Who are the nice liberals with big egos?

This is kind of a footnote diary. I suppose that, given my last commentary on the Presidential election, I need to explain my use of the term "nice liberals with big egos." This is the group that thinks they're really doing something substantive by getting all panicked about Donald Trump in front of Left audiences.

That last point, about the audiences being from the Left, is really important. They wouldn't be "nice liberals with big egos" if they were trying to heap scorn upon Donald Trump in front of swing audiences from the swing states, the people who will choose the actual victor in next month's Presidential election.

One thing I've noticed about the nice liberals with big egos is that they're oh-so-often citing Noam Chomsky as evidence for the righteousness of their cause. But I don't really think of Noam Chomsky as a nice liberal with a big ego, not because I don't think he's a liberal (he's kind of a weak anarchist who might as well be a liberal), but rather because I don't think he's terribly earnest about his position. No, it's the people who cite Chomsky all the time that merit our attention. And we know who Chomsky's audience is.

Take for instance this interview of Chomsky, from last Sunday, conducted by David Masciotra. We'll skip to the interviewer's last question:

Forgive me for closing with what is by now an obligatory and predictable question, but I think I am forever banished from journalism if I don't ask. How do you respond to the irresponsible leftist purity that discourages voting for Biden because of his limitations as a candidate, and the troubling aspects of his record?

Oh but it's so obvious and predictable for interviewers of Noam Chomsky to frame a question about the Presidential election in a way that is so concerned with "irresponsible leftist purity that discourages voting for Biden." It's clear that what is important for Masciotra is not that Biden wins, but rather that the Left be seen as not discouraging voting for Biden. Priorities y'know. Here's part of Chomsky's response:

All of this for the left shouldn't even be discussed. It takes a few minutes. Politics means constant activism. An election comes along every once in awhile, and you have to decide if it is worth participating. Sometimes not — there were cases when I didn't even bother voting. There were cases when I voted Republican, because the Republican congressional candidate in my district was slightly better. It should take roughly a few minutes to decide, then you go back to activism, which is real politics.

Chomsky, then, doesn't really think voting is all that important. What's important for Chomsky is Left activism. Sure, he doesn't address the little matter of whether or not the Left will just go back to bed once a (D) is in the White House, nor the related matter of whether or not in the future there will really be anyone to vote for, when there are basically two Republican Parties dominating America while a third party struggles to exist. But he's got a distinct philosophy, and he's not Masciotra.

Does this explanation make the idea of "nice liberals with big egos" any clearer?

Share
up
9 users have voted.

Comments

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

And now for something completely different:

up
4 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

This is blazingly obvious to anyone the least bit familiar with his statements on free speech, the Democratic Party, and this pseudointellectual fundamentalist 5th column that's been ruining everything that had not already been ruined these past 6 years. It's like Nazis citing Nietszche.

I am so grateful he's still alive, and the fact that means he can still say things like the above is but one reason - could you please provide a link/source for that response of his? Pass the ammunition, y'know.

up
4 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

Cassiodorus's picture

@The Liberal Moonbat with the nice liberals with big egos. It's not really a problem of fit; it's that the nice liberals with big egos take a side-point of Chomsky's approach and make it into the centerpiece of their philosophy, when the side-point turns up all sorts of problems that have yet to be resolved.

The nice liberals with big egos all rallied behind Barack Obama in 2008, and subsequently in 2010 and after that the Democratic Party gave, to the Republican Party, all branches of the Federal government, 12 governor's offices, and 900+ seats in state legislatures. But hey, when Obama was Prez they cued the David Bowie and sang along with "Heroes."

We saw how badly that approach worked in the Hillary Clinton campaign and its aftermath in the whole "blame Russia for everything" approach. But it's no problem now -- now, the nice liberals with big egos are telling us, the Left will just heroically get Biden elected and then start fighting against Biden. You see, everything's changed. The Squad will be a little bit bigger this time around, or Biden's "changed" or something like that.

You can like them while focusing your skepticism on what they say.

up
7 users have voted.

"Every election is fake." -- Janna Ordonia, from "Star vs. the Forces of Evil"

RantingRooster's picture

that gets me every time, "irresponsible leftist purity". So... instead of purity, I should want corrupt?

I have to acknowledge, if it wasn't for Chomsky's knowledge of linguistics, I would lost in the wilderness.

That said, I can understand his "advice", even though it makes my head split into by the cognitive dissonance it creates. The objective being, handing Trump a massive humiliation at the polls. But here's the rub, Trump's team, gets to pick the presidential electors.

It is not irresponsible leftist purity that has fucked this country up, so yes, I think we need some irresponsible leftist purity! I'm tired of the corruption. It's about time we got some "purity" back in "gubberment"!

Drinks

up
8 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world.

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@RantingRooster "Purity?" Pure WHAT???

"Vote Blue No Matter Who" - now THAT'S "purity".

It can mean something, but like most things, it needs CONTEXT (dearth of context being far and away one of the greatest unsung scourges of our time). In chemistry, for example, it makes sense (nevertheless, chemists would probably equivocate your ear off if you mentioned it). In politics, it's nearly a pure absurdity, fit only for mud-slinging and virtue-signalling.

up
3 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.