What's the matter with the left?
About 30 years ago when I was first getting involved in politics I came across an old 60's activist who offered me some advice. This advice I didn't want to hear.
He told me that some people on the left simply don't want power. That they are much more comfortable outside the system, raging against injustice, but in no position to actually accomplish anything.
I was young and idealistic, so I rejected his observation.
I didn't want to hear it when he pointed out how the left is infamous for its circular firing squads and holding grudges against other factions on the left.
Mensheviks against Bolsheviks, Stalinists against Trotskyist, socialist against communists. The list is endless.
The rhetoric of the past couple weeks reminds me that the left has not addressed any of these problems.
I personally agree with #forcethevote. I think the timing was perfect to do this.
However, it is simply beyond my ability to ignore the fact that many on the left are engaging in a circular firing squad. The hatred for AOC far exceeds any hatred for the right-wing, or even for wishy-washy moderates. Even the DSA are considered traitors.
The #forcethevote movement exposed the squad as cowards.
However, cowardice is a different classification than enemy. Except of course online where some on the left feel that Bernie is a traitor of the worst type because he shied away from allowing himself to be hated.
Bernie, a man has been consistent in fighting for a certain set of values for 50 years, is now considered a traitor by many of the left.
Many of the same people ridicule anyone trying to reform the Democratic party, and proudly claim their support for a new People's party. I agree we need a new third-party. This country badly needs it.
But the new third-party doesn't actually exist right now. And it may never exist. So if you want change you have to deal with the corrupt Democratic Party. At least for now. Anyone that is ridiculing anyone trying to reform the Dems is just following in the proud footsteps of leftists that don't want power, and that would prefer to impotently rage against this establishment. Secure in their moral superiority.
And speaking of moral superiority, that's the primary focus of way too many people on the left. And by the left I mean the bourgeois left.
Left engages in symbolic acts. It focuses on symbolic icons like statues. It concerns itself with symbolic words. It's victories are entirely symbolic such as the number of people attending a protest.
Policies are secondary.
To put this in perspective, the old left, the one that was concerned with class, fought by shutting down industries and denying their enemies profits. Unsurprisingly, the old left got shit done.
The current dominant bourgeois left doesn't get shit done.
Which brings us to the pathetic condition of the left today.
No wonder so many people are checking out of the Democratic Party and politics in general. It seems hopeless and maybe it is.
The left fights over bullshit symbolism that only matter to a class that is already comfortable.
So I get it. I don't judge anybody that's checked out. The game is rigged. The political establishment, the media, even some of your neighbors and coworkers, they are all working against making world a better place.
But when has this not been true? When has not fighting the good fight ever lead to anything but tears?
Some people may take offense with this essay. To them I say suck it up.
I'm man enough to admit being wrong when I didn't listen to that old 60s activist.
There's a few things you can learn from some political history.
The first thing is: the left needs to learn between those who are enemies, and those who just don't have the spine to lead.
The second thing is: the left without class war is a boutique club.
For instance many of the left feel that there purpose is to fight for minorities. Wrong. You should fight for the majority, because the working class is the majority. And the working class is what is being oppressed.
Comments
Thank you
This is something I needed to know; before now, nobody's ever told me. I wish somebody had years ago. It probably would have helped a great deal.
It's certainly anathema to MY mindset - anyone who really does just want to piss and moan is a complete loser and a parasite. Charles Manson left a richer legacy for the world than these walking prion diseases.
A big part of the problem is the idiotic, 1-D taxonomy of "wingedness". Why are some people lumped with other people the way they are? It's obsolete, sloppy, erroneously divisive baloney. I could say a lot more, but typing is tedious, and I'm just so sick of it all. My life has come to feel like A Christmas Carol in reverse - a cautionary tale against altruism and putting citizenship before self-advancement.
I will not disregard your (or rather, 60s-guy's) advice.
This might interest you in particular, gjohnsit - it kind of rambles, maybe, but the final paragraphs in particular are ones that we should all be living by: http://www.the1585.com/othernword.htm
"Nothing great will ever be achieved without great men, and men are great only if they are determined to be so."
- Charles de Gaulle
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
I can honestly say that I don't want power.
I also don't want the bastards in charge to be allowed any power either. There have been few of them who haven't made a life of consistently screwing the pooch at every turn. I can't imagine how those who seek power could have done a worse job for the rest of us if they were trying. (They were trying. Just not about anybody but themselves.) Maybe it's about time that those who don't want power, but have the character and sense of duty to take the reins and do their damnedest, lead us. They sure as hell couldn't do any worse than what we have now. At least we'd have the satisfaction that we had people who were doing what they thought was right for everyone and not just what they can get for themselves.
That's the sense I had about Bernie. I still do but he had the flaw, fatal, of sticking to his word and being ethical in his actions. He didn't really want power but in the end couldn't accept it either. I don't think anybody who has these traits can win against people with no restriction on their ambition because the honorable won't accept victory if they have to deviate from their nature. They don't have the necessary killer instinct which would make them not who they are.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Bernie would have been better playing John The Baptist
instead of Jesus of Nazerth. i.e. searching for someone with the guts to persevere to the end.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Say what we will about Bernie.
He did exactly what he said he would do. Twice. That's not playing a role but being true to himself. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the result. He was the only viable alternative to the same bunch of liars and crooks who, true to their nature, fucked over Bernie like we all knew they would. Bernie would not be who he is if he did what many of us suggest and abandoned who he is. How do we trust a man who abandons his lifelong ethics for an immediate gain?
I'll also say that our expectations are not on him but on us. Don't want disappointment that leads to resentment? Don't embrace expectations.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
So, right here --
-- you've undercut your argument, by assuming as tacit, as given, that the Left is screwed up and that it's always going to be screwed up because there will always be a Two-Party System. We should invent a time machine and send you back to the year 1854, so you can tell the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, that it's useless and that they should "suck it up" and go back to being Whigs.
The Left, obviously, is screwed up because in the absence of a system in which parties represent people, it has to play ball with one of the parties which doesn't represent them and which isn't going to give an inch to them. Yeah, so let's assume this situation is never going to change, and we can endlessly try to "start conversation" by asking rhetorical questions like "what's the matter with the Left?" You know the answer already. The nice liberals with big egos deserve our ridicule -- but GENTLE ridicule, not the Jimmy Dore type -- because they think they can bring utopia to the world without really changing the two-party system. The nice liberals with big egos deserve our forbearance from anything worse, because at least they think they can bring utopia to the world, and that's not a bad thing in itself. (Unless, of course, the utopia is something like Hitler's "Thousand-Year Empire" or something pernicious like that...)
#ForceTheVote was never going to happen. It's a nice try, though -- I don't oppose it. Anything that pisses people off at Congress is a good move right now. All last year I was like "uh, Congress, people" and all last year the nice liberals with big egos were like "Omigod Donald Trump is a FASCIST DICTATOR and we need to get him out of office by electing someone who will be really bad in a different way and who is being promoted by Bernie Sanders under false pretenses." Do we not deserve our comeuppance for our waste of time?
Maybe we should wait until things get far, far worse to have this conversation again. Let's see -- the Greens went public back in 1992, the People's Party is going public now -- so we should see the next attempt at a genuine Left party some time in 2048. Will you still be alive? I'll be 86 years old.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
Couldn't agree more.
To me, as long as there's an assumption that the Democrats can be moved, as if they just lost their way and need to be shown the light, nothing will change. We are long past due for a viable third party. I naively thought the DNC's screwjob on Bernie in 2016 would wake people up, but then Bernie himself gaslight everyone on what evidence showed happened.
Someone shared this link here once and I've always liked it. It really explains things well:
http://www.stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I'm glad you're careful with your definitions
"Left" is such a slippery concept. There are non-right people who seriously consider HER to be "left". And yes, the "left" is its own worst enemy, historically and currently.
Part of it is the low-hanging fruit thing. It's easier to attack relatively powerless people who won't or can't fight back. This has the added advantage of establishing the attacker's own "left" cred.
Another part is the intention vs effect thing. Using your example of Bernie, who has been consistent in his messaging and intentions for 50 years: his effect is to support the Donorcrats, since to him the alternative is worse. This gives him the "sheep-dog" label. To be honest, I waver about how I think of him, but I won't spend energy complaining about him.
Then there's the honest-enemy-vs-backstabbing-friend thing. In 2000 I voted for Bush over Gore (in a safely blue state; it was symbolic), on the idea that Gore was not trustworthy. An ex-president of the Sierra Club had said not to trust him on environmental issues, as I recall. Now I have to wonder: what if he had been in power and actually listened to the warnings about hijackers? No Patriot Act, no endless war? There is ideological faithfulness, and there are on the other hand real-world effects. Very hard question, but worth discussing in good faith.
I recall the tension between anarchists and little-red-book fans 50 years ago, and the need to prove radical cred. Since the 60s, at least, the ruling class has used legitimate grievances of women, blacks, browns, gays, etc. to set the little people against each other, and leave the rulers alone. I seem to recall the FBI stimulating the complaints of black women radicals against the largely male Panther leadership, for instance.
I no longer feel confident enough to follow a political line other than "eat the rich", and resist whoever is in class-based power.
A slight quibble over words: 50 years ago, "Old Left" tended to mean Communist Party USA and the "burrow-from-within" notion; New Left was confrontational. But I get your intention.
I see the Donorcrats now being busy checking off the comfortable identity boxes -- everything except class. I feel enormous contempt for the party. But on the other hand, I will not criticize someone like Stacy Abrams for organizing for the party. I can't bring myself to whitesplain power politics to people who have been desperate for any power, any way, for generations, and who can't clean up and wear a suit to blend in. There are folks like Black Agenda Report who are much better suited to that argument.
I have the theory that the Donorcrats themselves don't actually want power (and the attendant responsibility). They prefer to pretend to be outsiders, with a monster in power that they can fundraise over, and blame for their failings. Tea Party was convenient. Rump was convenient. I think this is why they did such a lame and belated job of impeachment.
Anyway.. back to your theme of "left". I say words can be confusing, but this linear left-right metaphor, while convenient, is not adequate for describing the political spectrum. Any discussion of politics must include class. Politics is rarely about principles or justice, it's all about power. In the end, it's the rich and powerful (and their running dogs) vs the rest of us. And they do a damn good job of divide and conquer; "we the people" do most of the work for them.
Very good post!
I only want to say that Left-Right was originally about class not ideology. Ideology follows class, except for brainwashed nitwits that swallow their master's lies. The Right were the Titled and the Left were the untitled.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Thanks. IIRC,
the House of Lords was seated on the right, the Commons on the left. So yes, class was a factor in that original left/right divide.
Be safe, be well.
Wrong country, and wrong governing body
"Left" and "Right" actually derive from the French Revolution, when the monarchists and conservatives in the National Assembly sat on the right side of the chamber, and the anti-establishment radicals sat on the left.
This division along "party" lines continued through various political upheavals...and caught on in other countries as well, usually as figures of speech.
The English Houses of Lords and Commons don't even meet in the same building, let alone room. (There is talk of moving the Lords out of London altogether, to somewhere up north like York or Birmingham; but the idea isn't popular. Yet.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I stand corrected
Thank you.
I stand corrected
Thank you.
ETA: Hmm, don't know why it doubled.
Articulate complement to our views here: cloudy_skies547 @Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/user/cloudy_skies547/comments/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/kpvcys/no_2000_checks_mil...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/kq1m8z/guess_what_emma_th...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/koyqok/translation_im_vot...
Ouch.
Well done!
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Great comment, loti
I think the definition of "left" is destroyed by the association with "Democrat" when they are nowhere near the same, other than a couple of social issues.
It is class, which today does not resemble the definition of "class" I was taught in my Sociology class in 1971. Now, it is economic class. Rich, poor, and that in between that is 99% more likely to fall to poor than rise to rich before they die.
A third party is possible, but until we overturn the decision to allow corporations to fund elections, it is a pointless effort. Corporations are not people for any purpose except to bribe politicians.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Fact.
Corporations are not people. They are destined to become dust.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Best Comment Here
People agonizing over the "circular firing squad" trope are missing the point. The American "left" has proven to be wholly ineffective in trying to work through the Democratic Party and needs a serious re-focus and house cleaning. Left media have become access seeking sycophants and apologists, doing the establishment's bidding. Power concedes nothing without a demand. We need leaders like Frederick Douglass, Huey Long and Eugene V. Debs who weren't afraid to get loud and impolite in making their demands. We need people in the streets not pushing identity politics or wearing cute little hats, but making tangible demands for fair pay, health benefits and education for everyone. Bernie and AOC mouth the words but have been unwilling to fight when it would cost them, thereby accomplishing nothing policy-wise. Power is worthless if you won't exercise it. I see more spirit of the past greats in Jimmy Dore than anyone in the #FraudSquad.
A lot of Liberals are in it for the feel goods and personal righteousness and don't really want change. They're comfortable where they're at and won't risk upsetting the apple cart. IdPol crumbs are great, but start talking about class or economics and all hell breaks loose! Well, it's past time to make those Liberals uncomfortable. People are out of work, out of food and will soon be thrown out of their homes. We need a reset - one that gives a Fair Deal to workers for the toil and sacrifices they make. Most working class families are having to "sell their bodies" every bit as much as that working girl on the corner, through multiple low-end service jobs that exhaust them and barely cover their daily needs, leaving them one just bad month from homelessness.
Who's side are you on?
So...
... time for a new party?
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
Yep, but it can't be
a muddled, "everything under the sun" platform. If you want identity politics, stick with the Dems. If you want economic reform, we need a new party focused on that.
The purpose of the new party will have to be
our answer to when the Democrats tell us: "so what are you going to do about it, vote for Republicans?" We'll be able to say "we'll vote for the new party."
The new party has to avoid being neoliberal, or Trumpy. There isn't a lot of room to be picky beyond that.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
Can't just be poaching Dems
The main faction that Dems are not serving right now are left economic populists. Unless you think we could pull enough IdPol Liberals into this new party, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off allying with the right economic populists. I think that could have worked in 2016 before Bernie went full sheep dog.
yes of course not.
Biden's cabinet is designed to keep such people in the Democratic Party. Trump is identity politics too, remember! The new party will be comprised of people who want something for their tax dollars.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
How many decades are
you thinking before there's a third party appearing on the ballot of, say, at least 30 states?
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Gjohnsit has forsaken the People's Party.
He doesn't think the People's Party will amount to anything. It's a little early to tell, but everyone likes to trot out the "of what use is a baby?" argument.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
I wouldn't put it that way
But I would say "prove it first".
First you should actually create the party. Until then there is nothing to forsake.
Then you need to get on the ballots.
Finally, you need to prove that it's something different.
I don't know why I should put my faith in something until those three things have been accomplished.
It's more of a "what
is required to succeed in the real world" kind of question.
I think if there were a massive movement to get Independent investigators in each state, plus a dozen on the federal level to look at the duopoly in regard to RICO legislation, the ground for real third parties would be established. Everyone in the political spectrum knows these are criminal outfits and would agree on that before they'd agree on the tenants of any given third party.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Have you joined the People's Party stack?
Are you telling THEM this?
It's not as if the Movement for a People's Party were a closed organization, impervious to advice.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
It's more of a "what
is required to succeed in the real world" kind of question.
I think if there were a massive movement to get Independent investigators in each state, plus a dozen on the federal level to look at the duopoly in regard to RICO legislation, the ground for real third parties would be established. Everyone in the political spectrum knows these are criminal outfits and would agree on that before they'd agree on the tenants of any given third party.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Great comment!
In particular, this paraphrasing of Briahna Joy Gray who has been incredible in the fight.
#ForceTheVote revealed, much to the discomfort of those who believe that all we need to do is elect the right people, that once in power, those whom we put our faith in by electing them become absorbed by the system they claim to be up against. And those who openly opposed the system and try to work within it are marginalized, smeared, and vilified. The system is totally corrupt and with very few exceptions, our politicians are owned by the oligarchy, either directly or indirectly.
The Democratic party sold its last bit of soul a long time ago. The only real difference between the Democratic party and the Republicans is in identity politics. Both parties are owned by their corporate masters. So to believe that the Democratic party can be transformed simply by voting for more new Squad members is folly when the Squad had the numbers this time to actually leverage their power and refused to do so. Barbara Lee, Cori Bush, and AOC's non-Pelosi votes on the first round was strictly performative. All three intended to vote for Pelosi in the end and got nothing in return for their votes.
Politicians are the gate keepers for the status quo and the oligarchy. The only time they will give ground is when it is forced upon them from the public via a social movement. I am not seeing that happen yet even though we are in the midst of a deadly pandemic and Congress has basically told the American people that they do not give a shit about us. Things will not change until people become desperate enough to actually put their bodies on the line and demand change. Asking nicely will not effect any real and lasting change.
To quote Frederick Douglass:
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
There's still an important difference
The Squad doesn't take corporate money.
That is a fundamental, ground-shaking difference, that many on the left seem to be just glossing over. If you don't think that's important then I suggest you hire someone and tell them that you don't intend to pay them.
Yes, the Squad proved themselves to be cowards. But they haven't proven themselves to be corrupt.
The left is still short on leaders. Cori Bush was disappointing. (I'm still crossing my fingers for Nina)
I did not say that the Squad is corrupt
But the system that they are supporting by failing to take a stand is corrupt to its core. By not standing up to that system the one big chance they had to leverage their power, they in effect supported that corrupt system.
I agree that it is difficult to go against the system, but they ran on doing just that. Regardless of whatever reason they chose, they have let down the very people they were supposed to be fighting for when they had a great opportunity to use their power. They squandered it and that opportunity will never come again in the foreseeable future. They forgot who they are supposed to be working for, the people.
I have long posted here that I do not believe we get change via electoral politics. Social movements are the primary reasons for most of the major changes we have seen politically over the years. Politicians need to be afraid of their constituents before they will act. And obviously, the Squad and the so called Progressive Caucus are more afraid of the power brokers in Congress than they are of the people.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I pretty much agree with everything you just said
And yet there is still a difference between someone too afraid to stand up to the system, and someone OWNED by the system.
When the paradigm finally starts shifting, those differences will be important.
I know the internet doesn't do nuance well, and nuance is not popular online, but it still exists.
I'm reminded of the Army at the Winter Palace.
Every successful Revolution has a moment like that, when the proles that enforce the system (police, Army, civil servants) stop following orders and refuse to attack people like themselves.
The Rulers think they create the system, but they just issue orders for the System. The "boots on the ground" create the system. there is no system without them. yet, paradoxically, the more you fight them the more they resist. Only when they see that you and they are the same, will they refuse to fire.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
they may not take corporate bucks,
but this is from AOC's open secrets page:
Contributor Total Individuals PACs
University of California $92,181 $92,181 $0
Alphabet Inc $84,448 $84,448 $0
City of New York, NY $61,796 $61,796 $0
Amazon.com $53,469 $53,469 $0
Apple Inc $40,210 $40,210 $0
Amazon, whom she'd claimed to keep out of NYC single-handedly (bullshit),
Alphabet, Inc., the wiki:
is the only Left in this nation the SEP and sometimes the Greens? what are the criteria? does the movement for a peoples party qualify?
i'd think it would require i) antiImperialism, ii) anticapitalism, and iii) public banking and wealth redistribution.
Are you trying to say
That Google Inc. is something the same as individual Google employees - who I might add are in the news today for trying to unionize?
This I must call Bullshit on, with a capital B.
Also that isn't a PAC. This is AOC's PAC.
With so many people on both left, right, and especially the center, trying to mischaracterizing AOC, I'm gonna send her $27 tonight for the first time.
In my experience, when everyone in politics hates you, then you must be doing something right.
Routing corporate donations through individual employees
isn't unheard of. It's been done in the past to circumvent campaign finance laws. I am not saying that is what's going on with AOC, but it's hardly without prescient. Regardless, what's the point of not taking corporate donations if you're still voting for the corporate agenda, which the Squad has often? It's nice they can claim they aren't owned, but they don't act it.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Another +1
I've seen a lot of handwringing over "this is why the left can't have nice things" and circular firing squads and so on. Is it really that hard to understand why people might be more mad at AOC than the right wing? Who expects the right wing to be on our side? They don't claim to be.
But AOC ran on not voting for Pelosi, which she's done twice, on forcing a M4A vote, which it's apparent there is no plan to make happen, and in a lot of people's eyes, including mine, is more of a paper tiger, Tweeting and speechifying but still voting with the corporate agenda. Just a month ago, AOC was Tweeting about making politicians uncomfortable via pressure to achieve what we want. Of course, like all of her Tweets, that was aimed at making Republicans uncomfortable so it's been quite the shock for a lot of people to see it happen to her.
We have a real problem in politics of making literal heroes out of these people. I've seen comic books, action figures, etc. of people like AOC, RBG, Bernie, Obama, Kamala and so on. It's weird and, for a party so critical of Trump's cult of personality, very curious. I think it also puts these figures on a pedestal no one belongs on.
I understand pure sniping can be counterproductive. And, if we want to talk about Jimmy Dore, I agree he goes over the top often. But I also feel some left identifying politicians have been protected from any criticism and it's been detrimental. I also think, and it seems others would agree, that while I did not expect miracles and unicorns and whatnot, I feel there should be something more to show for the last two years of "The Squad". It's not that they can't check all the progressive wants off the list, it's that this whole #forcethevote furor has shown they don't even have a plan.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
A pragmatist would do something concrete to get
him, or her, a step closer to his or her goals.
The Squad couldn't even manage #ForcetheVote.
#ForcetheVote is a small ask. It is a politically daring, but entirely establishment thing to do. It didn't even aim at removing Pelosi--yet. Its aim was to make those politicians reveal their honest positions to their constituencies. It was an incremental step. It worked within the system--in fact, within D.C.'s own political rules. It used the political power the Squad had to put pressure where they could. It was, in effect, eminently pragmatic.
If the Squad are too cowardly to take such an eminently pragmatic step, then they are the ones who don't want power. Not their critics.
That's assuming that gjohnsit is right about them being cowards rather than enemies.
But that is an interesting distinction for a pragmatist to make, since neither cowards nor enemies advance a pragmatist one step nearer to his or her goals. Both cowards and enemies are functionally, pragmatically the same--until you shift the balance of power by inserting people who are neither cowards nor enemies into the equation in such numbers that the cowards feel safe enough to switch sides. Clearly, sending more progressives into the Democratic party has not, to date, added anything but more cowards to the equation. Well, cowards and Rashida Tlaib.
Gjohnsit's strategy is the strategy I embraced when Howard Dean and Jeff Blodgett introduced it in the 2002-2004 election cycle. It's a very nice strategy, but 17 years of it have produced nothing but an accelerating downward slide. The system can transform "progressives" into willing servants quite easily. As the Squad just demonstrated.
After 17 years, a pragmatist who wants left-wing policies might look to other strategies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Uh, nope
You seem to have had a blessed life with a lack of real enemies.
By saying that they are the same, you are kind of proving my point in this essay.
A pragmatist cares about advancing toward his goals.
Neither cowards nor enemies will provide material progress toward any goals. They both represent obstruction of movement towards the goal--different forms of obstruction, perhaps, but obstruction nonetheless.
There is no practical difference between them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I just noticed that you said this, which is very apt:
that while I did not expect miracles and unicorns and whatnot,
That is, basically, what "the left" is being accused of in this piece. Being so devoted to their internal images of miracles and unicorns that they disdain the dirty business of actually taking power and "getting things done." Which is the language of the establishment. It's what we were all accused of on Daily Kos. It's what Hillary Clinton accused us of, repeatedly (she's a "pragmatic progressive," dontcha know). And it's related to Obama's statement that, while we "tortured some folks," it's important not to get too sanctimonious about it, because those hardworking CIA guys were busy getting their hands dirty under pressures we can't imagine, trying to "get things done" for us.
We are silly little people with pretensions of superior morality, who don't understand the big bad world and what it takes to get things done. We don't accept reality.
I think we accept reality just fine, if by accepting reality one means comprehending it and finding a place within it to stand and take action to change it. That is precisely what #forcethevote would have done, had the Squad been willing to do it. Since they are, apparently, not enemies but cowards (which I don't know how gjohnsit even knows that, or how anyone could tell, since we aren't living in their heads) they didn't do it. But we're the bad guys, perpetually ineffectual and pretentious, because....
because why?
Because we say mean things about AOC and other self-proclaimed "progressives" who do nothing but make speeches while we die.
It's "pragmatic" NOT to criticize AOC because...
because why?
Because saying mean things about AOC and the Squad makes their jobs harder? Makes them less likely to become political powerhouses? How are they ever going to become political powerhouses when they're unwilling to do anything to offend the powerful? Doesn't that mean that they're waiting around for the powerful to *hand them* power? How is that "pragmatic?"
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I may not have been clear enough in this essay
But there is NO WAY that I was that unclear.
You should read this again, and try a little harder.
This is a non-answer that addresses none of what I said.
It, in fact, exemplifies a phenomenon I described in my latest Open Thread:
The second kind of objection to #ForcetheVote is basically condensed condescension. This tactic—you can’t really call it a talking point—is used frequently on the news and on political shows, when there is no rational objection to be made to a particular left-wing policy or change campaign. If you want to see how this works, have a look at the discussions of MMA (the monetary theory, not the sport). Or you could look at the corporate media responses to Anthony Weiner’s floor speech about healthcare for 9/11 first responders (yes, even an asshole like Weiner apparently has a moral limit somewhere, and leaving 9/11 first responders to be slowly poisoned from the inside out because they weren’t rich enough to buy the right kind of healthcare was it). Occupy got a lot of this kind of thing. Often this “objection” has no coherent, rational form, residing merely in the tone of voice and facial expressions of media and political figures. But if it were to be put into words, it would go something like this:
You little plebes don’t know how this works. You’re children compared to us. Go back to your choo-choo trains and your dollies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yeah that works for me.
Well Briahna Joy Gray, in particular, typically succeeds where others have failed.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger
Gjohns, Bernie did betray his supporters.
I was one of them who donated the maximum. When he started sheep herding us right back into the establishment D party, I lost all respect for his 50 or so years of great effort, because when he had that once in a lifetime chance to make all his effort start a revolution, he told all of us to do it ourselves. We Are The Revolution. Fuck that, gjohnsit. By voting for Clinton and Biden?
A People's Revolution will ruin or end lots of lives. It should have been done through an election, but that option was and is off the table.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
A septuagenarian isn't going to lead
a revolution. At best, he could only remind people of the project started by the New Deal Democrats and push to resurrect the project destroyed by the "New Democrats." He didn't betray anyone. Of course he made himself look like a horse's ass when he began spouting the Russia/Putin nonsense which was an excellent reason not to support him in the 2020 election. Too bad there was no viable alternative; it was Bernie or the blob and the majority of Democratic primary voters went with the blob.
Sure they did.
Twice.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
But they can run for president?
And campaign for Clinton and Biden? And tamp down the revolutionary spirit until after the election? And participate in the new Cold War with Russia?
He was a person who could have lent some stature to a movement, and be a mentor.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Sorry, who is the 'we' in this revolution?
I do not see a revolution, there is just wishful thinking and quite a bit of smearing of Sanders and some chaotic attempts of role playing, inmho. YMMV.
https://www.euronews.com/live
There is no revolution.
As long as I live, I will remember my campaign contributions to Sanders went into the Clinton campaign after he paid his debts. If that isn't betrayal, what is?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
?? News to me
It was news in 2016
and tons of Sanders contributors were emailing petitions to just get a refund or partial refund. Seems like I signed one of them.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The right also has its own
circular firing squad. However, I don't think that any individuals or groups on either side prefer powerlessness. They just don't have the means and skills to get power and overestimate the appeal of their ideas to the general public. Thus, they end up trapped in small outside ponds where they have the illusion of power, and practically they don't have much in common with the other fringe players on their side of the political spectrum.
What I'd like to see people ponder is Vietnam in 2020/21. Ninety-eight million people and in the aggregate mostly economically poor. Yet they kicked but in dealing with COVID-19 because socialism is about the whole community and lies, distortions, irresponsibility, etc. are contrary to the good of the whole.
Kyle sums things up pretty well.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVxhC3M6Lpk]
It covers the subject of this discussion. A bit lengthy but it is worth viewing all of it to get the full intent.
another take
Outsiders memories of what being
"links" (left) meant to us in Germany in the sixties to seventies. Certainly there was not such a thing as a bourgeois left. That expression seems to me to be an oxymoron.
Our quintessential Social Democrat, Herbert Wehner.
[video:https://youtu.be/FTsy4ac6JZU]
Well, Germans are known to be rude and impolite. Americans are known to be very polite. I can't decide what I prefer. I don't trust politeness to be honest. I guess that's in my genes.
In any case, if you look at your left hand from the top, the thumb always is directed downwards.
My deceased niece who lived in the US for most of her adult life and me, we discussed several times, what we prefer, politeness or 'in your face' talk. Over time we came to the agreement that politeness is preferably. It's up to yourself to recognize the lies within polite talk and realize that 'in your face' talk is not be default more honest.
Sometimes it is just fine to be silent, like right now for me.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Herbert Wehner, former Communist. Spent the WW2 years in Moscow…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Wehner
If supposedly intelligent, morally upstanding U.S. Democrats / liberals / progressives believe (or at least pretend to believe) that even a GOP Senate majority leader like Mitch McConnell is controlled by the Russians (the whole point of the “Moscow Mitch” meme), just imagine what the so-called Left in America would say about anyone with a Wehner-like background, let alone (= geschweige denn) people on the Right.
They couldn’t even handle a Pete Seeger or a Bernie Sanders (Chris Matthews was already talking about fearing firing squads in Central Park). Everyone would absolutely freak out.
lol, you nailed it, but may be everybody will freak out in the
next weeks, who knows. I guess I am being manipulated by those 'liberal media folks'...
https://www.euronews.com/live
Amen!
That's one thing I learned from living in the DR in the Peace Corps.
I realized when I came back how polite people were in the U.S. as compared to poor people in the DR were. For instance, in the DR if you were overweight, they would nickname you gordo. And if you waited in line they had no problem with cutting you off.
However, if you were homeless, they wouldn't let you sleep out in the street. If you were hungry they would share what little food they had.
Unlike in America.
It opened my eyes to the fact that polite and friendly are two very different things.
What nonsense.
That's what I used to think too
Okay.
But it got me to thinking about things that were important.
At some point, after FDR, treating human beings with the dignity was a critical principle. It followed, in the minds of sane people, that under no circumstances should a human being ever be forced to live in mind-damaging conditions of extreme deprivation. In our abundant, resource-rich world, allowing poverty to become normalized is a savage form of social neglect in the US, which has become a slaughterhouse for the public destruction of human wellbeing.
We have no Enlightened persons in positions of leadership who will stand up and denounce abject poverty as malicious social neglect. When the ravages of poverty is ignored by the State rather than vigorously remedied and eradicated, it sends a degrading message to the evolving minds of Citizens. The moral failure of US economic policies, which result in the normalization of poverty, is shameful and appalling. The people come to accept the institutional brutality and abuse, which is directed at the most vulnerable members of the community. As a result, the prison population rises and poverty impacts greater numbers. Children raised in poverty and want are often poorly educated and suffer life-long mental health issues.
What sort of citizens would allow this destructive cycle of political abuse to continue in their community, decade after decade? But, there it is.
As for the failed State, adopting social policies that subject poverty-stricken human beings to a living standard that is inadequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families is a direct violation of Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and ratified.
Where does such a horror of a nation get the nerve to tout itself as a qualified leader for the world?
You are
on fire, Pluto's Republic. Great comment.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
It's hard to argue with anything you've said
But let's put this one event (as opposed to the broad expanse of your comment) into context.
People here are saying, with no exaggeration, that AOC and the rest of the Squad, have betrayed everyone on the Left in a way worse than their most bitter and hated of enemies, by not forcing a vote on a bill that not a single person here denies was destined to fail.
Can we say hyperbole?
Or to put it another way, they would have preferred someone to Congress to make a reasonable attempt at taking away their Medicare, than not making a hopeless attempt at Medicare4All.
And yet people here are mad at me for pointing out that the rhetoric has gotten way out of hand.
LMAO
The #forcethevote movement exposed the squad as cowards.
However, cowardice is a different classification than enemy.
...if you want change you have to deal with the corrupt Democratic Party. At least for now. Anyone that is ridiculing anyone trying to reform the Dems is just following in the proud footsteps of leftists that don't want power, and that would prefer to impotently rage against this establishment. Secure in their moral superiority.
#Forcethevote exposed the Squad as unreliable. And, therefore, useless to anyone devoted to a pragmatic pursuit of power.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
To add
I really do not care if the Squad are feckless cowards or my enemies. What I care about is not talk, but results. Results are all that matters even when you first fail at getting those results. At least you were really trying.
But you can never get any results if you are unwilling to risk your current position to possibly move the needle towards those results. There is no excuse for what the Squad or the so called Progressive caucus did by not doing anything. This was Politics 101. They had power to move the needle towards Medicare for All with this one vote on Nancy Pelosi's speakership and every one of them was chickenshit. What Barbara Lee, AOC, and Cori Bush did on the first vote was simply performative to convince their supporters that they were standing for something. They were not. They had no intent of standing their ground and they are very bad at acting too.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
All true.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No difference, huh?
Let's apply this statement to this specific example then:
You don't see any difference between a Republican and/or Biden Democrat making a possibly successful attempt at taking away your Medicare, to The Squad's failure at forcing a vote on what we can all agree was a doomed vote on M4A.
These two things are equal in your mind.
In fact, some people here say they would prefer the actions of their enemies to the Squad.
I think that it's obvious that people have gotten waayyy too carried away with the rhetoric.
There are only corporate parties (currently)
The capture is complete. Let the empire fall! Politics are just kabuki to make you think you have a voice. To my mind politics are ineffective and an exercise in frustration. Beat your head against the corporate board.
A general strike is more appropriate in my mind than facing the militarized police. If we meet violence with violence we will lose. They are better at it than us. Just look at the long protest of yellow vests or DAPL for example. Withhold your labor and purchases and cost them money, IMO.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Gjohnsit, I hear ya...
First and fore most, I think it's exceptionally important to understand, a coward is much, much worse than an enemy. A coward will stab you in the back at the worst possible time, as the #FraudSquad has certainly just done.
They “stabbed the left” in the back. They betrayed whom they claim to represent. There is nothing complicated about this. And let's be clear, it is a betrayal.
Let's stop for a second, let's assume we engaged in firing squads in central park. Heck, we would kill fewer people than our current healthcare system does with just preventable medical errors, which has been estimated at over 400,000 annually. 40-60,000 die simply because they don't have healthcare.
By 2022 another 800,000 will have died from just preventable medical errors. What's the lessor of two evils? Firing squads or for-profit driven healthcare?
The problem with the left does not require a deep analysis. It's glaringly simple and screaming at anyone who is willing to look with eyes open.
They have no conviction of their principals. i.e. they are cowards, which is worse than the enemy.
I know my enemy and who they are and what they represent. But cowards, on my own side, can and do show up at the worst possible moment, and shove the knife in our backs, as the #FraudSquad just did.
This betrayal by the #FraudSquad is tantamount to cowardice under fire. And if you think about it, that's a firing squad offense in the military!
Metaphorically speaking, the #FraudSquad deserves the firing squad (lead by Jimmy Dore's verbal assault) for their cowardice under fire!
And let's be clear, this is a class war as you say, but, people are dying now as a direct result of it. Our planet is dying as a direct result of it. Humanity's very existence is threaten as direct result of it. Hell, all life on this planet is threatened by it!
And the #FraudSquad just proved, they aren't going to help when we need them most.
It's real simple, if you're not willing to put your life on the line for your fellow citizens, get the fuck off the front lines. The front lines is no place for selfie's and fluff pieces in Vanity Fair!
The Tea Party has proven my point about the power of conviction to one's principles. They might be bat shit crazy, but their conviction to their principles, as fucked up they maybe, allows them to take a "burn it all down" approach that has succeed for them.
But liberals with big egos want to run for office in high profile positions, not lowly, local precincts as the Tea Party did. The Tea party knows what works, local precincts control both the agenda and most importantly, who gets on the ballot. Very simple!
And this is THE problem with 3rd parties too. They have big ego's. They want high profile positions, not local precincts chairs or committees. But, if you control the local precincts, you control the agenda and the ballot. Hello!
We are in a class war, and the #FraudSquad just proved they are cowards under fire and won't help us when we need them most! Got it, lesson learned!
Ok, coffee break is over, back to the front!
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Am I the only one who has ever had an enemy?
I believe that some people have been more blessed in life than I have.
Enemies and cowards
It ain't just for breakfast anymore.
You recognize your enemies.
And brow beat down the cowards.
As a matter of survival.
Strength is in standing up.
Betrayal is doing nothing.
We have the picture drawn
in our midst. React.
question everything
Malice vs. Non-action
I find myself thinking of latter-day Weimar Republic. They also had an antifa, and a failed/corrupt liberal class that called themselves "social democrats".
Nevertheless, there was without question a difference between the liberals and the party that eclipsed the conservative party - the Nazis.
Also had a big centrist party called, what else, “Center Party”
Following the burning of the Reichstag, the centrists of the Center Party famously voted to give Hitler emergency powers to fight the
pandemic (cough)threat of terrorism, anarchy, and social disintegration.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Centre-Party-political-party-Germany
Seems like an important lesson one could draw would be, don’t trust self-styled centrists and moderates either. In a crisis, they’re not any less dangerous, and could well be even more dangerous, than the so-called extremes, because — to mix metaphors — you never know which way the central “power blob” is going to jump to tip and rig the scales; the freedoms and interests of ordinary people may end up mugged and stabbed in the back without them ever having seen it coming.
I'm sure those
that jumped from the bottom 20% income bracket to the top 8% income bracket and tax payer funded healthcare would certainly agree you.
And I'm sure they feel quite "blessed" too, because they know people will give them some slack, and make all kinds of excuses, knowing people will continue to vote them into office, while they continue to capitulate left and right at defining moments in time (historical), thus allowing themselves to be absorbed by the "system".
They no longer feel the heat of poverty or death, tugging at their heals every day. It's a very simple equation.
Think for a moment, Eugene Debs, Bernie's hero, had in spades what Bernie and the "squad" lack, the "power" of his conviction to his principles.
Believe it or not, that is actually "intoxicating". Look at Trump. He is absolute in his convictions, as fucked up as they are, but, it has an intoxicating effect on his followers. They are "drunk" with Trump Derangement Syndrome. (Their blood TDS levels I'm sure are over 100%)
Yet, Bernie is afraid of Chris Matthews comments about firing squads in central park or worried about being hated because he's not a "real democrat" or being labeled a "bleeding-heart-liberal-socialist-commie-bastard"?
Give me a fucking break!
I mean, my goodness, that was a PERFECT opportunity for Bernie to contrast the "Soviet Model" vs the Nodric model, in a funny way, by highlighting a very URGLY truth, America, is in effect, executing 40-60,000 people every year, simply denying them healthcare.
We're just letting them die on the street or where ever, no firing squad required. Hey, it saves money on bullets and man power right Mr. Matthews? Because that what's y'all make this issue about money, instead of people's lives, right Mr, Matthews?
Eugene Debs went to prison over his principles. He ran for president, from prison, and got more than 3% of the vote, while running on the Socialist Party ticket, from PRISON!. The Green party didn't even crack 1% in 2020.
There is some ugly truth in that don't ya think?
Eugene Debs was unapologetic in adhering to his principles. Same thing with Dr. King and all the great "agitators" of history. And that's exactly what they were, agitators, making people uncomfortable. This is very, very clear in the historical record, is it not?
Hell, if you think about it, Bernie didn't even run to be president.
Bernie ran to be the "democratic nominee" for president, and didn't even achieve that. Right? So, he didn't even actually run for the presidency. He failed to achieve the "party nomination", to run for president.
He let his "fear" deny him two historical and critical moments in time. Despite the fact we did as he asked.
We came together around the "issues". We filled stadium after stadium. We broke campaign funding records. We help get more "progressives" to congress. But he didn't say a thing, both times the nomination was rigged against him. Because he "feared" the sore loser perception.
Do you really think Eugene Debs would have remained silent?
But hey, don't feel bad, "My friend Joe "shot'em in the leg" Biden", well, we can push him left after he's sworn in right?
Doesn't mean I hate Bernie. But, doesn't mean I'm going to give him, or anyone else for that matter, that is supposed to represent us in the halls of government, anymore slack, simply because as Bernie himself says, enough is enough!
But, I will give credit where credit is due, that Bernie did achieve two critical components of the left's overarching push towards justice, that seems to progress at a snails pace, open the oberton window to more comprehensive discussion of Socialism, and two, gave us a model to run grassroots funded campaigns for public office.
The line has been crossed for me. Thus far, and no further. But that's what they signed up for, to face people like me, Jimmy Dore, or worse!
Being elected to congress, IS the front lines of this class war that is waged in the country, and has been since the very beginning.
As a veteran, turning tail and running under fire, well, let's just say I don't take to kindly to that kind of behavior. Maybe I'm just an idealist fucked by taking those words, honor, duty and sacrifice so seriously.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
And apparently you've never had anyone sell you out
when you most needed them. I'd take the "blessed" existence of having all my enemies (and yes, I've had my share) over dealing with cowardly backstabbing again, every single time, no exceptions.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Is that really what happened?
Or was it something less dramatic?
Who is an enemy? Someone who hates you, but
pretends to be your friend? Or someone who hates you and tells you straight in your face?
Or someone who could/should see your needs and pretends to help you, or someone who should/could see your needs and does nothing to help you. No help out of malice and hate or no help out of cowardice and fear to lose advantages he/she had, is it really important?
To be honest, I had them all, and it doesn't matter, they are all not friends. I am willing to forgive some, who I know would lose a lot for behaving in a manner of empathy for others.
For the rest of them, I decided to never forgive them, and it took me more than sixtyfive years to become that harsh. Once you feel not only betrayed, but abused, then it is over.
https://www.euronews.com/live
A quibble, maybe moe than one, but for starts:
Nobody is actually ridiculing anybody who is trying to reform the Dems because nobody is actually trying to reform the Dems. It's that simple, a few people people talk of reforming the Dems, but they don't actually do zip shit, and they are unwilling to actually try to do zip shit. The entirety of the Democratic party, claiming some putative "liberal" mantle marches to its own drummer, chanting "We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men...". A few weary and wary outsiders and a lone neophyte stare at them and talk of change, but:
There is no left wing circular firing squad because there is no left wing in US politics, not among the politicians and political classes at any rate. If you're looking for the left, you might still find a few old wobblies hanging on and a few idealistic young folks shouting "Huelga!", but that's it.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Great comment, el.
I guess we are propagandized on who is "left", on top of all the other propaganda.
I just had a thought, that I have seen marked graves all over the world to fighting and courageous lefties. Not so much the righties, other than royals.
I have said before that a general strike, simple as don't work and don't consume, for 1 week, just might get some attention. That was a year or so ago. That is what Mexicans did to get Obrador in office. Today, not working is pretty damn easy, maybe not consuming would get some attention.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yep, consumption strike. There is something of a natural
bifurcation. The Wobblies did a famous work strike ages ago in the NW, where they made sure to deliver milk andd necessities to the families. A consumption strike would have to follow that kind of pattern, at least after a while, certain necessities have to be provided, but skip the resst. Ag, gardens, sharing and barter have to play a huge role if it is to be long term.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Black Panthers didn’t demand that schools serve breakfast, or
that cops do a better job policing high-crime neighborhoods. They organized to provide the community with the missing services themselves.
That’s what real community organizers do, provide the services themselves.
Fake community organizers weasel their way into positions as “liaisons” or “consultants” or “diversity trainers” who “task-force” with other grifters, publish critical theory stuff, and accumulate credentials, angling for a career path in politics or journalism. All talk and no do.
This is a great comment.
To me, this is really the thing that #forcethevote has laid bare. For all the talk of reforming or taking over the Democrat party, there is no plan. It's not that the Squad rejected #forcethevote, it's that they provided no alternative, no indication they had an alternative and nothing more than deflection and ad hominem attacks in response.
The closest thing I've seen to strategy is to elect "more and better" Democrats. Sound familiar? It hasn't worked in the past and I don't understand how it works going forward. Regardless, the Dems have gone to court to state they have the right to choose candidates in a smoky backroom if they want. People like Bernie don't even want to discuss that, so I don't understand how things change without addressing this.
And again, I don't have the answer. I wish I did. But I naively assumed these people were at least working on something and it turns out they are not.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Interesting
I question, as all here do, where I get information from. For me, it’s from what I read here and from references in personal conversations. The filters we each find useful are sometimes the same and sometimes different; after all we’re individually unique and continually learning. I just read this article from the American Institute of Economic Research, a conservative site, which I am questioning because of where it comes from, even though I think the question it presents is a valid one. I often think the ‘intention’ or ‘purpose’ behind what one writes is fundamental to the readers understanding, yet I am sometimes willing to dismiss the ‘intention’ of its source due to the value I might find in considering the question presented. I wouldn’t mind hearing any interpretations of this article from others here.
Good morning Janis. Wasn't really rady to tackle anything
like that in the detail it merits, especially not this early in the day, but ...
Shit like that sounds "reasonable" because it is full of semantically loaded verebiage that allows one to say two or more things at a time with any sentence, so the buyer buys concept structure a, whilst the propagandists are selling and justifying b, and when it comes time, they will roll it out to the surprise and chagrin of those who bought a.
I'll try to parse it a bit.
Rather than treating the Covid-19 pandemic like any other policy concern such as building a road, where the tradeoffs and expenses are weighed with a steady hand, many people have opted to treat it like a religion. Everything should be based on cost benefit analysis using a "free market" capitalist model, and these people are being sucked into the void or ethics and morality, valuing human life, and even health and wellbeing more than the wealth of the rentier class.
This is problematic because policy decisions have real-life consequences and they ought to be made with proper discussion, not dogma and fervor to cleanse. Collateral damage among many other factors such as long-term economic health, human rights, and the general efficacy of a policy matter. 3 things: One, bullshit economics and a bullshit economy premised upon the need to maintain, at all times, the predatory market economy and its strictures and not bail out the people and shift to a more cooperative system of production not based on renst seeking and financialization (economic health). There is a god given right to go and infect, sicken and kill others that is inherent in your freedums to refuse to wear masks and even to refuse to let others sear them near you. Typhoid Mary has a right to work at any trade she wished, people have a right to drive drunk at speed through school zones, and all that but it is not being said openly, only that we must defend out liberties (no masks, no restrictions on crowded gatherings, individual freedom includes the right to take risks (even if that includes essentially forcibly sharing that risk with others who do not so choose).
Viewing Covid-19 in moral terms inevitably hampers our ability to have productive discussions and ultimately support the general welfare of society. Only predatory capitalist/rentier market economics can solve problems, even though it never once in history ahs actually done so, but by bringing morality into it by valuing life and health of self and others more than the wealth of the oligarchs and rejecting unnecessary sacrifices of the life and health of self and others, people are derailing the discussions and modeling about how best to maintain the maximum profitability of the rentier society to the rentier class.
That's sort of the short form, but I have a quasi appointment.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Thank you el, for the detailed parsing.
It is very helpful. I hadn’t read anything from that organisation before, and if I ever find myself reading material outside the few I trust to be sincerely discerning I will be more aware of the ’semantically loaded verbiage’.
Principles?
And what about values and principles? A distant third, or even that?
What exactly is the moral/ethical underpinning of the "Left" that merits support?
I'm inclined to be suspicious of any party, movement or individual who are not operating with some sort of ethical framework beyond immediate self-interest and expediency.
Where is the left's commitment to liberty? To privacy? To enterprise? To election integrity? To informed consent? To due process of law? To the right to physically defend your person/family/community/legitimately acquired property? To the right generally to live life as you see fit as long as you are not directly impinging on the rights of others?
If the left is about any of the above, then they are not exactly communicating it to the world at large. OTOH if the left does not regard the above as valid/important then a lot of people, myself included, that labor under the belief that such things are actually important... would like to hear why not.
And if the left has some superior alternatives to offer, then hey, let's hear what they are.
"The strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn't work. But those who live by words will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism because it sounds so good."
- Thomas Sowell
Most of this is rhetorical so I won't address it.
Whose values, principles, morals and ethics? Trumps? Bidens? The Birch Society or Minutemen?
Your post seems to confuse Democrats, lefties, and libertarians. That way leads nowhere.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
The Right's bankruptcy of values
after forty years of neoliberal rule, that's the real topic. All else is a lie.
I dunno, say, maybe SOME of the Left believes in the idea that the average taxpayer ought to GET SOMETHING for their tax dollars other than more cops, budget cuts, special interest pork, and a government that can't even get everyone vaccinated in due time?
The Right lives in a fantasy world in which "liberty" means the right to walk into a department store without wearing a mask, "privacy" means hiding their exploitative behaviors from others, "enterprise" means something other than paying exorbitant rents to sell stuff to people who can no longer afford to buy their stuff, "the right to physically defend your person/family/community/legitimately acquired property" is available to white people and that's really all that matters (the question left open as to WHOM the Right is defending themselves from? Cops allied with paramilitaries?) and where "the right generally to live life as you see fit as long as you are not directly impinging on the rights of others" means their right not to be bothered by the everyday misery and the lack of rights of others simply because they are PRIVILEGED to own enough property to be able to rent a chunk of the government and so are therefore not to be bothered. The Right, though, can be counted on to "defend" this position in public discourse by putting up a steady smokescreen of spurious claims that they are "oppressed."
Being in "the Left," today, means having the right to vote for Right politicians simply because "the Left" has been told that some Right politicians are better than other Right politicians. The Right has ruled politics for so long now that it has splintered off into various "more Right than thou" groups such as the "protesters" currently storming DC. And they keep the ball rolling and the outcome uncertain simply because they have no real values outside of their own hastily-decided-upon notions of "self-interest." Their religion is based on giving money to sharks who preach Jesus at them, their politics is about printing money and handing it to paranoids with weapons, their community is in their elite bunch and in loudly proclaiming that they want to be "left alone" when their employees lovingly do wonders for them at crap wages. That portion of the Right that do not have those nice prerequisites are basically wannabes, suckers. The Right cares not for the Earth's ecosystems, the masses hunkered down in poverty, or any of the rest of the material substrate of their loud proclamations that they want to be "left alone."
Now it would be nice if we had a genuine Left here in the US. What we have is a lot of talk that maybe now and then amounts to something.
Okay I'll leave you alone now.
“Those who make Bernie Sanders impossible will make Luigi Mangione inevitable." - Dan Berger