MSM immediately attacks/smears Cornel West
Well, that didn't take long.
This is a great country. Anyone can run for president.
That said, Cornel West has no business running for president, from the left, right, or center.I loved early Democratic Socialists of America leader Cornel West. I loved author of the 1993 book Race Matters West. I loved everything about West until he supported spoiler Ralph Nader against then–Vice President Al Gore in 2000.
A lot of my political friends supported Ralph Nader back then. And a lot of them have since apologized. Even Michael Moore.
I think the problem is that your friends feel the need to apologize for voting for someone they like.
West never apologized. He didn’t see a third party playing a spoiler role to Democrats as bad—obviously, since he’s about to do it again. He did support Barack Obama in 2008, but he turned on him fairly quickly, making criticisms that went way beyond Obama’s political decisions. Then he supported Jill Stein in 2016. More recently, West has gone off the deep end.
The problem here is someone who doesn't understand democracy.
MSNBC went even lower.
Ostensibly leftist academic Cornel West launched his third-party presidential campaign the way any true progressive would — by promoting it on a podcast known to spread right-wing extremist conspiracy theories, hosted on a video platform popular among right-wing extremists, just weeks after having praised Florida’s right-wing extremist governor, Ron DeSantis.
I gotta admit that I kind of respect a straight-up smear attack with no self-respect.
West chose to promote his campaign with an appearance Monday on a web show hosted by Russell Brand, a comic who’s known for spreading right-wing conspiracy theories and misinformation. Brand’s show is platformed on Rumble, a video platform popular among QAnon conspiracy theorists. And the party in which West has chosen to launch his presidential bid — the People’s Party, it’s called — isn’t above promoting Tucker Carlson and other populists who traffic in reactionary politics.
Not a surprise that Ja'han Jones writes for Joy Reid.
Who would have guessed that Politico and Forbes would be the outlets to give West a more fair and balanced article.
BTW, West has shifted to the Green Party. A move that I think was wise.
Comments
Well, when I went to The Nation's website
I discovered this article:
Cornel West Is the Right Man in the Wrong Party
Well, that argument evaporated quickly.
Okay, so now I've dodged around The Nation's paywall to read the Joan Walsh piece you linked. The Walsh argument is debunked as a whole in Ben Burgis' piece in Jacobin.
Burgis quotes a little bit of Walsh's primary objection to Cornel West's candidacy, but let's look at the Walsh quote in full:
All those narcissists! Biden, on the other hand, has a fifty-year-long history of cutting deals that favor the Right, from the Crime Bill to the Bankruptcy Bill to 2023's causes du jour: anti-immigrant border policies, fossil-fueled energy policies, and World War III in Ukraine. So it would seem, then, that Walsh implicitly supports no debates, rigged primaries, and a loss to the Republicans next year because nobody wants to see Biden do his gaffe machine act (and so, consequently, he won't run a campaign). You can tell with writers like Walsh that they cling really hard to the Right-Left dichotomy because what they are really promoting is "the Right as the new Left."
As for Ja'han Jones, this individual's piece seems to lean heavily on a guilt-by-association argument linking West to Russell Brand. Oooh, West appeared on Russell Brand's podcast! He must be a right-winger! Here's Kyle Kulinski debunking the Russell-Brand-as-rightist meme:
Too bad none of these media social climbers can discuss actual policies.
"the reason you need a new class to come into power in the United States is because this one is useless" -- Vijay Prashad
"The Iron Law of Woke Projection", and then some
A while back I saw a really funny little clip hosted on some Twatster alternative illustrating how the Corporate Media have just redefined "right-wing" to mean "anything they don't like" - which just happens to include ANYTHING that would've been "left-wing" to anyone whose memory extends past 2014; pity I can't find it right now.
To the extent that "wingedness" remains anything more than a putrid relic of 18th-Century French architecture, I think the only remotely coherent definition is:
"Right-wing": Pro-Establishment.
"Left-wing": Anti-Establishment.
Eso es todo.
As always, they want to "Capture That Energy™" without understanding the why, and it's no accident they've attracted the support of the superficial-minded (aka "STUPID").
If you take a jar of peanut butter, hollow it out, and replace it with shit, guess what? It doesn't matter what the label on the jar says, it doesn't even matter what the color and texture of the contents are, it's not a jar of peanut butter anymore. It is a jar of shit.
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!
This is an interesting thought
These are of course the definitions enshrined in historical memory. The History Channel webpage echoes this sentiment:
But today the "Left" is also in favor of the Monarchy, the Monarchy of Joe Biden, and by extension the impoverishment of Europe and the self-destruction of American military and economic power for nothing. "Let's send our military might to Ukraine so the Russians can destroy it" is the actual credo of the Biden administration. As for the Right, it depends upon whether or not you're talking to Lindsey Graham, who never met a war he didn't like, or Donald Trump, who wants peace in Ukraine. The Right likes monarchy just fine; it's that they want a different monarch.
"the reason you need a new class to come into power in the United States is because this one is useless" -- Vijay Prashad
That's just it, though
Those whom you are referring to there as "the Left" have no logical claim to that label, none - especially not in the case of Joe Biden, whom NOBODY would mistake for "left-wing" in any way save for his waving a Magic Blue Donkey insignia. By that logic, Jefferson Davis was "left-wing".
We cannot afford to let the superficial dictate language. The self-conflicting doctrine of "Descriptivism" is nothing but a scam by which to ram NewSpeak past those who ought to know better ("WE can dictate language by turning SocMed into The Mighty Wurlitzer 2.0, but YOU CAN'T", is the obvious message).
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!
None of "the Left" cares that Biden is on the Right
What's important to "the Left" in the US is that Biden is better than Trump (or whomever is awarded the Republican nomination) because Trump is a "fascist" and all that. You might call it "lesser-evil voting," but if you are to take a look at the Democratic Party nomination for next year you would have to say that Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr. are the lesser evil candidates.
The matter to be discussed is that "the Left" in America, having adopted a "lesser-evil voting" pretext for the election run-ups from 1988 to the present day, has spread that pretext over the whole of time. There is now no time in which "the Left" does not support Joe Biden or whomever the preselected Dem nominee happens to be.
Now, you can argue that such a "Left" is not worthy of the name, all you want. That's fine. What will happen if you adopt such a stance in public debate is that you will find yourself in opposition to all types of "leftists" who have spent their lives defending genuinely leftist causes but who now support today's presidential candidate of the Right, which in this instance is Joe Biden. The pathbreaker in this regard has to be John Lewis, who chaired SNCC during some rather important years but who ended up supporting Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Dem primaries.
"the reason you need a new class to come into power in the United States is because this one is useless" -- Vijay Prashad
the actual credo of the Biden administration
"Let's send our military might to Ukraine so the Russians can destroy it"
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Bunch of wing nuts.
Without reading the article when I saw the name Joan Walsh
I knew that it would be a hit job.
We ain't seen
*nuthin'* yet.
Now that he's actively pursuing the unity ticket approach with the Greens, our beloved dems will have to roll out their big oppo research guns. Those guys have got to be salivating at the idea of getting to utterly destroy not only RFKjr, but now West as well: just think of all the money they are going to make this cycle. The stenographer's pens are going to be glowing red from the heat of the inevitable character assassinations to come.
Not a fan.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
In the space of 25 years
I have gone from being a flaming leftwing hippy socialist to being a rightwing MAGA trump lover.
And that is within my closest family members, those who purport to know me best.
This morning on Rising, Bri was "discussing" rfk. Not rfk based on his principles but rfk the person and implying that we cannot believe he is anti-establishment because he has family members who work for the admin.
Based on personal experience, I don't find that argument to be compelling evidence of a conflict within rfk. In fact to me it is evidence of an absolute need for a conflict.
When I came to that path in the woods, I chose the path less travelled. It has been more stressful but I find it easier to face the guy in front of me when I shave.
I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep.
Funny Note: I read that this quote was one brandon had as inspiration in his autobio. I guess we promised a different interest.
No worries. State dem parties will keep him off ballot
This what happened to Nader in 2005. All in the name of democracy. I was glob-smacked when I heard Thom Hartmann on the radio personally insult Nader for his run. Look this is why we are in Ukraine. To make sure we can keep candidates off the ballot.
There are those political typology charts
and left right economics is only part of it. Authoritarianism can be centrist, right or left, Hitler and Pol Pot. I guess a centrist authoritarian would be your typical kleptocrat tossing rivals out the window and invading anyone he could. Both left and right are often drawn to authoritarianism, they like a strong leader who tells them what to do, and what to believe, they lap up conspiracy theories. The confusion comes from the fact that the draw of the authoritarian is far stronger than any facile economic woes. To a moderate Pol Pot and his sledge hammer punishments are no different than Putin's private army Wagner and their sledge hammer punishment so proudly displayed on video.
I’m guessing that most US presidents fall into this category?
In just this century the US has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and gawd only knows how many areas in Africa and elsewhere which has killed many millions of civilians. It’s still squatting in Syria and stealing the oil. And all of the invasions were unprovoked.
Let me know if they were included.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Or our My Lai,
tossing babies in the air to land them on our bayonets.
Etc.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981