely misleading in this day and age. Look at actions.
Also look at where these guys get their money!
Re: ".......I will take the views of Sioux Rose.....and many others."
Ekobe, you nailed it for me and untold others on this site who seldom comment but love the input from the more gifted readers. Well done Chris, you never fail to tan hides and hang 'em on the wall.....
Would someone see that Keith Olbermann gets a copy of this.
And what do you think Olbermann would do with it?
The choir here on CD is a small audience so if Olbermann is not to your liking then you pick someone who can possibly give this more exposure.....go ahead......we'll wait.
Chris might thank you also, corvo!
Olbermann doesn't even have a program right now -- just a blog, like everyone else on the planet. Where HAVE you been?
As a long-time admirer of Cornel West, and one who is well aware of his great service to progressive causes, I still think he is wrong to make his attacks on Obama personal. He needs to stay focused on Obama's actions, and use rational arguments and evidence to explain why they are bad for the country (the world too, of course). Who can be persuaded by West's resort to name calling? Answer: No one. I will always consider myself a West supporter, but he is wrong on this issue - as is Hedges above, who uses the same sort of ad hominum attacks. I expect better of him too.
How typical. When is endless war, assassination, torture via proxy states, murder of non combatants via unmamed drone strikes in the hundreds of thousands, or corporate and environmental sell outs touching every segment of human life be enough for the apologetic/bourgeois wing of the Dem party?
Will you please read Oliver's post again? He was merely saying that Cornell West's indignance for being personally snobbed by Obama was the wrong way to attack Obama - attack Obama for his concrete policies.. But in you efforts to attack others in order to establish your "lefter than thou" crednetials, you are attcking even people who AGREE with you!
Keep it up with the circular firing squads.
Did you even read Hedges article? So what is the source of your existential angst about my commending Hedges insightful piece and later comment? Is it my reference to people like you as the bourgeois class which Hedges repudiates. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, a "leftist" I would characterize myself (like Hedges) as a post-post modernist. I think what really gets to you is my noting that your ilk are nothing more than lip service, Bourgeois Liberals, who abide by the same norms as any Republican which include the values of consumption; moreover, you then assert some false difference between them and you as noteworthy; in point of fact, your ilk would not know what to do without your corporate health policy/prescription drug benefit, SUV (or other gas guzzler), and pretty little house on Sunny Side Street, along with your corporate investments while paying homage to some liberal agenda that does not exist: the point of Hedges piece, genuis...
You don't have anything in common with the way I live my life, and never have, but feel free to spout your galactic stupidity anytime. :)
Sorry, you were responding to Olivers post, and appeared to be engaged in a spiteful personal attack regarding what he wrote.
For the record, I don't own an SUV, I rely on the bus and an electric motor scooter to get around. My house is a postwar 1050 ft^2 house in an older city neighborhood assessed at about $82,000. I am a leftist with anarcho-syndicalist sympathies.
What the hell is a post-post modernist?
Read a book.
And like I said, you don't have anything in common with the way I live my life except for the part about using public transportation.
Your arrogance and hostility do very little to further your views. I doubt you know enough about other posters here to assert that they have nothing in common with the way you live your life.
The 'views' held by various personalities expressed on these pages (via their posts) are - in fact - revelatory of their philosophy on life. Obviously that went entirely over the top of your head; so either read the rebuttals (and try thinking about what they express) or remain silent. I don’t have time to hold your hand for you.
who cares ?
...peace...
Oliver and pjd412:
Did you read West's piece? His attack was on two levels, the personal *and* the political. It was not an ad hominum attack; he was relating a real situation, not spewing invectives. West knew Obama intimately, and was personally betrayed, so he has every right to expose that side of Obama's personality--it's a true lesson for everyone.
Agreed. Here is a man, Dr. West, who knows Obama well, and can speak of his character with authority. That is not an ad hominum attack by any means. The character of Obama of which West speaks is entirely in sync with his actions as president, and anyone who still thinks that he's a nice guy underneath it all, probably set to create greater transparency and help out main street in his second term, blah blah blah, is an absolute idiot, or perhaps in a trance state. This, however, is exactly what many liberals I know believe.
There's often a lot of quibbling on CD about exactly why Obama makes the neocon/fascist/corporatist/liberal decisions he does--pick your adjective; it's largely a matter of semantics. Is he spineless, is he a sociopath, is he a Trojan horse? For those interested in this quandary, Dr. West's insights are quite valuable.
Wait . . . West knows Obama well? How and when did that happen?
CHICAGO
>>There's often a lot of quibbling on CD about exactly why Obama makes the >>neocon/fascist/corporatist/liberal decisions he does--
There is one scenario with a nonzero probability:
BHO came into office in a deeper hole than a newly-baptized two year old. His funders sat him down and said "Here is what you may and may not do. BTW Tim Geithner wants his keys to his office."
Let's take this an even further step, Donna.
Too often the intimate is taken out of our discussion altogether because we are afraid of the consequences of laying bare the real issues. We talk about wars and death, starvation, diseases, poverty, etc. in huge, personally unidentifiable numbers. We, and I mean we as a collective not as individuals, have become so programmed to this desensitization that to step beyond and look at the real consequences, the being, is horrific.
Many people are content to know Obama through his rhetoric, press quotes, photo ops. The surface is warm and comfortable and is a place those numbers mentioned before can easily be dismissed because they are only numbers. They are happy with Obama the advertisement. To dig beneath the thin crust of projected humanity and see the cold, hard, corrupted heart is too much for the desensitized to handle.
But they'll have to at some point.
Excellent, momerath, excellent!
Yes, most excellent. I could not say it better myself.
If Cornel West knew Obama "intimately" how could he not know what a phony he is?
It was painfully obvious during his campaign, when he threw Rev. Wright under the bus.
Obama chooses to act as he does. Why should we try to pretend that his actions somehow occur apart from his desires, and that he is therefore immune from personal criticism? They're *his* choices, freely made, and express a set of character traits that do him no credit at all.
Failing to assign personal responsibility for evil acts is very serviceable to the psychopathocracy, but destructive to us.
We are treated to "personal" views of the President in the media with his family, with his dog, at sport, at leisure...in the manner HE wants us to view him. Dr. West's personal experience was, for me, simply shining light into a dark corner into which we are not normally given chance to peek.
It seems to me that Dr. West has provided rational arguments that show how Obama's policies harm us.
But I think how Obama treated Dr. West is relevant for us to understand what is going on with Obama. Too many still want to see Obama as a good guy with a good heart who wants to do good things but is weak or is unable to over come the system. Dr. West's story helps us see this is a fallacy.
Conversely, if you make it (too) personal, your rational arguments also get ignored.
See, "Bush Derangment Syndrome" that affected many leftists and liberals. Lots of personal attacks, the rational arguments ended getting either ignored or drowned out.
I think maybe there is another way for you to consider this situation, and I'll give it a small shot here.
I think sometimes we do not understand the difference between attacking the person as a matter of political tactics and *exposing* the person as a way of revealing a core truth about one's true beliefs and character. For example, pointing out the Newt Gingrich is divorce-prone is not an ad hominem attack; it's a truth with illuminating properties in understanding the man's nature as a political animal. This is what I think West has done and he was very right to do so. he told the truth as he saw it, and that truth revealed to him something about the nature of this president and his politics that is necessary for people to understand.
I found West's piece compelling, because I think it illustrated the deeper mercenary personality that is at the heart of all political opportunists in a way no other story can do--that is, if you accept West's truthfulness here. I do.
Our politics cannot be severed from ourselves. Especially in this age, where lying, deception and image management are the most common currency. What West did was brave--think of him as a whistleblower--because revealing personal details about the powerful is generally off limits between feloow elites. It's a violation of "club" rules. He did it, anyway. That's ballsy.
drone
You zeroed in on the target and hit a bullsye, I concur (100%).
West only did what you and I are doing, expressed his feelings about someone in his opinion has displayed deceptive actions. All complaints are personal and I rather have him explain why he feels the way he expressed his feelings than to hide behind BS protocol. I rather have it real at all times. Finess is the code word for BS. If the events he described are real, doesn't matter about his state of emotions when delivering facts of the event.
Why not show us point by point, where West was wrong in his accusations, we do not need your fear of reality to console us.
Yes, and Obama is the master of finesse, isn't he?
Can one be compassionate to another human being while being sharply critical of hypocrisy, insensitivity and moral compromise. I believe so. If I truly care about causes, and if another perceives me as compromised...not true to my ideals, then I would welcome the criticism. If we are not open, then we are not truly alive...and in the end can do little good.
I was very interested to learn about Cornel West's incident with Obama, because it gives me a perspective on and insight into what's going on in Obama's mind and indirectly what is going on with the people around him.. This was not an ad hominum attack, it relayed information that is very pertinent to understanding how this guy functions.
I absolutely agree, AJ.
I was excited, at first, to see the Professor come out against the Betrayer, but then when I actually read Dr. West's "critique", as it were, I was wholeheartedly disappointed.
He didn't touch on any of the real issues of empire, hypocrisy, tyranny or injustice -- he focused his tirade on how Obama has "betrayed his race" (nevermind the fact that Obama is half-white) and that Obama doesn't take his phone calls.
I expected a hell of a lot more from Cornel West, and Chris Hedges for that matter.
The corruption of the liberal class runs deep.
Oh please.
The article by West isn't great, but he clearly references banks, he clearly references Obama's economic policies, he clearly references the working class.
That noticed only the race part, says more about you than West.
I am not sure that I would place Dennis Kucinich among those other names that Hedges has listed as it should be pointed out that when Kucinich ran for president in 2004 and 2008 as an anti-war candidate he ended up supporting the Democratic nominees in both of those elections who wanted to expand and initiate aggression in the Middle East. One would have thought that that is something that Kucinich would never have done given the fact that both Kerry and Obama's militant positions were supposed to be anathema to the values that Kucinich allegedly holds quite dear.
Dennis K. talks a good game but it appears that when push comes to shove he collapses like a house of cards.
Nicely stated.