I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on…I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain…
Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I’ve passed those tests and my two opponents have not.
These remarks are causing quite an uproar, and all I can think is: So this is what a coded dog-whistle sounds like. The racists and the right-wing christians have been using them for so long, I never thought it’d get around to me. But the truth is, somewhere in the depths shallows of my subconscious the rationale goes like this: Anyone who has been involved, in any substantial way, in the Washington approach to foreign policy over the last twenty years is automatically tainted. Never mind Clinton’s war vote and McCain’s…complete warmongering insanity; the point is more basic than that: Experience in American foreign policy decision-making is a disqualifying characteristic, just as Obama is implying.
I’m not naive enough to believe that this opinion will be shared by any large portion of the electorate, and I hope Obama isn’t, either. I’m also not credulous enough to take this claim at face value, but just for a moment my subconscious peacenik sheepdog sat up and begged.
The Washington Times is, in a moment of right wing desperation, trying to revive the latte liberal libel, publishing a supposed study by the Heritage Foundation demonstrating that Democratic districts are wealthier on average than Republican ones. Roy Edroso has a round-up of information on why this “study” is incredibly flawed and proves nothing, specifically pointing out that the study ignores the average income of voters, most likely because that more accurate measure of class and party affiliation is also the one that turns up inconvenient results. But just off the cuff, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find that Democratic districts are wealthier, but I think the causation that the Times is trying to imply is completely backwards. It serves one well to remember the adage about how all politics are local. Democrats, unlike Republicans, are not ideologically committed to the idea that the government’s only legitimate functions are graft and panty-sniffing,* and therefore are far more likely on average to do crazy things like represent their district’s interests, making their districts far more pleasant places to live and thereby attracting the coveted tax-paying professional class to live there. I got another strong reminder of that over the holiday, after visiting with my family in a Republican-heavy area that’s notable for being unpleasant and ugly and the sort of place that most people of means get the hell out of. And move to places like….Austin, TX, where things are far from perfect, but at least the place isn’t falling apart by the seams.
Common sense aside, it’s clear that the whole point of this non-study is to give wingnuts a chance to indulge the latte liberal libel, a bit of political smearing that’s never quite made sense to me. It’s wrong that some liberals have money because…..? It’s hard to really say, especially when the people whining about it usually think that having any wealth at all is an indication of moral uprightness and the authority to tell other people what to do. You get the sense that some slow-witted wingnuts tend to think there’s some hypocrisy involved, but if so, that’s a really weird understanding of hypocrisy. In the real world, a hypocrite is someone who tells other people not to do things (recycle, get abortions, fuck strange men in airport bathrooms) , but the latte liberal’s crime is having enough (food, housing, health care, opportunities) and wanting everyone else to have enough. It might actually be the opposite of hypocrisy, in fact.
[Happy Thanksgiving, all!]
Just some amusing miscellany. I got rid of my horridly unreliable Ford Focus station wagon last month. Sorry, Ford — really, I've been a loyal customer up until this point, as I had my Mercury Tracer hatchback for 13 years without any troubles whatsoever. This car, only 5 years old, seemed destined for lemondom. I unloaded it while I could get a decent trade out of it.
I waffled over getting a Subaru Outback station wagon (how lezbo!) or a Toyota Prius, given the rising gas prices. I test drove both and liked both, but there was no haggling with the Prius since they are flying off the lots — the dealership was quite smug about it. The Subaru dealer, however, made an offer I couldn't refuse — nearly $5K less than the Toyota.
One of the casualties of dumping the Focus was I lost my stickers and badges, so I went over to Evolvefish and bought some new ones:
And I added this one; it's a magnet, not a sticker —
Kate and I are thinking of starting a pool to see how long this stays on the car before some wingnut around here removes it. Any guesses?
It's unlikely to disappear from where I park at work in downtown Durham (wingnut factor low), but I'm sure if I travel to Cary or Raleigh and park, the likelihood of it being removed goes up substantially.
The Daily Telegraph is publishing its list of the 100 most influential conservatives and 100 most influential liberals in America, compiled with the input of its DC correspondents. The Telegraph's criteria:
To qualify for the lists, people have to live and work in the United States. conservatives are people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre. liberals – though the term is an unpopular one in the US, with even Hillary Clinton preferring “progressive” – are those identifiably left of centre.There are interesting choices, take a look at the top 20. I’ll pick a couple of ones further down the food chain to feature, look at who made #89 on the conservative list:Although there are many Republicans on the conservative list and many liberals on the Democratic list, not all 200 are aligned with a party. The key to inclusion was the term “influence” – which people do, and will, most affect American politics both in terms of ideas and the enactment of policy.
We have chosen political candidates, pollsters, campaign operatives, members of think tanks, journalists, bloggers, fundraisers, big-money donors and the occasional celebrity.
89. SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator for Idaho
 |
He tried to make the issue go away by pleading guilty quietly. Then when the news broke he changed his mind but said he would resign from the Senate. The courts have rejected his bid to alter his plea and in another about face he is trying to cling on to his Senate seat. An unseemly ethics scandal Republicans could do without.
If you want to see a really offensive choice on the “liberal” side, look at this selection —
95. HAROLD FORD
Chairman: Democratic Leadership Council
 |
The centrist DLC is much less of a player than during the rise of the New Democrats under Bill Clinton but expect it to come much more to the fore if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and needs to attract moderate voters.
An able congressman, he narrowly lost a bid for a US Senate seat in Tennessee in 2006. The son of a congressman and still only 37, Ford might run against for the Senate next year. Whether he does or not, his future is bright and if Obama fails this time, Ford would be an outside bet for first black US president.I can’t wait to see your comments on the list…
Scott and Matt are talking about a favorite diversionary tactic of conservatives:
One has to keep in mind the broader picture here, too. The right’s main tactic whenever Democrats want to do something that might be helpful to any group of citizens everywhere is to identify some even more desperately poor group and claim that their opposition to helping out is driven by a die-hard commitment to these truly needy types. Try to help the working class, and the underclass are trotted out for moral blackmail. Try to help the middle class, and what about the poor? But then when push comes to shove, these are the same people trying to cut section eight housing programs, trying to cut food stamps, etc. The only people they’re really serious about helping are the extremely wealthy beneficiaries of their tax cuts.
Scott correctly identifies this as part of a larger issue for the right when it comes to framing their arguments, which is that their end goals/results are generally unpopular, so they at least have to put up a semblance of caring about progressive goals while undermining them.
Which creates what I call the “stupid or evil?” conundrum. Stupid-or-evil tends to be the major question when it comes to a slightly different tactic of the right, which is to claim that their asinine ideas are actually better at achieving progressive goals than progressive policies. Like claiming that dismantling Social Security will improve the retirements of the poorest elderly in our nation. Or claiming that bombing the shit out of people and making them hate you is a good way to win people over to Western-style democracy. A lot of the time, I think that evil wins out over stupid, such as the free market capitalist nuts who think that sending economies spiraling into widespread inequality and overwhelming levels of poverty will eventually help the poor (those TVs will come if you can weather the starvation now! soon! yes, TVs any day! we swear!). Right now, only the extremely stupid are wowed by the theory of trickle down economics; everyone else who trots it out is just taking advantage of the assumption of good faith.
The S-CHIP fiasco lends credence to “evil” over “stupid” as well, since conservatives who realized there was no way to advance the argument that you could get more health care to kids by denying them health care resorted not to giving in to reality—sort of the gold standard of arguing in good faith—and instead went straight into shit-flinging mode. Score one for evil.
Our own professor of Dangeral Studies, Michael Bérubé, will be in Austin tomorrow night at 6PM to give a talk called “Somebody Killed Something, That’s Clear at Any Rate: Jabberwocky and the Western Canon.” For a general idea on what it will cover, check out his post at Crooked Timber.
2006-2008 Phi Beta Kappa Lecture Series
October 11, 2007
6:00 PM-7:30 PM
Avaya Auditorium, ACES building
Be there or be forced to explain how to “wang chung”.
David Bowie donates $10,000 to the defense of the Jena 6. (Via.)
Barry Manilow refuses to go on “The View” unless they guarantee him they won’t get wingnut Elisabeth Hasselback. He cites her dangerous, mean-spirited right wing views as the reason. I don’t blame him; if I had to sit across from her, it would be pretty hard not to start up a nasty political argument with her. I do have to disagree with people who think that she’s been the source of the downfall for the show. Maybe; I don’t watch it. But, from what I’ve seen, it seems to me that Hasselback could potentially be reflecting back to all the conservative housewives in the country that parroting your husband’s bigoted, hateful opinions doesn’t make you look nearly as smart as you’ve been led to believe. A thought.
Anyway, question time. Death Is Not An Option: Barry Manilow or Paul Anka? Except this time it isn’t sex with them, but being stranded on a desert island with only their entire catalog as music.
I used to pick up hitchhikers all the time. In my pseudo-hippie days, my ski-bum days, my there’s-an-attractive-girl-in-Seattle days, I was happy to pick up just about anyone who was headed the same direction. (Of course, hitchiking being illegal in Washington State, I always made sure to grab someone from the south side of the Columbia River.) Lots of interesting times, like the time I stopped halfway to the mountain to pick up a woman who, it turned out, was a straight-A high school classmate now living out of the back of her truck for the ski season. Or the time - and this was at least a statute of limitations ago - a guy in Eugene offered me a bowl of what I’m reasonably sure was crack-laced marijuana. I declined - my friend didn’t. But the aftermath of that is a story for another time.
I no longer take as many long drives, what with having a job and a kid and all. I hate to waste someone’s time for four miles on an interstate. But yesterday I was heading past Salem, nearly an hour drive, and yet I shrugged balefully at the shirtless, dreadlocked young man at the metered on-ramp. “I’m working,” my shrug said. “No can do.” And I was, but that wasn’t the reason. Neither were his dreadlocks, or his shirtlessness. I may be domesticated, but I’m not personally elitist*.
I don’t know why I didn’t stop. I mean, I do, superficially. Picking up hitchhikers is risky. Not so much safety-wise; I can pretty much take care of myself and it’s a busy freeway with a lot of potential stopping places. But it’s risky in another way, in that way that opening up one’s personal bubble is risky. Would he be an annoying companion? Is he on the lam? Will he offer me crack-laced marijuana, or meth, or whatever it is the cool kids are smoking these days? Will I be uncomfortable?
I think that last is the reason I didn’t stop. Which is funny, since I’m rarely actually comfortable. I mean, please, compared to the rest of the world, and compared to many sections of American society, I’m so comfortable I might as well be landed gentry. My car runs most of the time, and I have a backup when it doesn’t. I don’t punch a time clock or work my fingers to the literal bone. There’s food in the pantry, and extra. But somehow, I’m still neurotic, still fearful. I’m so neurotic that I’ve somehow decided that helping someone get from point A to point B, something I used to do as a matter of course, was just too inconvenient, too uncomfortable.
In that few minutes following my refusal, I suddenly saw laid out in front of me the entire vista of the “security first” mindset. I saw a flow chart which led from my extremely venial sin to the absolute supremacy of American security above all other considerations, including the security of what America really means. I never actually drank the Kool-Aid, mind you, but I saw where the sugar and the red powder really come from. American freedoms are shirtless, dreadlocked hitchhikers; I can safely ignore them because they’ll still get where they’re going. They don’t need it to be me that gets them there, and good, because they might make me uncomfortable. I’ve got mine, as meager in some ways as that can feel.
I should have just opened the car door. He just wanted a ride.
* Kind of. Even bringing up his appearance is definitely a statement of elitism, in a “methinks he doth protest too much” way. But what are you gonna do?
Sticker available soon!
I’ve never been very forgiving of Nader voters. I say that not to rile up more argument about Naderites’ role (or lack thereof) in the 2000 elections, but as a disclaimer, since I’m on record as being disappointed in those who support the unelectable at the expense of the simply acceptable, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in Presidential politics. And no, I’m not a blind Democrat supporter, ready to believe that if we just elect our corporate whores they’ll run this country so much better than their corporate whores.
I run this disclaimer because I’m stating my support* for Dennis Kucinich. You know, the unelectable Dennis Kucinich? I voted for him in the 2004 primary, but that’s not real support, not when you’re voting in Oregon, a state which would probably have held the 2004 primary in 2005 if they’d been able to get away with it. No, I’ve always known that Dennis Kucinich would be my preferred D if, in fact, he wasn’t a fringe candidate, only barely more electable than Ralph Nader.
The first election they called tonight on NPR was Vermont. For Bernie Sanders. A socialist. But god forbid anyone point out that a socialist can win a Senate seat in a walk in America. Don’t want people to realize that running to the left on economic issues is a winning strategy in America.
And then they toss Santorum on his ass. I’m trying not to be too hopeful. Right now the only Democrat I kind of want to lose—Harold Ford—is falling behind. He’s such a sleazeball that I’m almost willing to let that seat go if it means a better Democrat next time around.
CNN just called it for Lieberman, and with 35% of Republicans and 26% Democrats. They’re pressuring Lieberman to switch to the Republicans on CNN. Assholes.
On the post about the non-ideological era, there’s a couple of things I need to clarify I think, since a couple of commenters seemed to think I agree with David Brooks that we’re entering a non-ideological era. I don’t at all, and my point is that we’ve been in a non-ideological era since conservatives sold out what little ideology they had to get Clinton impeached. My earnest hope is that we really are seeing the beginning of liberalism returning to its rightful spot as the dominant ideology. I do agree with Brooks that liberalism was in something of a disarray after the 60s, though. I couldn’t quite articulate why, so it’s quite fortunate that Ezra put a post up about just these issues.
So why has liberalism been in disarray and what will it take to bring it back? Well, Clinton was right that it’s the economy, stupid, but as Ezra points out, it’s also about the power. Clintonomics grew the economy but that wasn’t enough.
The hitch: Wages didn’t track. Productivity and growth went up, but they weren’t distributed across the economy. Wages increased somewhat throughout the mid-to-late 90s, but as the supercharged growth gave way to the robust numbers of the past few years, the rich began sucking up the gains (if you’ve been reading this blog, you already know that. For a refresher, go here). The left has tried to explain this away as a consequence of Bush’s fiscal policy. Sadly, the trends show up in pretax income also. The right has tried to explain this accelerating inequality as an unstoppable structural feature of the new economy: It’s the meritocracy, or computers, or benefits, or global trade. Unfortunately, those explanations are largely bullshit. Europe also has computers, and trade, and mobility, and benefits, and has easily avoided the widening chasm we’ve seen. So what makes us different?
In a word, power. Or the distribution of it. Europe has strong unions and active governments; countervailing powers that wrest a portion of the pie for their constituencies. We don’t. This is a point I made in my riposte to Jacob Hacker this week, but it can’t be said often enough. There is a tectonic shift in liberal thinking underway. We used to think the country’s economic problems were about economics. At times, that’s been true, It isn’t now. Now, they’re about power. And that’s a conversation the Clintonites are very grudgingly, very awkwardly, coming to accept.
There’s a lot of discussion lately about what exactly is liberalism, and I think in a lot of ways, it’s actually pretty simple. Liberals are the people that take the government’s constitutional duty to promote the general welfare very seriously. It’s not about “big” or “small” government when a government for and by the people is technically as big as the population. Though I would agree that the debate is about big vs. small in the sense that small is the number of people conservatives think the government should work for (straight rich white guys, a small minority indeed) and big is the number liberals thing the government should work for.
Under the Bush administration, people are beginning to finally see that the “trickle down” theory, i.e. if the kings are rich, the serfs should do well theory, is not workable. If the Iraq War didn’t demonstrate that, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina certainly did. Phrased the way I put it, it’s sort of hard to understand why anyone that’s not a straight rich white guy would want to be a Republican, but I think the answer is in the fact that Republicans are pretty good about sniffing out where liberals have failed, claiming our blind spots are a result of our philosophy and advocating giving up on the philosophy altogether. (Also, as I noted earlier, they play identity politics well.)
A classic example is the welfare debate. (Thanks, Roxanne, for giving me this idea.) Conservatives point out where liberals really dropped the ball on welfare—they point out that going on welfare is degrading and disempowering. And this criticism got traction because, as anyone who’s ever applied for welfare can tell you, it is degrading and disempowering. They ask a lot of nosy questions, the money’s no good, there’s no way to move up, and you don’t have much of a future in it. The problem is that the conservative “solution” to this problem was to make it worse with welfare-to-work programs that were even more degrading and disempowering. The problem with welfare wasn’t that it was too liberal. The problem with welfare is that it’s not liberal enough. Genuinely liberal welfare programs should find creative ways to address the disempowerment and degradation issues. (I have about one million ideas that are pretty broad, from terminating the War on Drugs to federally subsidized day care to reinventing the WPA.)
Liberalism as an ideology has been kaput for some time for just this reason—we forgot our main task was the general welfare and the common good. (Or our leaders did.) Ezra’s predicting that era is over and the issue of shared power is back on the rise. Here’s hoping he’s right.
“Morning Sedition”, you complete me.
I’m running way late on this, but it’s as good a time as any to write about it, since I woke up a bit late and am running behind this morning. On Crooks and Liars a few days ago, I saw a letter from Thom Hartmann about why Air America matters where Hartmann points out that right wing propaganda network Fox News and right wing propaganda paper Washington Times both lost unbelievable amounts of money in their first years trying to get off the ground but they persevered and are now profitable. I appreciate his optimism, but unfortunately there’s just a lot of differences between those outfits and Air America that he’s not taking into consideration. The biggie he’s missing is that both of those are owned and run by hard right ideologues who have a dedication to their worldview that’s rarely seen on the left and those who are so stubborn and impervious to reason on the left are pretty much powerless. But the main thing is that Rupert Murdoch and Reverend Moon both had the money to spend on the project and the knowledge that if they pulled it off, they wouldn’t just profit from the projects themselves but turn an unbelievable profit by being the darlings of the Republican party. Their profitability is in tax breaks and influence as well, and liberals just can’t really ever see that as a goal in the same way.
Leaving that aside, I find the downfall of Air America unbelievably frustrating because they should have been able to pull it off. I disagree some with Ezra that Air America just wasn’t going to peel listeners off NPR for a couple of reasons. If they’d done it right, there would probably not have been an issue, because NPR’s news programming is only a few hours of the day, so AAR would have had the opportunity to grab listeners all the rest of the time. More importantly, if they’d been more entertaining than NPR, I really do think they would have grabbed a lot of listeners that way.
Anyway, Ezra linked Marc Cooper in his post and I think that Marc’s analysis of AAR’s decline is dead on. First of all, they spent too much for too little, which is just bad business. Second of all, they managed to be both too timid and too willing to imitate right wing shows that have a tone that turn off a liberal audience, who just is less mean, let’s face it. People like Mike Malloy are just aggravating. The programmers needed to realize that demagogery is the right’s big strength and the left has other strengths to play up.
I knew they were doomed when they pulled their funniest show off the network because, while they were willing to have ranters like Malloy on the air, they were scared that Marc Maron on “Morning Sedition” was too edgy for some reason. But that’s what made the show funny. You can see a list of the skits they did here, and some of them were just brilliant. Sure, they did a lot of stuff that got some of your more PC types sending irate emails, but if you’re going to be funny, you’re going to offend people at times, and you have to suck it up. I suspect that the people who pushed Maron off the air are just weenies.
Seriously, the show had a character called Sammy the Stem Cell who was both a stem celll and a real asshole that you just wanted to stomp to death. That’s funny shit. It was the only show I listened to faithfully because it cracked me up on a regular basis, and when they yanked it, I knew AAR was dead. They’re too cowardly to really put on good programming, end of story.
This whole debacle is irritating because it’s making the wingnuts erroneously think that they have the market on entertainment, when of course they mostly have the market on drug-laced on-air ranting. “The Daily Show” is all the evidence you need that liberals have a lot more snark to us, if people are willing to tap it. The failure of AAR was an unwillingness to utilize the massive talent that’s out there.
I’m not sure what the fate of the station is, but it’s not on the air here in Austin anymore. Which is too bad, since I did check out Rachel Maddow’s show in the morning, because it really was the best news show on the air. But it’s no “Morning Sedition”, that’s for sure. In my ideal world, they would have “Morning Sedition”, the Rachel Maddow, then someone funnier than Al Franken on, and then Randi Rhodes. And give Chuck D. something good to do.
Billmon has linked Riverbend’s post on the Lancet study. Riverbend hasn’t been posting out of despondency, really. The Lancet article that estimated the number of Iraqis that are dead from the war at 655,000 has left a lot of us feeling both angry and yet hopeless and Billmon, after reading Riverbend’s post, is feeling that hard.
For someone in my shoes, though, hopelessness can become an excuse for not thinking about unpleasant truths. But there was something about Riverbend’s quiet despair that forced me to think hard about my own moral responsibility as an American for a genocide caused by America — because of a war started in my name, paid for with my taxes.
I’ve opposed this war since it was just a malignant smirk on George Bush’s face. I’ve spoken against it, written against it, marched against it, supported and contributed to politicians I generally despise because I thought (wrongly) that they might do something to stop it. It’s why I took up blogging, why I started this blog.
But the question Riverbend has forced me to ask myself is: Did I do enough? And the only honest answer is no.
I opposed the invasion — and the regime that launched it — but I didn’t do everything I could have done. Very few did. We may have put our words and our wallets on the line, but not our bodies. Not when it might have made a difference. In the end, we were all good little Germans.
My question to myself, in other words, is like Thoreau’s famous question to Ralph Waldo Emerson when Emerson came to visit him in jail after he was arrested for not paying his poll tax as a protest against slavery:
Emerson: What are you doing in there, Henry?Thoreau: No, Waldo, the question is: What are you doing out there?
It’s easy to think up excuses now — we were in the minority, the media was against us, the country was against us. We didn’t know how bad it would be.
But we knew, or should have known, that what Bush was planning was an illegal act of aggression, based on a warmongering campaign of deception and ginned-up hysteria. And we knew, or should have known, what our moral and legal obligations were:
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
We were all complicit. I was complicit. Because I was afraid — afraid to sacrifice my comfortable middle class lifestyle, afraid to lose my job and my house, afraid of the IRS, afraid to go to jail.
But not nearly as afraid, of course, as the thousands of Iraqis who have been tortured or murdered, or who, like Riverbend, are forced to live in bloody chaos, day after day. Which is why, reading her post today, I couldn’t help but feel deeply, bitterly ashamed — not just of my country, but of myself.
I don’t doubt that most of us are motivated strongly by wanting our houses and jobs and comfort, but I have to ask a very hard question: What good would Billmon do sitting in jail?
Digby, responding to a post by Chris Bowers on the subject of the affect of tribalism or identity on voting behavior asks:
The non-southern Party appears to exist mainly as a repository of opposition to conservative policies. Is that true?
And Kevin Drum has an interesting answer.
Yes, there’s some truth to that, but I think it works both ways. One of the reasons that American politics is stalemated these days is that activists in both parties often define themselves more by opposition to the other than by support for a positive program of change. Conservatives — especially cultural conservatives — mostly want to fight the moral relativism and assaults on traditionalism that they believe are rife among liberals. Liberals, conversely, mostly want to prevent conservatives from clawing back the gains they made in the 60s and 70s. The end result is trench warfare, with neither side ever winning any significant victories because both sides are fighting rear guard actions.
He goes on to list some ideas that would make a decent liberal agenda. And by doing so, he makes a bit of a dodge that, I think, cuts against much of what he wrote in this paragraph. I think there is a pretty clear positive liberal agenda. One that Drum himself provides a rough outline for without putting forth too much effort. The notion that liberals are fighting to preserve gains made in the 60s or 70s strikes me as not quite accurate. The fact that liberals have been out of power my entire lifetime probably obscures this.
Further his characterization of conservatives fighting assaults on traditionalism is, I believe, quite accurate. I think that is one motivates your generic conservative voter. And that is the identity that Bowers and Digby are talking about. The conservative “tribe” is motivated by nostalgia for the conformity, the unexamined bigotries of day’s past, and the unchallenged forebearances of a morality that conflicts with liberty. It’s a sisyphian struggle to be sure, and is defined by opposition, as conservative ideologies usually are.
But I think his answer for why the Democratic Party, specifically in the north (though so far I see no reason for us to confine ourselves that way) is defined by opposition is more complicated than he admits. First — and I don’t want to conflate liberals with Democrats — but liberals, I think, tend to be constitutionally averse to tribal thinking, for good or ill. It’s part of the reason that liberals tend to do more infighting. But it’s also a good reason why the left side of the political blogosphere tends, with a few exceptions, to be more intellectually diverse, stimulating and interesting than the right wingers, with a few exceptions. I’ve written before on the topic of tribalism and it’s advantages as a form of persuasion. But my views are also more complicated than what I wrote in that post, which was a defense of mockery, and using the tools of shunning and acceptance. (Sorry I can’t seem to be able to find that post)Â At a certain point, though, I can’t help but think that there’s nothing more persuasive than being right. And I think that’s part of the liberal identity, as opposed to say, a kneejerk mistrust of academics and bureaucrats and “book learnin’.”
Man, I’m in a world of told-you-so today. First Steve’s blog post on how rape is caused by hatred and sadism, not lust, and now I get to enjoy a bunch of bloggers that actually seem a little hurt that the WaPo did an article on the left blogosphere that featured Maryscott O’Connor and basically made the argument that being pissed off about evil things is somehow an argument for said evil things. The “you’re angry!” argument is the last resort of cowards and as someone who weathers that argument on a daily basis, I recommend to my fellow liberal bloggers that you read and enjoy my take on it. Alternate replies to the “you’re angry” argument that work are, “Since my other choice is stupid, I’ll take it,” and the perennial favorite, “Kiss my ass.”
The sane response of people who are actually living in the world to infuriating things is to be infuriated. So being called angry can be taken as a huge compliment, since it means you are sane and you aren’t a sociopath and you actually love life and hate that others are trying to fuck things up. Like Shakes says:
Finkel mistakes passion for poutiness, and that’s what made me squirm. There are a lot people who feel disenfranchised and disheartened right now, and that’s why they’re angry. Meaningfully addressing the source of this anger isn’t as convenient as chalking it up to the same old tit-for-tat game as which the media loves to cast politics, with a winner and a loser and gloating supporters on one side and petulant ones on the other. What the winners do with their spoils matters. The GOP leadership has been a disaster, and most of us who respond with righteous anger aren’t throwing tantrums like two-year-olds denied what we want; we’re doing the hard work of responsible citizenry—trying to hold to account a failed administration that’s bad for our country.
In other words, don’t let passionless toadies tell you what to feel. Now that the entire left blogosphere has been inducted into The Pissed Off Club, it’s probably a good time to go over some incorrect myths about our friend Anger.
Anger means you don’t have a sense of humor. Highly incorrect. Intelligent people who are angry with good reason generally are the funniest people alive. Most good humor has a hostility element in it, and if you’re hostile to someone who seriously deserves it, then you’re gold. Anger is clarifying for the would-be joke telling person, because it gives you a solid target. For instance, without amoral chickenhawks to make fun of, what would we have done on April Fools Day?
Anger isn’t cool. Also utter horseshit. Anger is totally cool. In fact, there is pretty much nothing in the world cooler than a cool, angry person, which is why people idolize surly rebels. Again, the critical elements are being smart and being on the side of the angels when you’re angry. For instance, it’s beyond cool to be a Resistance fighter, sulking in the shadows smoking a cigarette. It’s not cool to fly down to Florida and try to “riot” in khaki pants on behalf of wealthy, privileged people trying to destroy the democratic process. Lucky for us, the wrongness of war-mongering for corporate profits is so clear cut that lefty bloggers are in the James Dean School of Angry, not the temper tantrum-throwing spoiled prince school.
Anger muddles your thinking. Not necessarily. Sometimes anger is quite clarifying, as I mentioned in the humor section. But more importantly, trying to avoid being angry even when the situation calls for it seriously muddles people’s thinking, because it forces them to go into denial about reality. For instance, if you are sane and you ponder the fact that Bush lied to get us into a war that’s turning into a quagmire, then your choices are to be angry or to deny reality and cast around for excuses that get increasingly strange and muddled.
Anger is unattractive. I suppose this is true if you’re the sort who’s attracted to passionless nitwits and moral cowards, but who really wants to admit to that?
Angry people can’t have fun. If you believe this, I highly recommend slam-dancing just once in your life to disabuse you of this silly notion.
Thank you, Chris Kromm, for posting on this. Billed as the biggest shindig on the Left, the Yearly Kos convention, is set for June 8-11 in Vegas, and it completely misses the mark on its panel on Southern politics.
You’d think the slate for “The Impact of the South on U.S. Politics” would feature bloggers who know the region and would be able to shed light on how to regain the South by embracing and helping to tease votes from and grow the progressive movements here. You’d be wrong. Chris:
But my enthusiasm vanished when I read the panel description:
“The South is a large region of the U.S., but does it hold an important place in the country’s politics? “The South’s Importance in the American Political Arena” is a panel discussion by a group of acclaimed political writers - Thomas Schaller, Jerome Armstrong, Steve Jarding and Dave “Mudcat” Saunders.”
From what I know of them, these are all nice enough people. But what insight can they give us on the South and U.S. politics? Let’s do a quick run-down:
1) Tom Schaller is prof at U of Maryland-Baltimore County, best known for his view that Democrats should write off the South. Consider this gem from November 2003:
“Trying to recapture the South is a futile, counterproductive exercise for Democrats because the South is no longer the swing region. It has swung: Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy’ of 1968 has reached full fruition.”
So much for the South’s Importance in the American Politica Arena.
2) Next up is Jerome Armstrong, who’s only experience in Southern politics that one can divine is his active role in ex-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s bid for president in 2008.
3) And then there’s Steve Jarding and “Mudcat” Saunders, the media’s favorite go-to guys for colorful quotes about why Democrats should pass on social issues and focus on NASCAR, hunting, and aligning party politics to speak to “the white male,” as if that’s a useful category. (This apparently also includes rehabilitating the image of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which Saunders is quick to note “has two black members.”)
I’m sure all will have something interesting to say, but what’s missing from this picture?
Well, for starters, what’s missing is anyone advocating a truly progressive politics in the South. There are two main views represented here: that progressives should 1) forget the South, or 2) move to the right. As we have argued since Facing South launched over a year ago, these aren’t the only options.
The South has a deep progressive tradition, rooted in values such as a sense of place, love of the land, mutual aid, and a healthy populist wariness of unaccountable power. Throughout history, Southern political figures and movements have successfully tapped these rich veins to advance various progressive causes. The fact that the right has been more politically successful — as it has nationally — doesn’t make these progressive traditions any less real or useful.
Go read the rest of Chris’s post. I’m really tired of the same old “F*ck the South” song and dance, or that there is no hope for the red states — some that are rapidly turning purple, given disaster of Iraq and its impact on states like NC, and certainly the outsourcing of jobs overseas, hitting the wallets of working men and women in the region.
There is plenty of discontent from which Dems can harvest votes, yet as usual, they just think the South is a complete waste of time, or that you have to hump Joe Six Pack and become a Centrist Stepford Wife like sHillary to win. Why do you think Rethugs are worried about losing the South, and are willing to pour money and resources here, particularly with the browning of the region from immigration. They are screwing themselves over on this issue after having bedded down with the bible-toting xenophobes.
It’s unfortunate that the folks at Yearly Kos don’t see the need to put voices of the progressive South on the bill to help broaden the strategy discussion. But are we surprised?
While engaged in the defense of the so-called “single issue groups� lately, I got to thinking about what exactly are the ideas that unite us as progressives. What unites unions and feminists and minorities and environmental groups? What are the ideas general enough to unite those of us who are liberals and progressives and leftists, but not so blandly general and nondescript that our ideological opponents could not merely assert “me too!�
The first thought that came into my head was “a commitment to social justice.� And I think that’s a good one. I think every member of the progressive left is defined by a deep commitment to social justice that requires dedication, sacrifice, and intellectual engagement and that this separates us from conservatives and Republicans, who for better or worse, believe that the world is better off when each and every one of us is deeply committed to our own bottom lines. Almost magically so. And that if someone fails, it is because they deserved to fail, by definition, admitting of no other possible explanation.
So I kind of had this idea floating around in my head and the was keeping the notion of fleshing out the idea a bit on the backburner, while I was reading the comments to a post by Media Girl linking to my thoughts on Crashing the Gate. Where I found much of the discussion and efforts to define “progressivism� helpful. For example Media Girl says here:
“But I disagree with the assumption that sub-interests of the greater grassroots progressive values are mutually exclusive. What unifies them is a belief that government plays an important role in helping our society progress, that government nurtures. The only people who are categorically opposed to that are people who think the government should be the “strict father” to keep people in line.â€?
And while I’m not too keen (Or more accurately have mixed feelings on) on Lakoff’s efforts some of which are on display here, I think this a pretty perceptive comment on the nature of progressivism. We don’t believe that government is needed to “keep people in line,â€? but that government can and should play an important and beneficial role in people’s lives. Our opponents, it seems, do believe that government is for keeping people in line, whether it’s women’s sexuality through abortion, or the working man’s desire to share in the reward of increased profits reaped by his efforts.Â
I thought another great comment defining progressivism came from madman in the marketplace who said:
“”Progressive” is more the idea that people can, through debate, reason and a committment to humanistic ideals, use the government to improve the lot of a country’s citizens. That carries with it a built-in basic idealogy, a Jeffersonian Enlightenment idea that the individual is the fundamental building block of society, NOT institutions like churches or families. If you start with that building block, then individual sovereinty and civil rights are the FIRST principle that must be protected.”
Which I think really gets to the heart of what it means to be a progressive or a liberal. That social justice is about the individual and focused on giving every individual, first, the respect and dignity from society that they deserve as such, and second, a real opportunity to prosper and succeed. And that the individual should never be held subservient to institutions, social or otherwise, or traditions. And that individual sovereignty and civil rights are indeed the most important values in our society, and that we can and should devote our energies to guaranteeing these values for each member of our society.
But I don’t know. Everywhere I look someone’s telling me that the word “progressive� means a million different things to a million different people. So what do you guys think?
I was in Alabama visiting the in-laws over the last few days, but I got a chance to get out and meet fellow blogger Kathy of Birmingham Blues. We had a great time discussing the ups and downs of being a progressive in a deeply Red state. She is an amazingly effective ally in the fight for queer rights; her brother is one of the founders of Equality Alabama. And this is a state that sorely needs an effective equality organization. Out gays living there have to worry about life and limb, never mind marriage equality.
However, Kathy and her family (her daughters get out there with her) are living proof that grassroots activism is having an impact on the lives of gay Alabamians. Progressives are coming together in greater numbers to create islands of tolerance and action in Birmingham. Kathy is a witty, energetic life-force — the woman needs to be cloned.
Kathy has a great synopsis of what’s going on over at her pad.
Progress is slow, and it isn’t always obvious, but the pace of change isn’t as glacial as it might appear. Democrats and independents are beginning to come together to push for reforms. Just in the past year, we saw the formation of the Over the Mountain Democrats, targeted at progressives who live in the mostly Republican suburbs south and east of town, and a local chapter of the Stonewall Democrats. Equality Alabama continues to provide a voice for the LGBT community in the state, and the Equality Fund PAC works with the Legislature to keep the most egregious anti-gay bills bottled up in committee. I’m seeing more and more Bright Blue Dots on the backs of SUVs , and Roy Moore’s bid to become our next governor isn’t going as well as he hoped.We also learned about the neighborhoods where out folks have safe spaces. Apparently the Crestwood area has been staked out as gay-friendly territory; Kathy said rainbow flags are proudly flying there. They do so because of folks willing to be out, and allies like Kathy; we can’t do it without them in these Red states. It also cannot be done if the black community in these states doesn’t wake up and see that civil equality is not a zero-sum game.
More on Alabama — and the Bright Blue Dot phenomenon in Red states after the jump.
Incidentally, the Bright Blue Dot mentioned above is a visibility movement for progressives in Red states, and the fact that there are more of them rolling on the roads to counter the Bush-Cheney and “W” stickers is a great sign that they are sick of hiding — and playing nice.
One phenomenon that needs to be overcome is that too many of the moneyed gays in Birmingham that show up to social functions and the EA annual banquet just haven’t stepped up to the plate to fight for their own rights. Despite the massive political forces working against LGBT citizens in Alabama, you have to wonder what does it take to make them roll up their sleeves and join folks like Kathy — who shows up to meetings and organizes events — or even just take public positions of support?
I suppose they’ll step up once they are loading the boxcars with homos to take them to an ex-gay facility. Even then, it may take some additional convicing that a vote for W doesn’t exempt them from homo-bashing. [This isn’t an Alabama problem, of course. Ms. Julien has mentioned many times to me that too many local gays in south Florida are asleep at the wheel, more concerned about partying than willing to do anything to counter the outrageous wingnuttery in Jeb’s state.]
For moneyed gays in Alabama (and Kathy says there are plenty of them), you’d think the heinous murder of a gay man like Billy Jack Gaither would have been enough of a wake-up call. He was slashed with a pocketknife, beaten with an ax handle, and burned on a pile of tires by two guys who did it because “he was queer.â€Â? But class divisions run strong here — I’m sure these well-to-do gays think their social standing insulates them from such things.
The more out gay and ally voices that are heard, the less power the bible-beaters have. In Montgomery for instance, when they held the first gay pride festival in seven years last year, the local Christian Coalition engaged in a low-rent and ignorant campaign and threatened a protest. The gay community didn’t back down and when push came to shove, the CC didn’t even show up.
We are really looking forward to getting together with Kathy again — and to meet some of the hard-working gay and progressive activists trying to make a stand in Alabama. It’s good to see the support, energy and commitment in Red places. Thank you, Kathy.
* Nice AP story on Equality Alabama
* Christian Coalition knob-ends in Montgomery, AL scared of Pride
* Montgomery, AL: Red State Pride
They do.
Raznor, Infidels Blog, and DumpMike have more to say.
UPDATE: Patridiots and After School Snack lend their voices, as do What Is Wrong With You, Liberal Penpal, Science Politics and Roxanne.
UPDATE II: Hey Jenny Slater and Steve Audio form a potent one-two combo, while Obsidian Wings, The Winding Sheet, FSHK Blog, Thou Shalt Not Suck and Threat Or Menaace provide valuable, must-read context.
UPDATE III: Political Strategy provides important background information on this issue.
UPDATE IV: Neph Politics and Sisyphus Shrugged provide the Livejournal take on this, while Third Estate, Linens N Shit and Moderate Left provide sober, rational analyses of our fucking awesomeness.
UPDATE V: Yet more on this important topic:
Asia Security
Pansauce
Preemptive Karma
Hughes For America
Pharyngula
Ariadne’s Labyrinth
Animeg
Rhetorically Speaking
Democratic Veteran
Politblogo
Sivacracy
Adam Jacob Muller
The Impolitic
Loaded Mouth
Cinematic Rain
Sadly, No!
Buck Mulligan
John M. Burt
Crispen
With that list, I do believe that we just destroyed Rush Limbaugh.
We are in the midst of a revolution. Bloggers are not simply revolutionizing the way media is fact-checked (the media hasn’t gotten away with a single error since 2004, you know), but we’re quite possibly creating the greatest revolution in communication since the first Neanderthal grunted at the sun.
But only the liberal bloggers.
You see, in my exhaustive search of conservative bloggers, mainly consisting of comments I deleted from a post on post-natal abortions for Alabama, I’ve found that they are markedly deficient in not only writing style and intellectual rigor, but they’re also ugly and stupid. Your average liberal blog reads like a mix between Sartre, Paine and Chappelle, while conservative blogs read like they were typed by monkeys that almost got it…but not quite. I mean, look at conservative blogs - do any of them have the insight, the wit, the intellect that liberal blogs do? Charles Johnson? No. LGF? No. Little Green Footballs? No. LGF Weblog? Not even close.
We’re on the cusp of a revolution, but it’s a revolution that only some of us are fit for. Conservative bloggers must realize that they are blogogenetically inferior, and voluntarily wipe themselves from the Earth. If not, it’s time for a final solution to this problem.
UPDATE: I’ve been getting feedback from hysterical wingtard rodswallowers that they believed my last line constituted some sort of Nazi reference. I’d like to direct them to the meanings of the words “final solution”, courtesy of a little known resource called “the dictionary” (do I need to spell that out for you, too?):
fi·nal adj.
1. Forming or occurring at the end; last: the final scene of a film.
so·lu·tion n.
1. A homogeneous mixture of two or more substances, which may be solids, liquids, gases, or a combination of these.
2. The process of forming such a mixture.
Obviously, this was a reference to the need to chemically alter the brains of conservative bloggers in order to make them less of a danger to society. If we have to round them up on trains and put them in camps, where we forcibly sterilize them and then kill them en masse when they’re served their purpose, so be it.
UPDATE II: In case you’d forgotten, Americans rounded up people and put them in camps, too. Morons.
Raznor has more on this.
