[Update: I have to agree with what Robert Perry writes at Consortium News.]
I’ve had a few hours to recover from the back-to-back conferences, YearlyKos in Las Vegas and Take Back America in Washington DC, and I’m trying to sort out What It All Means.
I left Las Vegas feeling revved, empowered even, but left Washington somewhat deflated. To be fair, I experienced TBA through a growing fog of fatigue. I also felt a tad demoted in Washington. For better or worse, I have a rep among other bloggers. Much of the Washington crowd still doesn’t “get” blogging, however, never mind recognize individual bloggers.
For example, at TBA I encountered one woman who was clearly confused by distinctions between blogging and commenting, solo blogs and group blogs, and wanted to know where she could “find” blogs. (Note that this woman was younger than I am. Although most people are these days.) I gave her my URL and suggested she just visit and read and click blogroll links to see for herself what blogs are. But this didn’t satisfy her; she wanted a detailed explanation of the blog-reading experience. I got the impression she wanted assurance that reading blogs would be worth her precious time. I finally walked away; lady, it is what it is. And I ain’t your monkey.
The TBA conference organizers recognized bloggers by giving some of us press credentials, free access to conference events (although they changed their minds about letting us into the Gala Awards Dinner) and space in the Exhibit Hall in which to blog. There was also a good panel discussion on blogging chaired by Glenn Greenwald. However, most of the Democratic Party operatives and progressive activists in attendance at TBA showed little interest in us. By now bloggers and Democrats should be having substantive discussions about what we can do for each other. By now the Democrats should know who some of us are, beside Kos. Although our reach as individual bloggers is limited, I think the blogosphere as a whole is making an impact. And we have the potential of making a bigger impact in the future. We’re a multifaceted resource and talent pool growing right under the Dems’ noses, yet they don’t seem to see us.
I was particularly discouraged by the progressive media workshop/panel on Wednesday. There was acknowledgment that a progressive media infrastructure to rival the right-wing noise machine is sorely needed. Yet the chief presenter seemed unable to think beyond tip-toeing through the minefield of conservative media infrastructure to, maybe, deliver the Democratic Party sales pitch to enough of the public to make a difference in the November midterm elections. The YearlyKos convention was all about Vision and Big Pictures. Throughout the TBA conference, however, I heard copious chirping about talking points and framing but little about effecting real change in America’s political culture to make it more habitable for progressivism. The “pros” seem resigned to life within the toxic political culture grown by the Right.
Frogs being slowly boiled to death, indeed. Of course, I realize that spending three days with random Democrats inside the Washington Hilton doesn’t provide a view of the whole landscape. Nor do I see precisely how the Dems and the blogs ought to be interfacing. I don’t want the leftie blogosphere to become an auxiliary of the Democratic Party. This is for the party’s good as much as ours. Although I ’spect most of the Washington Dems would disagree, I say they need our honest criticism and feedback as much as they need our links to donation pages.
I took one useful thing away from the progressive media workshop, and that was a copy of the July 2006 issue of In These Times magazine. An article titled “Welcome to the Media Revolution” by Jessica Clark and Tracy Van Slyke compared right-wing and progressive media:
Reinventing progressive media is an uphill battle. Progressives are competing against a ruthless right-wing media machine and a dominant commercial media sector that has honed audience-distraction tactics.
Many new progressive media projects have arisen in direct response to the dominance of the right’s media apparatus. As Rob Stein, David Brock and Eric Alterman, among others, have documented, right-wing funders and ideologues have over the past three decades created their own successful cadre of media and messaging organizations, from think tanks to magazines to radio and television outlets. They have infiltrated the mainstream media, rallying conservatives across the country.
“What conservatives thus enjoy,” writes Paul Waldman in Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success, “is a wide-ranging, multimedia apparatus that when tapped will vibrate like a gigantic tuning fork.”
Progressive media organizations, on the other hand, operate independently of each other. Thus, progressive media have not developed a “unified progressive narrative.” Progressives and Democrats must stop focusing on the usual scattershot policy proposals and work together to develop that narrative and bring it to public attention, say Clark and Van Slyke. Until the Big Guns in the Dem Party and progressive think tanks get involved and form real partnerships with progressive media and the leftie blogosphere, however, I am, um, skeptical we’re going to see real change anytime soon.
And there’s no time to lose. Peter Daou writes that we’ve reached a “watershed moment” in American media.
Anybody who watched Ann Coulter’s June 14th appearance on the Tonight Show had to realize that it was a watershed moment in the war between the establishment media and the progressive netroots, a community fresh off the successful YearlyKos convention. It was also a signal to Democrats that liberal ideology can be denigrated with impunity. Had the words “Jew” or “Christian” or “Conservative” been substituted for “Liberal” we’d be waking up to a national scandal….
… Careful not to violate Godwin’s Law, I’ll refrain from the obvious comparisons, but what we’re dealing with here is a dangerous inflection point in American politics. When this kind of opprobrium is peddled by major media outlets, it’s high time that the Democratic establishment and the larger progressive community understand that this is a make-or-break showdown with the media.
As Peter says, bloggers have been alone on the front lines of this fight for some time. Indeed, it was our frustration with media as well as with politics that got many of us into blogging. (My original inspiration for starting my own blog was the late, great Media Whores Online.) But we’re way outnumbered. We need the Democratic establishment and the larger progressive community to join us in this fight. As Jamison Foser writes, the media shape the way Americans understand issues and politics. An “MSM” that respects Ann Coulter’s twisted ravings as serious political discussion is not capable of fostering serious political discussion. The media establishment puts liberals at an extreme disadvantage, and it’s going to take a lot more than framing and talking points to overcome that disadvantage.
Just one example of How Weird Things Are — in today’s Washington Post, David Ignatius writes that there may be new “gravity” in the political center; “For a change,” he writes, “the extreme wings of the two parties aren’t calling the shots.” Hello? Which “extreme wing” of any left-wing party has been calling any shots? Show me the raving Marxists or anarchists whose voices are heard in mass media, who have won elected office, or who have any bleeping power at all in Washington or anywhere else in America?
I don't mean to endorse or denigrate raving Marxism and anarchism; I’m just saying that we liberals and most Democrats are “extreme” only in contrast to the extremism of the Right. Genuine left-wing extremism is marginalized even by most of the American Left. In truth, that part of the Left that has any political influence in America are moderates with feet firmly planted in historically mainstream political traditions. Ignatius sees a conflict between opposing political extremes. But the reality is that an aggressive right-wing extremism has appropriated media to slander, discredit and eliminate the moderate liberalism that used to be the center in saner times.
Like I said, it’s going to take a lot more than framing and talking points to win this fight. Peter Daou continues,
This latest Coulter incident should be a wake-up call to the larger progressive community and to the Democratic leadership. Parading Coulter on national television is a statement from the establishment media that we don’t matter, that our ‘pressure’ is meaningless, that our voices are worthless.
What’s the proper course of action in response to this challenge? For the netroots, it’s to keep growing and organizing, to hammer away at those in the media who enable the sliming of 9/11 widows, to respond to such media transgressions with ferocity of wit and will, and to badger elected Democrats and progressive leaders about the media problem.
I say we bloggers have the ferocity, wit, and will; what we need is amplification.
excellent points barbara
ReplyDeletei got so upset at one point i had to stop calling my senators amd representatives.all i wanted to do was send them tubes of ky jelly.
and that is not me.sad that i could get to that point.
i keep hoping there are many more fed up ex republicans like me out there.
enough to make a difference in november.
sigh
br3n
Hi Barbara. Just as something to chew on, while this Take Back America Conference was held in DC, the Young Democrats of America conference was held (intentionally) at the same time and place as Yearly Kos (I wasn't there myself, but I have a good friend who was). Which is to say, the current generation doesn't seem to "get it," but the next one, mine as it were, most certainly does.
ReplyDeleteAmplification is the correct term! We need a megaphone the size of Switzerland and we need to speak truth to this corrupt establishment. Amplification indeed!
ReplyDeleteThe blog community has to get serious and take the next step: get a team of marketing and financing together and develop the money potential in order to have the money to do what the rights have done. It is because of our philosophy of playing fair that we do not see the development of a comparable media system.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is the net is the new media. The reality is blogs like Kos are the big players. They are not trying to stop net neutrality only for the money flow that comes from thinking like a super market selling shelf space. They know that other than TV, the net will be the source for driving opinion. It is the only medium that simulate TV. It is radio, TV and print all in one.
The first reaction in a market by the dominate player to a rising competitive idea is to try to stop the rise. That will not work when the product is truly life changing as the net is. Next is to figure a way to minimize those who are at the top of the rising new idea. When that fails, the look to regulate it to their advantage and dominate it financially.
Don't kid your self, the big progressive blogs are a market threat. It is time for those at the top of these blogs to see it and leverage it.
What am I saying here? If the blog community got serious, we could see what we saw when AOL bought Time. Get it? It is time for the Blog community to get serious about the business aspect of blogging.
When Glenn asked about how to fund his work I sent him the following:
First, I have enjoyed your work. I like that you do more in depth, single issue focus work as oppose to being a "clearing house" of daily issues. With that, I would suggest that the model that would work for you is as a celebrity. It is a model that has not developed yet from the blog world. It is a natural consequence of the private sector economy when a new media develops.
You, having focused on what I interpret as a single issue of constitution application as it relates to the overall governance of our country are more positioned to be a celebrity of the blog world. Blog's like the Daily Kos, are more generic. They can develop sponsors, and advertisers as they are most similar to a network news system (radio, tv, paper). You, and other's however, seem to be developing more as the "analysis" or "expert" of the larger blog community. You are the Bill Moyers, John Stewart, Krugman component of the blog medium.
I see the blog world having to get serious about what it is. It is a media outlet. The larger more general blogs are going to have to expand their financing and the support of "stars" of the blog world such as people like yourself. They will have to also promote people like yourself for public speaking, presentations etc, just like the air and cable networks promote their news anchors and news magazine hosts.
Is there potential for big corp america to corrupt this? Yes. I'm sure the master minds behind CNN, FOX, MSMNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, AOL etc, all see this. However, if the blogs that are big now and independent form their own "co-op" corporation now, they will have sewn up this new media for now giving them a big jump on the development of it.
The blogs need to form financial alliances NOW! The obvious alliances are to work with like minded entities including in the different media. Thus, the big blogs need to work with Air America. I would also suggest working with Buy Blue as they are compiling a list of companies who donate primarily to liberal/progressive/Democrats so as to put out a list that consumers can support via purchase of their products. It seems only natural, that a large blog like Daily Kos could market them self to such companies for advertising by presenting a broad market made up of publishing that covers the gambit. Just like a network or news paper. Better yet, would be a corporation representing the current front runners (made up of a variety of the styles and presentations) of the leading blogs.
Hope you understand what I'm suggesting. The progressive blog world does not have to fear capitalism. Instead, they could use it to set an example of how to do socially/community responsible capitalism (if that does not seem like an oxymoron). I guess I harken back to the ideal that started Apple Records. Only, I have never been drunk or stoned.
Would someone please oh please stop referring to DKos and "progressive netroots" as though the former were part of the latter.
ReplyDeletePer Markos his-damn-self, DKos is not a progressive site, it's a Democratic site. Want proof? Go anywhere on DKos and mention the Green Party, or urge a Kossack to support a Green candidate. Then duck!
Kos doesn't care about getting progressives elected, he cares about getting Democrats elected. Period. Full stop. If the Dem in question happens to be a progressive: dandy. If not, that's fine too. As such, in Kos world, Dianne Feinstein equals God and Peter Camejo equals Devil.
DKos is not a part of the "progressive netroots." DKos is very simply the cool-kids' arm of the DNC, fighting for a more comfortable chair at the establishment table.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
(My original inspiration for starting my own blog was the late, great Media Whores Online.)
ReplyDeleteLord yes. What happened to them? They were the first progressive website I found when I first started surfing the internet in 2000, desperately searching for progressive content. Search term? Media Whores, of course.
The only solution to our problem is a massive BOYCOTT. Worked for the Civil Right movement; we are not too good for such tactics. Profit is the only thing they understand. MSM spouts right-wing memes because their politicians are hell bound to enact policies that protect and enrich them. Denying them slavish devotion by consumers should work just as well to pull them back from the lunatic fringe.
Oh yeah, remember their slogan?
ReplyDeleteWe set out to bring the corporate media to their knees, and found they were already there.
Or something similar.
It's time to bite the bullet and pull some money together and buy a cable TV station. Anyone willing to seriously start this will have my financial support. The blogs are great but fail to pull the same audience numbers as Right Wing Radio and FOX. Turn up the volume - lnstead of being, mocked, marginalized and left out of the conversation, let's get our message out directly and bypass the corporate filters.
ReplyDeleteBarbara:
ReplyDeleteInteresting as always...
A couple observations on your comments, if I may:
Progressive media organizations, on the other hand, operate independently of each other. Thus, progressive media have not developed a “unified progressive narrative.” Progressives and Democrats must stop focusing on the usual scattershot policy proposals and work together to develop that narrative and bring it to public attention, say Clark and Van Slyke.
We have a bingo!
The conservative movement developed a narrative between 1964 and 1980 which it has used to realign political power in this country.
In contrast, the Donkeys are divided between the center-left, which is willing to be Elephant-lite to maintain what power they have left, and your far left, which stands on the New Left narrative developed in the 60s and 70s. Essentially, the Donkeys are a divided minority which does not speak with one voice. See the House vote on Iraq today.
Until you take your own Party back, you have no chance whatsoever of pitching a narrative the national voters.
The Elephants were the same way from the end of WWII to 1980.
Anybody who watched Ann Coulter’s June 14th appearance on the Tonight Show had to realize that it was a watershed moment in the war between the establishment media and the progressive netroots, a community fresh off the successful YearlyKos convention. It was also a signal to Democrats that liberal ideology can be denigrated with impunity. Had the words “Jew” or “Christian” or “Conservative” been substituted for “Liberal” we’d be waking up to a national scandal….
… Careful not to violate Godwin’s Law, I’ll refrain from the obvious comparisons, but what we’re dealing with here is a dangerous inflection point in American politics. When this kind of opprobrium is peddled by major media outlets, it’s high time that the Democratic establishment and the larger progressive community understand that this is a make-or-break showdown with the media.
Barbara, the Tonight Show is a celebrity driven entertainment show, not the news. You folks should not be concerned that the Tonight show had a professional polemicist as a guest. Rather, you should be very concerned that she was getting big laughs from an audience in a deep blue city at the expense of your narrative.
That tells me that your narrative needs a great deal of selling, not just more volume.
gibbon:
ReplyDeleteEverything is relative.
America is currently a conservative country. Therefore a "leftist" relative to the center of political gravity in the US might be a "moderate" in some quasi socialist country like France.
The folks who went to these conferences and those who agree with them can label themselves anyway they want like self identifying as "progressives."
However, they are only fooling themselves, if they think they represent mainstream politics in this country. The need to do a great deal of selling to get to that point.
Funny, you say
ReplyDeleteI say we bloggers have the ferocity, wit, and will...
And them proclaim that all is missing is amplification...
Where do REAL progressive and liberal issues fit into the equation?
The left has historically been defined by the voice it gave working families. The socio-economic policies on the right represent nothing less than an economic war against working Americans, families, and children.
Reports from Yearly Kos state that sessions on PLAMEGATE and the like were well attended, but labor issues were barely represented and few bloggers attended those.
We need a message that does not just pick and choose what criminality is "fair game" and what cannot be discussed.
We also need a dialog that is more than snark and "see how bad they are."
Issues that actually share a vision and hope for most Americans are sadly lacking.
Some will deny this and flame me for posting it, guess that's just more of the ...ferocity, wit, and will.
Real change will require building coalitions across diverse groups and giving them more of a reason to go out to the polls.
Kos is just a disgruntled republican, so is americablog. These people have done good things with their work, but proclaiming they, artios, FDL, and the usual crowd represent the "core" of liberalism/progressive ideas is a lie.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. All this blogospheric discussion in the past few weeks of “Libertarian Democrats,” Kos getting together to talk with Cato & etc., and prospective alliances, has been intriguing, and it may still all work out to a fruitful, if temporary coalition. But apparently Reason’s David Weigel was also at the Take Back America conference, and he’s not heartened.
ReplyDeleteShooter, the message may be incorrect since Liberals are not pandering to bigots, fundamentalists, racists, and illiterates.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, can you post of picture of your tin foil hat from yearly KOS??
ReplyDeleteI read the tin foil hat competition was the highlight of the convention.
Says the "Dog"
We need to go viral. We need hundreds of MicroKOSm's all around the country on July 4th to show that we are here, we are together and we are strong.
ReplyDeleteAt Kos, you can't talk about stolen elections or 9/11- a complete ban on CT posts.
ReplyDeleteAravosis likes to flame and ban his commenters.
Other liberal sites could care less about stolen elections and net neutrality; at times, if you vary even a little from the cw of the site, you might get deleted or called a litany of viscious names. I mean, the uzi's come out and you are made to feel ashamed you ever timidly raised your hand in the place.
I know is's worse at freeper sites, but come ON. Are we going to allow ourselves to devolve into that? What is the purpose of being progressive if not to foster free speech? I'm glad Glenn and his guest posters don't do those sorts of things.
Just my .02
Why is nobody who is left of the extreme right talking about Unity '08 (http://unity08.com/)? That appears to be a place where the rest of us might find a home and a political reason for being involved in the 2008 Presidential election. Moderate Republicans and progressive Democrats have been left without a home by both parties.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said (with a straight face no doubt):
ReplyDeleteShooter, the message may be incorrect since Liberals are not pandering to bigots, fundamentalists, racists, and illiterates.
Its difficult to type a reply while I'm laughing so hysterically at this completely clueless person's revelation of just how much self knowledge he fails to possess.
Liberals most certainly pander to:
1. The heterosexual hating bigots of the far left and radical gay movements.
2. The racist and race baiting organizations such as the democratic party itself, the NAACP, the black congressional caucus, Al Sharpton, the Rev. Fharakkan, Jesse, Jackson, Rep. Maxine Waters (CA), etc.
3. The fundamentalist wacko's of the environmentalist terrorist movements, the fundamentalist wacko's of the trade and teacher's unions, and the fundamentalists of the atheist and secular humanism movements.
4. Finally, the real hysterical topper. The claim that the democrats don't pander to illiterates when in fact that is the *BASE* of the democratic party. Illiterate and barely literate, uneducated, and non-english speaking or writing special interest groups on welfare, medicaid, and every other free lunch program in the states is the BASE of the democratic party. Its not republicans busing illiterate homeless people into Wisconsin and Minnesota from other states, with a carton of cigarettes and a bottle of booze to buy their illegal votes in various federal elections. That's the democrats moving their illiterate base around to commit felonies on their behalf.
In fact, if it wasn't for illiterate block voting groups the democrats couldn't get any candidate elected dog catcher must less to congress or the presidency.
Its got to make one laugh out loud the profound stupidity of failing to know your own democratic base, because the alternative would just be so sad for someone so clueless and out of touch with reality and self-knowledge of the groups which they support and belong.
Says the "Dog"
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteBart: However, they are only fooling themselves, if they think they represent mainstream politics in this country. The need to do a great deal of selling to get to that point.
In the spectrum of American history we do represent mainstream politics. Progressivism in America was much stronger and more influential in days long past. We seem out of whack because the nation has moved further and further right, especially in the past 30 years. This is about as far right as it has ever been, I believe.
You need to define what you mean by "progressive" for me.
The current leftists have relabeled themselves as "progressives" as a largely meaningless marketing term.
Their template is still largely that of the "New Left" departure from the New Deal narrative during Vietnam. The American New Left is very similar to the European left - Isolationist, anti-military and supporters of the quasi-socialist economic management model. This template has very little to do with the Progressives of the turn of the century or the later New Deal models.
Also, a great many polls have shown that on individual issue after issue a majority of Americans are way left of the Right and are more closely in tune with Dems than Republicans, even though the Right hogs the media and wins elections.
People lie to pollsters all the time and tell them what they think they want to hear.
The only polls that count are elections and, in those polls, conservatism wins consistently everywhere outside of the urban areas.
The philosophy of the New Left elected a radical Congress in 1974, but was largely relegated to the sidelines since 1980.
bart said...
ReplyDeletegibbon:
Everything is relative.
America is currently a conservative country. Therefore a "leftist" relative to the center of political gravity in the US might be a "moderate" in some quasi socialist country like France.
Switzerland is a conservative country. Bart believes his own bullshit and [d]on't be deceived by the polls: The "median voter" is more of a liberal than you may realize.
>Shooter242 said...
Sorry Babarba, it's not the medium that's the problem it's the message.
What a clown.
Shooter misquoting McCluhan.
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteYou need to define what you mean by "progressive" for me.
As a rule, when I write you can assume I'm using standard dictionary definitions unless I say otherwise. But I'll stipulate that I'm going by definition #3 in the American Heritage Dictionary:
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
And in case you need "liberalism" looked up for you, too:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Are we all clear now?
As clear as the mud on the bottom of a Turkish coffee. Now I can see why you folks need to work on a narrative.
Let's take this definition as an example:
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods
What in the heck is that supposed to mean?
Barbara, get serious. What ideas and methods do you propose to bring about what kind of conditions?
For example, the modern conservative narrative is pro military, free markets, pro life, traditional morals and allegedly smaller government.
What does a "progressive" stand for IYHO?
America actually had a Progressive Era and a Progressive Party that was reasonably successful as American third parties go. These things happened way before the New Left, though, so if you think American History dates from the 1960s you will have missed them.
We are talking about where the left is today, not a century ago. If you haven't noticed, things have moved on a bit.
One of today's most conservative jurists, Robert Bork, is one also one of the leading theoreticians on anti-trust laws enacted during the "progressive era." We are no longer debating anti-trust, food inspections and child labor laws - these are long pas part of the accepted society.
What does "progressivism" stand for now?
Paul Rosenberg,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to try and reply, here...
"Uh, Patrick, long before their was a Green Party in California, I was a grassroots Green activist, a member of the Westside Greens, living in Venice, who helped put on a series of forums in Santa Monica that drew hundreds of people from all over back in 1989-1990... I tried mightily and repeatedly to recruit Greens to get involved in some actual bona-fide realworld political activism... all to no avail."
I'm sorry to hear that, Paul, but that predates my residence in the state of California, and it predates my membership in the Green Party. As such, I can't personally answer for the Venice-area Greens' lack of response to your cause.
Though I do happen to live in Venice now, almost all of my own personal Green Party work has been spent with the Los Angeles Greens, out on the streets doing things like supporting LAANE's worker organizing at hotels around L.A., on Century Blvd., and in Burbank. We were also active (again, on the ground) with the attempt to save the South Central Farm. And, occaisionally, the Los Angeles Greens try and help actual L.A.-area Green activists (like Denise Robb) get elected over squishy not-so-progressive Dems (like Tom LaBonge).
Want us to do more than that, Paul? Come help us! We meet the third Wednesday of each month at the L.A. Peace Center (near Crescent Heights and 3rd).
"(Greens) are, in fact, every bit as insular as the Dems--if not, in some respects, moreso."
Hmm. Well, unlike the Dems, at least the Green Party does not contest the Democratic Party's very right to exist. So there's that. Also, as regards Green insularity, most every Green that I personally know still actively (ACTIVELY!) works to support progressive Democratic candidates when they arise (we were all over the Marcy Winograd and Kelly Hayes-Raitt campaigns, for example). And I'm not talking about a sublime nod of support toward progressive Democratic candidates. I mean, we Greens donate hours and hours of our time and effort (and what little money we can spare) to progressive Democratic candidates (many of whom are privately eager to have our campaign support, but publicly treat us Greens volunteers like the bastard children that they can never speak of around other Dems).
Contrast the above to the reception we Greens receive from Democrats like Markos and his minions when we promote a Green candidate, and I have a tough time seeing how Greens are somehow more insular than Dems.
Perhaps you could elucidate, Paul, and maybe use an example more recent than what happened to you 16 years ago.
"So you don't like that DKos is a pro-Democratic Party site. Fine. But that doesn't mean it's not a progressive site, and not part of the progressive blogosphere. It's not up to you to define what is or isn't part of the progressive blogosphere."
You're absolutely right. But it IS up to Markos to define whether or not his site is a progressive site, and he, himself, says that it is not.
From the man himself:
"This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory."
So how can a website that says that it's not a liberal website be part of the liberal blogosphere?
I'm not being coy, I genuinely don't get it. They SAY they're not liberal. And they'll back a conservative Dem over a liberal Green every single time. So what, exactly, makes it liberal?!
"And you still owe me 4 hours of sweat time, walking the streets of Oakwood."
Well, in the past 3 months I spent, literally, dozens of hours walking the streets of Oakwood for Marcy Winograd (a Democrat). Does that count for anything? Or is that, somehow, insular in some way?
Looking forward to your reply, Paul.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA (in the Oakwood District... Flower and 7th).
"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
ReplyDeleteWill Rogers
Barbara, Very timely post. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI am reposting some remarks I have made at this blog about this issue during the last week or so:
There are some major assumptions in your posting that bear discussion:
1) What motivates the MSM to pass on stories like this? The answer might seem to relate to who has authroity to speak about issues of interest. Since the MSM finds itself incapable of answering these questions in and by themselves, they have to resort to stories about character, which by itself indicates that the a person is telling the truth.
2) How the news is packaged. The press makes itself useful by purveying news in neatly discrete packages that appeal to the limited information-seeking time of the electorate. It's much easier to dwell on personal, feel-good stories than it is on the difficult questions of global warming, etc.
3) The power of the blogosphere is not as ubiquitous or infleuntial as many here assume. The internet--for most people--is still the arena of pedophiles, oceans of garbage-data, and people out to steal personal information. Until the blogosphere can attain some form of influence beyond the stereotypes, any information emanating from it will remain suspect.
The answers to these questions originate in remebering the bogus framework that informs all contemporary political debate. The Right has been successful in "framing" political dialog for the last 20 years or so.
The Right has created a convenient filtering system which parses out reality and political questions so that they can then be fed in easily digestible bits to an information-hungry public.
The conventional wisdom among political scientists and campaign consultants is that voters tend toward the center--however that is defined. But the question is, who gets to define the extremes? and what are their agendas? And would voters always vote for the so-called "center" if the issues were really debated?
As many know, the tools of modern political consulting include polling, focus groups, and grassroots networking from the top (also called "astroturfing"). These tools enable political operatives to form their campaigns around simple wedge issues that are then packaged into visually stimulating and provocative bits of "real" information. In this way, a voter decides their vote not on a reasoned understanding of issues but merely a visceral, gut reaction to artfully constructed stimuli devised by politicos adept at manipulating emotions.
The blogosphere--if it's to gain any influence in the political world--has several options open to it. It can 1) serve as a forum for free and open discussion that undermines the think-tank hegemony, 2) freely and honestly debate issues without the prevailing filtering system consstructed by the prevailing political interests, 3) act as a conduit for information that bypasses the filtering processes imposed by the MSM.
Whether the blogosphere can successfully change politics will depend on how well it gains influence within 1) the political establishment and 2) the general public.
The political establishment is wary of the blogosphere because there's some question about the linkage between it and real voters. Does the blogosphere represent or reach into the motivating factors that get people to the polls? Does it represent public opinion? Unfortunately, the politicos will decide this question as they always do: with polls and focus groups.
Gaining influence with the public is questionable itself. While more and more people are gaining access to the Internet, the informational diet has been even more restricted by the way that people filter information.
Much of this seems to offer the hope of a technical adjustment to fix the problems. I suggest that this is just one more superficial fix. The problem is much more fundamental. It gets into the "vocabulary" and "grammar" of the concepts and meanings that inform the political landscape.
This is commonly known as culture; obviously, the Right has been more adept at controlling and manipulating the culural values and imagery than has the Left. By doing so, it can then gain ground on the much more practical field of political operations and electioneering.
All in all, then, those who wish to change the political landscape must begin to address the most fundamental questions that humans face as human beings. Until an alternative cultural vocabulary and grammar can find its way into the hearts and minds of everyday voters, the Right's filtering system will continue to amass votes and structure politics in this country.
DavidBryon said:
ReplyDeleteand still tries to deny that 2000 and 2004 were stolen.
Given this statement, one would be lead to the conclusion that the definition of progressive is "continually deluded and devoid of reality".
Usually only the illiterate and small children are deny reality when it doesn't suit their predominantly id based world view. Now I see "progressives" joins this same category according to DavidBryon.
Says the "Dog"
Dogshit...As clear as the mud on the bottom of a Turkish coffee. Now I can see why you folks need to work on a narrative.
ReplyDeleteYou work on a narrative, that's all you clowns do. We don't do narratives. History is our narrative and history shows to all that we govern better. You guys write good slogans and bumper stickers. All fiction.
It pains me deep to my very soul to type these words, but here they go: Bart is right.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, Bart is right about the left's failure (thusfar) to define what "progressive" means. Sorry, Barbara, but the dictionary ("favoring progress toward better conditions") is just not very helpful today. Heck, even Fred Phelps believes he's favoring progress toward better conditions.
So what to say instead?
Well, not to shill for the Greens too frequently in one single blogthread, but the Green Party summarizes its own platform in four single planks that I think can be very useful as a baseline for all progressives:
*social justice
*nonviolence
*grassroots democracy
*ecological wisdom
Regardless of we progressives' respective party affiliations or media orientations, I think it'd help us to present the progressive philosophy as one which prioritizes social justice, nonviolence, grassroots democracy, and ecological wisdom.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Dogshit...Given this statement, one would be lead to the conclusion that the definition of progressive is "continually deluded and devoid of reality".
ReplyDeleteConservatives want to roll back the clock as far as it will go, way past FDR's New Deal and into the 19th century and the days of the robber barons. Progressives just want to get us back to 1948 and Henry Wallace.
The United States Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party in the 1912 election. It was formed by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention.
The United States Progressive Party of 1924 was a national ticket created by Robert M. La Follette, Sr. to run for president. It did not nominate candidates for other offices, carried only Wisconsin, and vanished after the election. La Follette had created the "Progressive" faction inside the Republican Party of Wisconsin in 1900. In 1912 he attempted to create a Progressive Party but lost control to Theodore Roosevelt, who became his bitter enemy.
The United States Progressive Party of 1948 was a political party that ran former Vice President Henry A. Wallace of Iowa for president and U.S. Senator Glen H. Taylor of Idaho for vice president in 1948.
This incarnation of the Progressive Party (known in some states as the Independent Progressive Party) was formed with an eye toward electing Wallace as president. It had no connection with the 1912 Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt or the 1924 Progressive Party of Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The Wallace/Taylor ticket was also supported by several other small parties, such as the American Labor Party (ALP) of New York.
The United States Progressive Party of 1948 was a political party that ran former Vice President Henry A. Wallace of Iowa for president and U.S. Senator Glen H. Taylor of Idaho for vice president in 1948.
This incarnation of the Progressive Party (known in some states as the Independent Progressive Party) was formed with an eye toward electing Wallace as president. It had no connection with the 1912 Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt or the 1924 Progressive Party of Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The Wallace/Taylor ticket was also supported by several other small parties, such as the American Labor Party (ALP) of New York.
Read about Wallace and the Progressive Party of 1948, Barbara.
ReplyDeleteRead everything you can about Henry Wallace.
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteWhat does a "progressive" stand for IYHO?
The same thing it always did in America -- people using representative government to bring about improvement in their standard of living. Exactly how that translates into policy changes over time, but the principle remains.
OK, I believe that improving peoples' standard of living is best accomplished when the government limits itself to enforcing contracts, promoting business transparency, keeping marginal tax rates low and enforcing criminal law barring theft and fraud.
New Leftists believe that government should regulate and direct nearly every aspect of business they find objectionable.
Are we both "progressives" because we agree with the general proposition that government can be of some use in improving peoples' standard of living?
If you want a narrative, you have to insert some actual concrete policies, not just a meta theme of doing good for the world.
Where is the beef? asks the steer to the tasteless, formless tofu?
Barf... If you want a narrative, you have to insert some actual concrete policies, not just a meta theme of doing good for the world.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of incompetent and corrupt politicians of any party. Seems like more Republicans will go than any other party.
Narratives are for people who have control of the megaphone. In the old Soviet Union, Samizdat managed without the megaphone. Blogs are the new Samizdat. Ram your narrative up your ass.
"That's fine, but progressives of a century ago favored equivalent issues... progressivism doesn't have to be re-invented every decade. The values of progressivism are reasonably consistent over time."
ReplyDeleteQuite true, and I'd submit that those values, over time, have simply been variations of the four I've submitted above: social justice, nonviolence, grassroots democracy, and ecological wisdom.
"I'd delete "grassroots" from "democracy"; real democracy includes grassroots."
Decent point. Thing is, our modern-day version of "democracy" is, for the most part, simply a dance of marionettes being controlled by big-money interests. Very little of it is recognizable as a form of what we'd classically define as democracy. Yet most every American believes we live in one. As such, the word "grassroots" calls attention to the fact that what we currently think of "democracy" isn't real democracy, and that the fix comes in returning electoral power to the average voter, rather than the large donor.
"And I'd add "economic justice" in there somewhere; protection of workers from exploitation, reasonable minimum wage laws, securities regulations, saving Social Security, that sort of thing."
To my mind, every single one of those items (with the possible exception of securities regulations) fits very comfortably under the rubric of social justice. Fair pay and decent conditions for workers are both matters of social justice. So is ensuring that our nation's elderly don't starve.
Truthfully, I've always felt that social justice and economic justice were one and the same. This is one reason why the centrist's saw of "social liberal but economic conservative" never made sense to me. How can someone favor dismantling the safety net preventing a child in our nation from starving, or preventing sick persons in our nation from recieving medical care they need but can't afford and still call him/herself, in any way, a "liberal"?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Great post, Barbara. I've been meaning to post about some of these issues and haven't yet. I'm glad you did.
ReplyDeletePATRICK MEIGHAN SAID: Kos doesn't care about getting progressives elected, he cares about getting Democrats elected.
I don't disagree with you, but how do you explain Kos' vigorous support for Lamont over Liberman, and his equally vigorous support for primary challengers to Democratic incumbants who seem more interested in supporting the Bush administration than their party?
Kos has as his primary goal the promotion of the Democratic Party, but I think it's unfair, and inaccurate, to say that it's his only goal.
Barbara:
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, "progressivism" IYHO is government controlling the markets to redistribute wealth for the common good.
This already has a name - socialism.
In a nutshell, "progressivism" IYHO is government controlling the markets to redistribute wealth for the common good.
ReplyDeleteThis already has a name - socialism.
By these standards (one I agree with, btw), when one factors in inflation and our record debts, the current Republican party is the most reactionary and socialist yet in America.
It's no surprise that someone like bart supports it wholeheartedly.
Do you genuinely oppose socialism?
Or do you only oppose it when it supports programs you dislike?
glenn sez: "how do you explain Kos' vigorous support for Lamont over Liberman, and his equally vigorous support for primary challengers to Democratic incumbants who seem more interested in supporting the Bush administration than their party?"
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
I think Kos's interest in targeting Lieberman lays in Lieberman's frequent and vocal support for Bush. In Kos's world, the worst thing a Democrat can do is lose an election (witness his recent and sudden Peter-like denial of Busby, after months of being the Busby bandleader). But the SECOND worst thing a Democrat can do is provide visible, substantive aid and comfort to the Republicans in general, and Bush in particular. That's why Lieberman has to go. NOT because Lieberman's not progressive enough, per se, but because Lieberman's said "I support the president" a few too many times. If Lieberman had done like Hilary Clinton and simply voted repeatedly for Bush's war, and the Patriot Act, and all the rest, all while keeping relatively mum about his support for Bush, then Kos would be just as silent now about Ned Lamont as he is about Jonathan Tasini.
[P.S.: The THIRD worst thing a Democrat can do is provide aid and comfort to Greens. That's why Cindy Sheehan (who has endorsed Greens as well as many many Democrats) is persona non grata in the DailyKos world.]
And, as to Kos's "equally vigorous support for primary challengers to Democratic incumbants", exactly which challengers are you referring to? I count exactly two: Lamont and Ciro Rodriguez (a challenger to Henry Cuellar who committed the same crime as Lieberman: being too chummy with the president). That's two. Are there any others I missed?
I know, for example, that Markos did provide one meager ounce of assistance to Blue Dog, DLC Jane Harman's progressive challenger: Marcy Winograd. Nothing. Now, Glenn, you and I *both* know how dearly Jane Harman needed to be challenged because of, among other things, her support of this president's policies regarding illegal eavesdropping. And we both know that a word or two from Markos could've meant many thousands and thousands of dollars into Marcy Winograd's coffers (dollars which could've significantly improved the 38% showing Marcy managed to pull in on June 6th). So where was Markos when a progressive was in need? Did Markos so much as mention Marcy Winograd even once? No. Despite Marcy's very visible presence on Markos's own blog, and despite Marcy's clear progressive bona fides (certainly relative to Jane Harman), Markos ignored Marcy Winograd, to Winograd's great detriment. This does not speak well of Markos's great support for progressive change.
"Kos has as his primary goal the promotion of the Democratic Party, but I think it's unfair, and inaccurate, to say that it's his only goal."
Well, Glenn, it IS the ONLY goal of Kos's blog, by his own words. And his blog is, by far, the most effective and powerful tool Markos has at his command.
b o'b: Progressives generally aren't all that interested in "controlling" markets for the sake of controlling markets. That's a bugaboo of the Right.
ReplyDeleteThe Right is interested in controlling the markets for ... Big Buisness--not to mention bailing out banks, car makers, airlines, etc. etc.
According to Yahoo:
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Rove answered the attacks from the left-wing blogosphere:
"The Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger -- hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and Conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent."
And we all know how Bushco leads the party of peace and love. I mean, MG, Rove himself will be sainted before he dies by the Religious Right for his church militant pacifism.
You say that it is going to take more than framing and talking points. The problem is that there has been NO framing from the Democrats. They continually let the Republican spin machine frame the issues and never, never take the ball and move it to another court. STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME. Today, the same damn thing, the vote on Iraq. The Dems should have walked and called a press conference or chained themselves to the fence in front of the White House, for Christ's sake, but no, they let the Republicans frame the issue again. They are going to lose in November and in 2008 if they don't get their freaking act together. I have lost patience.
ReplyDeleteThat's what distinguishes us from righties. If you want to belong to an ideological Borg collective, then join the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe right is not ideologically pure or remotely homogeneous. They have brought together a very diverse coalition of dominionists, social regressives, plutocrats, corporatists, racists, nativists and pretty much every other hate group you can think of. What unites them is the desire for power, the willingness to do anything to get it and their seething hatred of anyone who gets in their way. They have abandoned all semblance of principle other than winning at all costs and by any means. What happens when they think they have achieved this goal and start fighting amongst themselves for control is anyone's guess, but it will be bad no matter who wins. We may be seeing the first signs of this already as the dominionists are no longer satisfied with empty gestures like the half-hearted attempt to codify persecution in the constitution and actually want Republicans to deliver on their promises to roll back the clock to the dark ages. The nativists are also furious at the dear leader for 'surrendering' to business interests and allowing the brown menace to soil the Aryan homeland.
The point is that by agreeing to put aside their different goals and anything they might have at one time considered principles for the sake of achieving power and destroying their common enemy: liberals and their ideals, they have become an utterly ruthless, relentless and extremely effective force. They march in lock step and all resistance is irrelevant. That is what we are up against. We are trying to find a way to resist and take back power while keeping our principles, but our opponents considers principles only weaknesses to be exploited.
The problem is that there has been NO framing from the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteHoward Dean seems to be one of the few Democrats who understands this concept at all and is willing to call bullshit on right-wing frames and questions loaded with right-wing value judgements. That is probably why he is the target of so much 'far left' rhetoric. Reasonable, respectable Democrats know they are supposed to play by the rules and keep the discussion within the lines drawn by the right, where only their values will fit.
PATRICK SAID: Well, Glenn, it IS the ONLY goal of Kos's blog, by his own words.
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points and I will concede that Kos' support for Lieberman and Rodriguez is probably more accurately described by what you said than what I said (i.e., that it was motivated by a desire to punish disloyal Democrats, not to punish insufficiently progressive Democrats). And just by the way, I believe that Markos also recently supported Tester in Montana in his primary challenge and Webb in Virginia, though not actively.
I think Markos and others like him would say that if you start considering Hillary Clinton too "conservative" or Rightist to be pure enough to be a "Democrat," you will basically define the Democratic Party out of existence, at least in terms of having any meaningful prospect of ever winning a national election. So (without purporting to speak for him - this is only my speculation), Markos is willing to live with candidates who have positions with which he disagrees, even on the big issues (Markos is anti-war and Hillary isn't), as long as they don't start actively supporting Republicans. I realize that is consistent with the point you originally made, but I also think there's a formidible argument to be made there.
A Democratic takeover in the House will require supporting candidates whom are far from progressive, but that will have the effect of elevating John Conyers (and others you would consider progressive) to Committee Chairs with subpoena power, and that is a deal man€y Democrats are willing to make. By contrast, waging war on the Hillary Clintons in the party, or even just abandoning them, will ensure that the Conyers of the world remain powerless ranking members.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteKos is not antiwar. Not even close.
ReplyDeleteHe was opposed to the invasion, thought it was dumb and still does, and believes there was and is no justification for our occupation of that country. That means, by any rational measurement, that he is "anti-war."
The fact that someone doesn't run around accusing U.S. soliders of being vicious murderers and screetching that the U.S. is the New Nazi Germany and the root of all evil doesn't preclude them from being anti-war. In other words, you can be opposed to the war without being an American-hating communist idiot.
While I think the following comments are a bit too moderate in their formulation for my own taste, it does reflect the kind of "thinking outside the box" that the opposition to the Bushco/liberal communist junta should start.
ReplyDeleteCharles V. Pena writes:
The key to winning the war on terrorism, then, is not a liberal internationalist version of neoconservatism or going back to the future by applying Truman anti-totalitarian liberalism against the radical Islamic threat. Rather, what is required is a real overhaul of U.S. foreign and national security policy based on an understanding that U.S. interventionism is a root cause of anti-American resentment in the Muslim world -- which breeds hatred and becomes a steppingstone to violence, including terrorism. Accordingly, the guiding principle for U.S. policy should be to stop meddling in the internal affairs of countries and regions around the world, except when they directly threaten U.S. national security interests -- i.e., when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk. This is especially true in the Middle East and Muslim world.
Barbara,
ReplyDelete"tip-toeing through the minefield of conservative media infrastructure to, maybe, deliver the Democratic Party sales pitch"
You have all the attention you could ask for right here, but you spend must of your time complaining about how effective the Right is at using the media to get their message to the public, instead of using the opportunity to deliver the Democrat message [whatever that is...] to this blogs readers. How lame is that?
BTW, what is the Democratic Party sales pitch anyway?
... And how come we hear about the following information in the MSM?
ReplyDeleteThe Chronicle of Higher Education reports:
This broad-based and even global acclaim for higher education in the United States is strangely at odds with the concentrated political attacks that Cole warns us about and that the academy is currently experiencing. It is particularly out of step with the dark and dysfunctional picture of the academy painted by David Horowitz and his Center for the Study of Popular Culture. If Horowitz were simply a disaffected political crank, as many have hitherto regarded him, then his views on the academy could be easily dismissed. Such dismissal would seem to be all the more in order following his disastrous testimony before the legislative subcommittee in Pennsylvania in which he was forced to recant as unsubstantiated several of the cases that he had been widely circulating as documentation of alleged malfeasance in the academy.
Oddly, however, his campaign goes on. Horowitz, with assistance from Karl Rove and the former House majority whip, Tom DeLay, has briefed Republican members of Congress on his Academic Bill of Rights campaign and DeLay has even distributed copies of Horowitz’s political primer The Art of Political Warfare: How Republicans Can Fight to Win to all Republican members of Congress. Rove refers to Horowitz’s pamphlet as “a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield.”
Read Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech sometime; makes you realize we haven't accomplished all that much since then. We're still fighting the same fights.
ReplyDeleteOr read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and then read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation.
Didn't we learn anything from the Native American struggle? The Irquois Nation was a last ditch effort to band tribes to fight the white man. If the original 500 Tribes had banded together in the beginning there is no doubt who would have won. "Progressives and Democrats must stop focusing on the usual scattershot policy proposals and work together to develop that narrative and bring it to public attention, say Clark and Van Slyke."
ReplyDeleteErin- The fact that someone doesn't run around accusing U.S. soliders of being vicious murderers and screetching that the U.S. is the New Nazi Germany and the root of all evil doesn't preclude them from being anti-war. In other words, you can be opposed to the war without being an American-hating communist idiot.
ReplyDeleteKos was a Republican once. He is not anti-war, nor does he profess non-violence, far from it. Neither do I. Perhaps that's why neither of us have any use for the Greens. If they would just chuck the non-violence, they would be more acceptable to most Americans. Americans don't want to be empire building bullies, but will use force and violence when neceassary, and there are more than a few instances of some U.S. soldiers being vicious murderers in every war we have ever fought. Communists aren't especially idiots any more than capitalists are. Probably less. Both are "government programs" and once you get past TR's jingoism I suppose his concern with the environment and conservationism and trust-busting were good but he was an empire building bully.
Read Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech sometime; makes you realize we haven't accomplished all that much since then. We're still fighting the same fights.
"A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as crabgrass springs from suburban lawns. Rather, it is a complex creation of laws and mores... Capitalism is a government program."
George Will, This Week with Sam Donaldson, Jan. 13, 2002
BTW, what is the Democratic Party sales pitch anyway?
ReplyDelete"We suck less."
It's a return to the good old days of regulated and measured honesty in advertising that you no longer see, as opposed to the GOP's sales pitches which has promised you that larger penis you have always wanted, in pill form, or the ability to leg press 2000 pounds if you drink a Pat Robertson 700 Club Protein Wisdom Bible shake. How's that "Small gubmint" sales pitch coming?
"The Art of Political Warfare"
ReplyDeletePolitics is war carried on by other means. It's definitely a contact sport and always has been in this country. It used to involve duels that put lead in Zell Miller's pencil. Zell was a Democrat after all, not like that Bob Dole guy, who used Viagra.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteb o'b: Progressives generally aren't all that interested in "controlling" markets for the sake of controlling markets. That's a bugaboo of the Right.
The Right is interested in controlling the markets for ... Big Buisness--not to mention bailing out banks, car makers, airlines, etc. etc.
6:26 PM
Barbara O'Brien said...
The Right is interested in controlling the markets for ... Big Buisness--not to mention bailing out banks, car makers, airlines, etc. etc.
Amen!
"Populism is the simple premise that markets need to be restrained by society and by a democratic political system. We are not socialists or communists, we are proponents of regulated capitalism and, I might add, people who have read American history."
Molly Ivins, May 30, 2002
The Right is interested in controlling the markets for ... Big Buisness--not to mention bailing out banks, car makers, airlines, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteThe Conservative Nanny State
How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer
by Dean Baker
D.B. - By the way why are Americans always so rude? Why is ad hominem so "American"?
ReplyDeleteBo'B... Glenn is much more indulgent than I am for not banning you. You'd last about ten seconds on my blog. I'm into group harmony and reasoned discussion. You can disagree with anyone you like, but anyone who gets nasty or belligerent is outtathere.
Rule of thumb: If you weren't born with smarts, you should at least be pleasant.
I thought you were a history buff. Rule of thumb comes from the unwritten rule that a man may beat his wife with a stick no larger in diameter than his own thumb. I don't mind rudeness, insults or even profanity. I rather enjoy it. When they start waving sticks and tossing stones I reach for my gun.
"The price of liberty is, in addition to eternal vigilance, eternal patience with the vacuous blather occasionally expressed from behind the shield of free speech."
Michael Shermer, in Scientific American, June 2001 pg.37
As a revived liberal/progressive, what have you, I've become more and more active since I attended a conference on Poverty in America at NYU in the summer of 2004. Summer, 2005, I went to my first Take Back America conference and loved every minute of it. Bloggers were given a prominent place right in front of the stairs, and I met several of them, Avrosis, Atrios, Oliver Willis, just to name three. I shook hands, thanked them for what they had contributed, and told them how important their contributions were.
ReplyDeleteThis year I went to Take Back America again. The bloggers had been moved into the exhibit hall and had been given roughly twice the space as they had been given the year before. I think that there was room for 20 - 25 to blog simultaneously. Most of the time, most of the stations were unoccupied. Most of the bloggers I met the year previously were conspicuous by their absence. I did meet the writers of some blogs I had not met before...Suburban Guerilla, Mahablog, Velvetrevolution, and I
"think" I saw Atrios very briefly, but not with a notebook at hand. But the "biggies" were conspicuous by their absence, generally, and for that I blame YearlyKos. Why in heaven's name hold it when and where it was held? Take Back America is the senior conference, and has been very consistent in time in which it was held. Why butt Yearly Kos up against it? Which is more important, bloggers talking to each other, or bloggers talking to the rest of us? There are 12 weeks of summer. I have to think Kos chose the week he did primarily to challenge Take Back America, hype his own ego, or both.
Barbara, you mentioned viewing Take Back America through a veil of exhaustion. By the time the panel convened by Glenn Greenwald's panel convened so was I (yes, I was in that room, too). I had been in political meetings from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. non-stop for two days, rushing late from one to try to find a seat in the other, and using the breaks between to bankrupt myself buying books (you know, one of the old media). (I bought Glenn's book and have the autograph to prove it).
The "other" new media, progressive talk radio was in attendance in conspicuous numbers. They occupied the area occupied by bloggers the year before, attendees swarmed around them thanking them for their work. A few had been there in 2005: many more were there in 2006.
Josh: There were plenty of Young Progressives at Take Back America as well... and these were integrated with old coots like myself, welcomed with open arms, and trained in the nuts and bolts of political operation. They're primed to do something in 2006 and beyond. These young men and women, already active in groups like Acorn, http://acorn.org/ as as much a representative of "your" generation, and they fully get it...perhaps more fully than the self-congratulatory group out in Vegas does.
The principle of laissez-faire may be safely trusted to in some things but in many more it is wholly inapplicable; and to appeal to it on all occasions savors more of the policy of a parrot than of a statesman or a philosopher.
ReplyDeleteJ. R. McCulloch, 1848
I'll start financially supporting Dems, Bloggers, Independents and Progressives when they become a cohesive force. What makes the Republicans so united? Stupid ideas. I'm sure we can unite over a couple smart ideas like no unnecessary costly wars & strengthening the dwindling middle class or the new poor.
ReplyDeleteThanks to David Byron for correcting my inaccuracies. However, if all 500 Native American Tribes banded together they would have wupped the Brits and the Americans. It seems Dave completely missed my point in haste to correct my mistake. Maybe this is part of our problem, being too sophisticated.
ReplyDeleteshorter bart: anyone who is against the Republican party is a "leftist."
ReplyDeleteprunes said...
ReplyDeleteBart: In a nutshell, "progressivism" IYHO is government controlling the markets to redistribute wealth for the common good. This already has a name - socialism.
By these standards (one I agree with, btw), when one factors in inflation and our record debts, the current Republican party is the most reactionary and socialist yet in America.
Huh? How is demand driven gas price inflation and government borrowing the equivalent government controlling the markets to redistribute wealth for the common good?
It's no surprise that someone like bart supports it wholeheartedly.
I have opposed the entire Bush domestic spending spree. I laugh when I hear you folks call Bush a conservative.
Anon embarrasses itself by admonishing Barbara: I thought you were a history buff. Rule of thumb comes from the unwritten rule that a man may beat his wife with a stick no larger in diameter than his own thumb.
ReplyDeleteBy him/herself spewing a total myth.
I'm petitioning Glenn Greenwald to have David Byron removed. Anyone else want to join me? Otherwise, we can just completely ignore him.
ReplyDeleteDB says "Feminists love to make up shit to make men sound like violent brutes." Do Feminists really need to say anything? I love men, but the history of testosterone speaks for itself. That's the last I'm speaking of DB, unless to have him barred.
ReplyDeleteBarbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteBart: In a nutshell, "progressivism" IYHO is government controlling the markets to redistribute wealth for the common good. This already has a name - socialism.
I'm sure that is your opinion, but it is not mine. My opinion is that you are what we might call a "simple" thinker. You have a limited understanding of things, so you have a limited number of cognitive cubbyholes to sort things into.
:::chuckle:::
I am not the one trying to come up with a narrative to discover what I believe in.
Progressives generally aren't all that interested in "controlling" markets for the sake of controlling markets. That's a bugaboo of the Right. On the other hand, capitalism needs a bit of watching, because otherwise it slides into plutocracy sooner or later. That being said, some form of democratic socialism could be part of a progressive agenda, certainly.
Classical liberalism was based on the belief that freedom was the surest way for the common people to improve their position in life.
With the advent of industrialism, the left shifted from liberal freedom to state control of the economy to improve the lot of the people. However, as the old adage goes, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Socialism always ends up being about accumulating power for power's sake.
And ALL governments and societies end up "redistributing" wealth, m'love; the distinction is who gets to be on the receiving end of the distribution -- labor or capital? Or someone else? Take your pick.
That is completely true which is why the classical liberal ideal of limited government is the best way for the most people to get ahead in life.
BTW, the idea of of dividing the world into labor and capital is a pretty silly anachronism in a free market country where management generally work far more hours than employees and janitors own 401K plans.
Progressivism digression.
ReplyDeleteOn one plane, Progressivism is a Republican reaction to Democratic populism, c. 1900. Republican Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive president, and it is doubtful he could have been elected to the office on a Progressive platform at the time. (He of course came to the office when Wm McKinley was assassinated).
TR was a raging imperialist. And a racist. Yet I have read an extraordinary condemnation he made of lynching. He was not opposed to big business, but he was opposed to big business's control of the markets to the detriment of the country.
Progressivism still carries with it some of the baggage of imperialism and racism that was there at the outset, but its potentially bigger problem (and possibly opportunity) is its tendency toward authoritarianism. Not totalitarianism.
Progressivism is not "leftist" by any means, and in the current climate, classical Progressivism is the real conservatism. Progressivism has been the operating principle of much of America's government for over a century, and its basic principles are still adhered to almost everywhere in the country on the local and state level.
The Federal government has gone through a kind of devolution, however, or a reversion, since the advent of Ronald Reagan, who used the Progressive infrastructure in California when he was Governor and later in DC when he was President to start its dismantlement.
That Progressive dismantlement continues at the Federal level.
An argument could be made that the Bush Regime is an inconceivably corrupt and venal government, bordering on subversive of the very idea of America and constitutional self-government, or one could argue that the Bush Regime is the natural fulfillment of Progressive promise.
I will not argue that. But certainly the Busheviks use government to advance their agenda, futher their aims, and enhance their power much like a Progressive Administration might. And they have certainly concentrated an immense amount of power in the executive (think of a particularly obnoxious city manager on steroids.)
I'm suggesting that Progressivism may not actually be the model we want. Markos proposed Libertarian Democrats as a possible way forward, adopting some of the laissez faire libertarian model along with the more positive aspects of Democratic progressivism.
It's an interesting notion.
Barbara, the reason the Dems ignored you is that you didn't have your checkbooks open. Politics do not interest most of them---most of them are afraid of politics. They want money and status, and don't want to mess up a sure thing.
ReplyDeleteThe slugfest between constitutional law professor Geoffrey Stone and judge Richard Posner begins:
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to a related point. How do we assess the “cost” of a limitation on our civil liberties? How much should we care, for example, if the government criminally punishes the radical imam who condones or glorifies terrorism? As you know, Dick, my view is that in the realm of political (or religious) discourse, the First Amendment should be interpreted as prohibiting the government from punishing an individual for speech that might cause others to engage in unlawful conduct unless the speaker expressly advocates immediate unlawful conduct and such conduct is likely to occur immediately. I would therefore protect even the radical imam whose preaching, however distasteful, does not meet these requirements. As you note in Uncertain Shield, this also seems to be the position of the Supreme Court.
In Uncertain Shield, you declare that those who endorse this view are in “denial,” because they ignore the “benefits to public safety” of stifling such speech. But I would then ask you, Dick, whether you are in “denial” because you fail to consider the benefits to democracy of allowing such speech. Exactly who would you punish? Anyone who glorifies or condones terrorism, or only imams? What does it mean to glorify or condone terrorism? Does a book arguing that terrorism can be morally justified fall within your rule? What about a blog attacking the president for authorizing torture? A magazine that publishes photographs of American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians?
To David Byron: You forgot to mention that I said we could ignore you if Glenn didn't want you barred. You certainly have a way of twisting the truth and attacking viciously. Maybe you are a Republican nutcase trying to screw with sound minds. Sorry, you lose. Now I am officially ignoring you forever. You may have the Dumb Ass last word, D.B.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't there be more connection between traditionally progressive voices both inside and outside the net? Union voices, community activists, teachers (and their unions), librarians--all rabble rousers who know how to fight and get things done.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a separate infrastructure from scratch needs allies who have been there--the regular media is hostile, and the DC establishment is too, but the world is full of allies who can help. Think Solidarnosc, who ignored the usual apparatus and did what needed to be done.
Hello
ReplyDeleteGoodnight to everyone on the East Coast. I grew up a New York New Englander. I love it out West now and miss you East Coasters. This was my first experience commenting. David Byron made it a baptism by fire. I warn everyone not to waste time with him. Sorry he hurt other's feelings, besides my own. Hopefully my New York attitude got rid of him.
ReplyDelete"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteAnon embarrasses itself by admonishing Barbara: I thought you were a history buff. Rule of thumb comes from the unwritten rule that a man may beat his wife with a stick no larger in diameter than his own thumb.
By him/herself spewing a total myth.
Hardly. Point me to where I claimed it was codified or written into law. Then prove to me it wasn't, as I stated, an unwritten rule. Explain to me why it would be any different that using one's thumb to dead reackon an inch. You are the one who embarasses herself.
Bart continues erecting straw men. The smell of burning straw is oppressive when he's around. If there wasn't a left wing, fascists would have to invent one. They have time and againn.
ReplyDeleteClassical liberalism was based on the belief that freedom was the surest way for the common people to improve their position in life.
The term is liberty. Only Mel Gibson as William Wallace calls out for freedom. There are subtle distincions you are too unsophisticated to grasp. There is also the "pursuit of happiness" which doesn't mean what you think it does and in modern day Iraq there is plenty of "freedom" but no "liberty" to move about and pursue one's happiness. Same as modern day Somalia. There is no "left" in America, Bart, where all the independents are very liberal but you keep erecting that scarecrow for us, Bart.
The problem with your (pseudo-conservative) narrative, Bart, is that it's false. It's believable and convincing, like all good fiction, but it's fiction none the less.
ReplyDeleteChé Pasa said...
ReplyDeleteProgressivism digression.
Excellent and informative post, Ché Pasa said. Thank you.
Bart... However, as the old adage goes, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." [Substitute your ism here] always ends up being about accumulating power for power's sake.
Do you write this stuff with a straight face?
Rule of Thumb...
Where both David Byron and Hypatia embarass themselves, but don't ban them. They both provide such comic relief and neither of them are Bart.
[Q] From Eric J Michelsen in the USA, Frank Conway in Winnipeg, Canada, and several others: “I’d like to know what the term rule of thumb meant. I remember reading it had something to do with being permitted to beat your wife with a rod no thicker than your thumb. Is this correct?”
[A] This sounds like the invention of somebody desperately trying to make sense of a traditional phrase—what linguists call folk etymology. And it’s quite certainly untrue. But there’s a lot more to it than just fevered imagination.
The expression rule of thumb has been recorded since 1692 and probably wasn’t new then. It meant then what it means now—some method or procedure that comes from practice or experience, without any formal basis. Some have tried to link it with brewing; in the days before thermometers, brewers were said to have gauged the temperature of the fermenting liquor with the thumb (just as mothers for generations have tested the temperature of the baby’s bath water with their elbows). This seems unlikely, as the thumb is not that sensitive and the range of temperatures for fermentation between too cool and too warm is quite small.
It is much more likely that it comes from the ancient use of bits of the body to make measurements. There were once many of these: the unit of the foot comes from pacing out dimensions; the distance from the tip of the nose to the outstretched fingers is about one yard; horse heights are still measured in hands (the width of the palm and closed thumb, now fixed at four inches); and so on. There was an old tailors’ axiom that “twice around the thumb is once around the wrist”, which turns up in Gulliver’s Travels. It’s most likely that the saying comes from the length of the first joint of the thumb, which is about an inch (I remember once seeing a carpenter actually make a rough measurement this way). So the phrase rule of thumb uses the word rule in the sense of ruler, not regulation, and directly refers to this method of measurement.
So where does beating your wife come in? Sharon Fenick wrote an article about its origins in the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban in 1996. She found that for more than two centuries there have been references in legal works to the idea that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb; but the references were always to what some people believed, not to established legal principle. The British common law had long held that it was legal for a man to chastise his wife in moderation, as one might a servant or child, but Sir William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1765 that this principle was by then in decline. So far as I can discover nothing was ever laid down about how such discipline should be applied.
Ms Fenick traced the idea back to a pronouncement that was supposed to have been made in 1782 by a British judge, Sir Francis Buller; this led to a fiercely satirical cartoon by James Gillray that was published on 27 November that year, in which Buller was caricatured as Judge Thumb. (Buller was a brilliant lawyer, the youngest man ever to be appointed a judge in Britain, at 32, but he was widely considered hasty and prejudiced in his opinions.)
It might be that he never made the statement that rendered him so notorious. Edward Foss, in his Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England of 1864 says that to Buller “is attributed the obnoxious and ungentlemanly dictum that a husband may beat his wife, so that the stick with which he administers the castigation is not thicker than his thumb”, but says he can’t find any evidence Buller said it. But the Dictionary of National Biography and other standard works say firmly he did, as did contemporary biographies.
However, it was only in 1976, so far as I can discover, that the traditional phrase rule of thumb became directly associated with this spurious legal maxim, through a bit of wordplay in a report that was misunderstood by readers.
It is extraordinary that we can so accurately pinpoint the moment at which this folk belief came into being. And how astonishing, too, that it should have survived more than two centuries to become part of the folklore of modern times.
Since we are doing etymologies here... freedom:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Oxford dic.
[Com. Teut.: OE. fréo, frío, fri corresponds to OFris. frî, OS. frî (recorded only as n. and in the compound frî-lîk; Du. vrij), OHG. frî (MHG. vrî, mod.Ger. frei), ON. *frí-r (lost exc. in the compound friáls:*frî-hals ‘free-necked’, free; the mod.Icel. frí, Sw., Da. fri are adopted from Ger.), Goth. frei-s:OTeut. *frijo- free:OAryan *priyo-, represented by Skr. priyá dear, Welsh rhdd free, f. root *pri to love (Skr. prî to delight, endear; OSl. prijatel friend, Goth. frijôn, OE. fréon to love, whence FRIEND).
The primary sense of the adj. is ‘dear’; the Germanic and Celtic sense comes of its having been applied as the distinctive epithet of those members of the household who were connected by ties of kindred with the head, as opposed to the slaves. The converse process of sense-development appears in Lat. lber ‘children’, literally the ‘free’ members of the household.
The term appears first in the Bill of Rights with respect to speech and the press. I suspect it was a neologism but have no idea when it came into vogue.
Anon, you are trafficking in fake etymology and urban legend on the "rule of thumb" matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've read this that you offer: Sharon Fenick wrote an article about its origins in the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban in 1996. She found that for more than two centuries there have been references in legal works to the idea that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb; but the references were always to what some people believed, not to established legal principle.
Yeah, a newsgroup posting with no citations is really compelling. Along with a comment attributed to one judge that nobody can actually locate.My links stand.
Fact is, you had no business impugning Barbara's demonstrated proficiency as a history buff with your faux and discredited etymology about "the rule of thumb" phrase.
BTW, I'm no fan of David Byron's. But a fact is such no matter who proffers it, including Mr. Byron.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell no one has voiced an opinion about Air America. Wasn't that going to be the great "airing" out of "progressive" thought?
PS. Do progressives really want to take a name that also defines a disproportional tax system? It seems to cement the idea of unfairness via liberalism. But that's just me.
Should postage and shipping be the same for a 10 lbs. parcel as for a 100 lbs. parcel going from the same point A to B? That seems unfair to me. Especially if they are the same size, or if the heavier one is smaller.
Hypaytia @ 12:52.
ReplyDeleteThis is why she gets the reputation as a drama queen and troll. You crack me up!
BTW, Hypatia... the link I provided is eminently more researched, historically accurate and unbiased and peer reviewed and than anything you provided...
ReplyDeleteChritina Hoff Sommers, best known for her questioning of mainstream feminism; a self-described feminist many consider her to be anti-feminist.
Just like the faux historians you are so fond of Haynes and Klehr, I bet you can get her books cheap at FrontPage.com.
I'm sorry you don't like being made an ass off. Stop making an ass of yourself.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart continues erecting straw men. The smell of burning straw is oppressive when he's around. If there wasn't a left wing, fascists would have to invent one. They have time and againn.
Posters around here keep using terms for logical fallacies which they do not understand.
A straw man argument is raising a weak argument which your opponent did not make in order to rebut it and claim a false victory over your opponent and distract from your opponent's real argument.
In my prior post, I was replying to a point Barbara had made about the left's use of government power to control the economy.
Bart: Classical liberalism was based on the belief that freedom was the surest way for the common people to improve their position in life.
The term is liberty. Only Mel Gibson as William Wallace calls out for freedom. There are subtle distincions you are too unsophisticated to grasp.
The please feel free to educate me...
There is also the "pursuit of happiness" which doesn't mean what you think it does...
In case you needed an example of a straw man argument, this is a perfect example. I never said anything about the Constitution or the phrase "pursuit of happiness." This is your argument. However, you missed even knocking down your own straw man with the comment "which doesn't mean what you think it does," which is meaningless since nether one of us discussed that I think that means.
..and in modern day Iraq there is plenty of "freedom" but no "liberty" to move about and pursue one's happiness. Same as modern day Somalia.
So, to you, it appears that Iraqi democracy = "freedom," but somehow security = "liberty."
Under that interesting reasoning, I guess the everyone in Iraq except those who populate the mass graves or the veterans of the torture rooms enjoyed a great deal of "liberty" under Saddam's totalitarian regime.
You might want to check of the dictionary.
Dear Barbara--
ReplyDeleteI can't believe, with your inteligence, that you don't understand why the Democrats will pay you no mind. The simple explanation is: They don't want the truth out there any more than rhe Republicans do. They are two peas out of the same pod.
brother tim: The simple explanation is: They don't want the truth out there any more than rhe Republicans do. They are two peas out of the same pod.
ReplyDeleteThey are, in other words, the liberal communists like Soros and Gates. Their interests ate, in some ways, more insidious than the neocon-religious right alliance. It is the liberal communists whose "new workplace" has done more to destroy democracy in the US than much of what the others have done. The neocons are just the foreign policy wing of the liberal communist domestic agenda. That's why very few of the representatives chosen by the liberal comms oppose the Iraq war, ie, Clinton, Kerry, etc. For them it's just a matter of management techniques and processes.
"I finally walked away; lady, it is what it is. And I ain’t your monkey."
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to be believe that someone could be so dense that blogging couldn't be explained to them in a single sentence. It seems more likely that you just couldn't be bothered to explain what blogs are to someone you'd prejudged to be an uninitiated rube.
Bart @ 2:36 ... Blah Blah... What's that smell? Strawman, strawman, blather, more incoherent blather... "You might want to check of the dictionary."
ReplyDeleteYou are really not very intelligent. What's your IQ?
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeletePolitics do not interest most of them---most of them are afraid of politics. They want money and status, and don't want to mess up a sure thing.
I think you're confusing Dems with Republicans.
Perhaps he is referring to the DLC and the "consultant class" of the Democratic party, most of whom should be called what they are, Republicans, and are probably GOP moles in many cases.
No, dear, I am the rube. I am an old Ozark mountain gal, and wherever I go, I am always the rube. Though I can speak standard English and use a fork, I would never assume anyone I met at some fancy-pants conference in Washington DC is a worse rube than I am.
ReplyDeleteHST's last book, I think.
Hey Rube: Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and the Downward Spiral of Dumbness--Modern History from the Sports Desk
Lotsa rubes in D.C. and throughout the country. Bart is a rube.
Rubes - Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, David Brooks, Thomas Freidman...
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked as a carny, a rube was someone easily bamboozled and setup for a shakedown; easily fooled into spending their cash on trifles and trinkets.
ReplyDeleteRUBE "an awkward unsophisticated person : RUSTIC" (Merriam-Webster). It's possible to be very dense but not a rube......ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Over-intellectualizing, not seeing the forest for the trees and hauty sophistication is as bad being a dumb sheep.
ReplyDeleteALSO.....
the cynic librarian said...
When I worked as a carny, a rube was someone easily bamboozled and setup for a shakedown; easily fooled into spending their cash on trifles and trinkets............. I sold the trinkets, so I'm definitely not a rube.
Words are very plastic.
ReplyDeleteRube in the political context, (and as fine a definition of an idiot as I have ever encountered) -
The original Greek word "idiotes" referred to people who might have had a high IQ, but were so self-involved that they focused exclusively on their own life and were both ignorant of and uncaring about public concerns and the common good.
Jim Hightower, "Thieves in High Places"
IDIOT, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but "pervades and regulates the whole." He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.
Ambrose Bierce
Devil's Dictionary
the cynic librarian said...
When I worked as a carny, a rube was someone easily bamboozled and setup for a shakedown; easily fooled into spending their cash on trifles and trinkets.
Matthews gushing about Bush and how everyone loves the preznit "except for a few whackjobs on the left" while his approval ratings were in the low 30s.
Look! Shiny object!
Rube.
Guess my line. I'm the world's youngest working freelance court reporter. I tested out of highschool after selling trinkets at the fair. Took my first job at 17. After passing the national test at 18, I was training at the World Trade Center to cover workers's compensation hearings throughout Upstate NY.
ReplyDeleteCome together, right now, over me.
ReplyDeleteRe: Barbara's update. I read Parry's piece. Very disheartening. I think it takes time, the money is there, but it should not be taking this long to put something into action.
ReplyDeleteLakoff on progressives and the none-existent "free market"
The 'free market' doesn't exist": More on framing from George Lakoff
27 October 2003
The NewsCenter's conversation with George Lakoff, UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, continues. Here, Lakoff dissects the hidden associations of everyday terms such as liberal, progressive and free market.
Are "progressive" and "liberal" different, or is Rockridge trying to sidestep the conservatives' successfully having framed "liberal" as pejorative?
Well, there is some of that, but both terms are kind of mushy and vague. After World War II and the Vietnam War, "liberal" came to mean someone who supports [Franklin Delano Roosevelt's] New Deal, and a strong military and foreign policy. The term "progressive" originated from people who were Democratic Socialists, but the socialism aspect has dropped away, and it's come to mean what I call "nurturant morality." It includes choosing peace whenever possible, environmentalism, civil liberties, minority rights, notions like social justice through living wages, et cetera. "Progressive" has been chosen, in part, to contrast in a forward-looking way with "conservative" — for example, as when Podesta chose the name "The Center for American Progress" for his new think tank.
Also, within traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough — the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.
(...)
What about the phrase "free market"? Is that an example of framing?
Yes, but one that's so deeply embedded that it's difficult at first to see how. You have to start with the metaphor that the market is a force of nature, which comes from [the economist] Adam Smith, who says that if everybody pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the "invisible hand" — by which he means nature. There is also a metaphor that well-being is wealth. If I do you a favor, therefore making things better for you, then you say, "How can I ever repay you? I'm in your debt." It's as if I'd given you money. We understand our well-being as wealth.
Combine them, and you get the conservatives' version that says if everybody pursues their own well-being, the well-being of all will be maximized by nature. They have the metaphorical notion of a free market even in their child-rearing system. It's not just an economic theory; it's a moral theory. When you discipline your children, they get internal discipline to become self-reliant, which means they can pursue their self-interest and get along in a difficult world. Conservatives even have a word for people who are not pursuing their self interest. They're called "do-gooders," and they get in the way of people who are pursuing their self-interest.
OK, but how is that a frame, rather than a guiding ideology?
Because the "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules. For example, corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit. That's a construction of the market. Now, it doesn't have to be that way. You could make that rule, "Corporations must maximize stakeholder value." Stakeholders — as opposed to shareholders, the institutions who own the largest portions of stock — would include employees, local communities, and the environment. That changes the whole notion of what a "market" is.
Suppose we were to change the accounting rules, so that we not only had open accounting, which we really need, but we also had full accounting. Full accounting would include things like ecological accounting. You could no longer dump your stuff in the river or the air and not pay a fee. No more free dumping. If you had full accounting, that constructs the market in a different way. It's still a market, and it's still "free" within the rules. But the rules are always there. It's important for progressives to get that idea out there, that all markets are constructed. We should be debating how they're constructed, how they should be constructed, and how are they stacked to serve particular interests...
You have Perry, Barbara. It's Parry, Robert Parry. I don't mean to be a nudge (and idiot), but there it is. I am.
ReplyDeleteAnnoymous is Right On !!!
ReplyDeleteAnnoymous, What's your line???
Lee Vogt said...
ReplyDeleteGuess my line.
Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please
He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me
He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me
Annonymous, please try not to be too much of a nudge. I know it's hard not to indulge the nudge.
ReplyDeleteLead us on, John. That's what I'm calling Annonymous.
ReplyDeleteI'm new. How duh I refresh dis page? Is anybody out there? Guess I better go ride my bike.
ReplyDeleteanon: Matthews gushing about Bush and how everyone loves the preznit "except for a few whackjobs on the left" while his approval ratings were in the low 30s.
ReplyDeleteLook! Shiny object!
Rube.
In the world of carneys calling someone a rube is a way to differentiate the smart from the stupid; the knowing from the naive; the predator from the victim.
Rubes are stupid because they will be sold a line and just keep shelling out cash not to disabuse themselves of their illusion.
But the carney is in on the facade and the deception. They know how to dupe and take advantage of the unwitting and their desire to be duped.
Rube...the desired ruby. I worked the carnival. The carnies would get excited when the mentally handicapped bus arrived. Can we admit we all have been rubes? I've paid taxes, therefore I am a rube. I just crashed a wedding on my bike. When I went to unlock my bike some nice person left a full glass of wine for me. Was I a rube not to drink it? I'm a minimalist and consume as little as possible. Have I gone too far?
ReplyDeleteI've always believed that when having to vote and your choice is between the New Crooks and the Entrenched Crooks, always vote for the New Crooks. If you are lucky enough to live in two places, always vote in the red state, where your vote counts. It may be best to vote third party in a blue state. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI don't trust electronic voting, so should I not vote? In 2004 the only state that had electronic voting machines with paper trails was Nevada. I was a reporter in Vegas. No surprize that the slot machines have been tampered with. In whose favor? You're both right.
ReplyDeleteNYC still appears to be al Qaeda's prime target. How many of you take the NY subway?
ReplyDeleteTime - Saturday, Jun. 17, 2006
Exclusive Book Excerpt: How an Al-Qaeda Cell Planned a Poison-gas Attack on the N.Y. Subway
The plot was called off by Bin Laden's No. 2 only 45 days from zero hour, according to a new book by Ron Suskind
Al-Qaeda terrorists came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough, but by an order from Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri. And the U.S. learned of the plot from a CIA mole inside al-Qaeda. These are some of the more startling revelations by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book The One Percent Doctrine is excerpted in the forthcoming issue of TIME. It will appear on Time.com early Sunday morning.
The rest of the preliminary article is at...
> http://www.time.com/time
/nation/printout/
0,8816,1205309,00.html
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteBart is a rube.
I suppose we could have a philosophical discussion on the fine distinctions between "rube," "moron," "idiot," "clueless," etc. But I use the word rube to mean "an awkward unsophisticated person : RUSTIC" (Merriam-Webster). It's possible to be very dense but not a rube.
Ah, it appears my work is done on this thread.
When the lefties resort to their usual name calling and ad hominem attacks, the debate is over and won.
Nice not hearing from D.B., for a while at least.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Lead On John, more commonly known as Annonymous?
Since no one is writing I'm going to be forced to ride back to that wedding and get that free glass of vino.
chow
Barbara O'Brien said...
ReplyDeleteBart is a rube.
I suppose we could have a philosophical discussion on the fine distinctions between "rube," "moron," "idiot," "clueless," etc. But I use the word rube to mean "an awkward unsophisticated person : RUSTIC" (Merriam-Webster). It's possible to be very dense but not a rube.
Ah, it appears my work is done on this thread.
When the lefties resort to their usual name calling and ad hominem attacks, the debate is over and won.
Be sure to let us conservatives know when you lefties decide what you believe in and come up with a narrative to explain it to the rest of us "rubes."
Bart,
ReplyDeleteWell done, chap. Love the Rube comment. Don't go and leave me with D.B., please
From Bart at 9:29PM:
ReplyDelete"When the lefties resort to their usual name calling and ad hominem attacks, the debate is over and won."
Quite true. Never let it be said you aren't gracious in defeat.
Bye Bart. Enjoy your (hopefully permanent) vacation.
Bart
ReplyDeleteYour conservative viewpoint is sorely needed here. I'm a Leftie who wants us to get our shit together. Tell me more. I promise not to call you names.
From Lee Vogt at 9:40PM:
ReplyDelete"Bart had a valid point, but if he is Republican nutcase, good riddance."
He's eloquent, granted, and appears to believe what he says.
I take a line however from the recent article from Kenneth S. Baer and Andrei Cherny; our side of aisle needs to have some serious discussion of ideas. Bart and his fellow contrarians aren't really helpful there other than to reconfirm what we *don't* believe in. Negative comparisons get us only so far.
See the article at http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/premiere/baercherny.php
Bart says, "Be sure to let us conservatives know when you lefties decide what you believe in and come up with a narrative to explain it to the rest of us "rubes."
ReplyDeleteI say, Bart, Can you Rubes understand this? No unnecessary and costly wars, Take care of Rubes, and make our government accountable and work. We're all rubes, you bloody....I promised not to call names.
Thanks Yank,
ReplyDeleteI didn't read the very last part of Bart's letter before responding so kindly. Woooops. Sorry. I'm new here. Hope Bart and DB are long gone.
Yank,
ReplyDeleteThe page wouldn't display, but in response to "Our side of aisle needs to have some serious discussion of ideas." .....
Seriously, I feel we need to start playing hard ball. Unfortunately, we have to play by their rules to win. No more touch football and being to sophisticated to fight. How can dems, libs, pros, indies all get together?
Christ,
ReplyDeleteI went back and read what Bart said. He's a fear peddling, bloody....I promised not to call names.
Bart... Ah, it appears my work is done on this thread.
ReplyDeleteWhen the lefties resort to their usual name calling and ad hominem attacks, the debate is over and won.
Be sure to let us conservatives know when you lefties decide what you believe in and come up with a narrative to explain it to the rest of us "rubes."
Bart does what Nixon did in Indochina, Reagan in Lebanon, and Bush will eventually allow others to do in Iraq, because he will be out of office, cut and run after declaring victory, which is what all cowards and bullies who start wars and fights they can't finish do. It's the only sensible thing to do and eventually the "blame the other guy" schtick won't be that easy to pull off. Bart sells soap and used cars. Keeping ad men from Madison avenue and lobbyists from K street out of government isn't going to be easy, but we aren't selling soap and used cars.
I'm actually kind of glad the "script to their narrative" hasn't changed. It loses it's appeal and persuasivness after the third recycling.
America and Americans are the rubes. The carneys are the people in on the con, which is the carnival of American politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bart's idea of a narrative, the conservative narrative, is essentially a combination of two of the oldest cons around. One is even illegal, "Bait and Switch" and the free lunch. Magic beans, goose with golden eggs or the perpetual motion machine. The rubes are the "conservative voters" who bought that pig in a poke and always get what they deserve for allowing their baser instincts to be manipulated by people with even baser instincts and no scruples, screwed. Does Bart believe what he says? If he does, he is a rube. If he doesn't, he's worse than a rube.
ReplyDeleteLee Vogt said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Your conservative viewpoint is sorely needed here. I'm a Leftie who wants us to get our shit together. Tell me more. I promise not to call you names.
The 2006 Donkey Party is about where the Elephants were in 1960.
You can continue to be Elephant lite in order to occasionally win power or you can go back to first principles.
However, you need to be willing to put in the time to sell your principles to the voters and be willing to suck up defeats like Goldwater's in the meantime.
Don't fool yourself. You have no chance in hell of winning a majority of the national vote right now. The left is a subset within a minority party, just like the conservatives were back in 1964.
If the left is willing to come up with a firm set of policies and is willing to sell them despite losing nominations and elections, then they have a chance to regain power.
When the Boomers start retiring and realize they haven't saved nearly enough money to support themselves, the whiniest generation may turn to the tax payers to bail them out. There is your opening.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart... Be sure to let us conservatives know when you lefties decide what you believe in and come up with a narrative to explain it to the rest of us "rubes."
Bart does what Nixon did in Indochina, Reagan in Lebanon, and Bush will eventually allow others to do in Iraq, because he will be out of office, cut and run after declaring victory, which is what all cowards and bullies who start wars and fights they can't finish do.
Don't you folks realize that the left lost power when they became the party that was unwilling to fight wars and lost the ones they did fight?
The Donkeys ruled for 60 years combining liberal domestic policies with an internationalist foreign policy willing to fight and win wars.
Since Vietnam, the Donkeys have only won one bare majority of the Presidential vote (Carter) and that was over an unelected VP from an Administration which was nearly (and should have been) impeached.
Why do you think that the Elephants have been beating you over the head as the party of cut and run during the past two election cycles and are doing it again in 2006 despite the supposed poor polls concerning the war?
However, this is your suicide pact. Feel free to continue it.
Lee Vogt said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Your conservative viewpoint is sorely needed here. I'm a Leftie who wants us to get our shit together. Tell me more. I promise not to call you names.
Good reporter!
The trouble with Bart's "narrative" is that it's fiction based on false assumptions. This is an outright lie and he knows it.
Don't fool yourself. You have no chance in hell of winning a majority of the national vote right now.
As long as candidates and policy are sold like laundry detergent and automobiles with fast cut editing technigues from MTV and "feelgood" or fear inducing buzzwords instead of substance and reasoned facts, people will continue throwing good money after bad on the penis enlargement and weight loss schemes that the opinion makers are selling them.
This much is true, and Bart is not saying anything new, Republican lite doesn't cut it. Truman said that. The problem is that competing and superior policies and candidates never get a fair shake. The system is rigged against them, and I do not mean by election tampering. This has been going on for over 100 years since Henry George first proposed the single tax (LVT). The people with the money who were threatened by these ideas buried them and you have never even heard of him although he was the third most famous American in the entire world a little over 100 years ago. It will never happen without violent revolution (and that isn't likely to happen) or ecological distasters of a magnitude as yet unimaginable, (and that is likely to happen, sooner than later).
The bipolar vacillations of the two party duopoly will send us off into left for awhile, but it won't be anything more than what the Democratic party has become since after WWII. Republican lite.
Never trust a Republican or conservative to give you advice that will benefit you. Unless you know to do exactly the opposite of what he tells you. In this case, Republican lite is what they fear the most. Any deviation from the false narrative that most Americans have been spoon fed since birth will only frighten the sheeple.
Why do you think that the Elephants have been beating you over the head as the party of cut and run during the past two election cycles and are doing it again in 2006 despite the supposed poor polls concerning the war?
ReplyDeleteIgnorance and lies. The right has paleoconservatives who don't want to get involved in foreign wars. When the sheeple are lied to by those in power, the MIC, they go along and then when the looting of the public's money is complete, the failure of the policy is blamed on the non-existent left even though factions on both sides of the aisle are anti-war. Quite a scam. Don't listen to Bart, except for entertainment purposes.
Read about Henry George. Henry George is the Godfather of progressive political economy.
Even William F. Buckley, Jr. knows that.
CALLER:Mr. Buckley, it's a pleasure to talk to you. I've heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven't heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I'm wondering why that is the case.
William F. Buckley: It's mostly because I'm beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I'm talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn't encourage land speculation. Anyway I've run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax. You look bored (addressing Brian Lamb)!
Bored? Zero income tax? What's not to like? Why can't that be sold to the American people? Think about it.
Who would you buy a used car from, this guy, or this guy?
ReplyDeleteThe first guy does look like a rube, or even a "goob" which rhymes with rube and is the diminuitive of goober.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The left has historically been defined by the voice it gave working families. The socio-economic policies on the right represent nothing less than an economic war against working Americans, families, and children."
And therein lies the real problem. The left has abandoned their base. Starting with Clinton they have joined the economic war against working families, albeit for a different reason. That reason being that they believed foolishly that the world's economic boat could be lifted on the back of the American worker. When in fact the survivors of any shipwreck will tell you that trying to load too many people in only one lifeboat only ends up in sinking everyone.
Anonymous wasted Bart.
ReplyDeleteBart's good for a laugh now. He thinks the Republicans have a chance in 2008? A snowball's chance. The Republicans I know aren't voting Republican in 2008. Get with the program, Bart.
Americans know the two-party system is cracked and on its last leg. If the folks in Washington want to keep their jobs, they better get their shit together. Even Rubes get tired of playing a losing game after a while.
GOOD MORNING, EAST COAST !
Annonymous said, "The Cultural Code for Sex is Violence. War is just one great big orgy. If we quit sexually repressing the right wing, wars will get boring to them and will stop. Or maybe not."
ReplyDeleteWho am I to stop a good orgy? Maybe I grew up in a livlier time, but even the Viagra isn't working for this orgy.
Many thanks to Lead On John, the Annonomator.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should read about the Georgeists...slide up a few. It's very enlightening.
I wouldn't buy a car from either guys even if I wanted a car....Never ask a reporter what she really thinks about attorneys. I'm enjoying my bike and Portland's excellent public transportation. The next new car I buy will run on vegetation.
Chatty McChatsalot Lee Vogt said,
ReplyDeleteDidn't we learn anything from the Native American struggle? The Irquois Nation was a last ditch effort to band tribes to fight the white man. If the original 500 Tribes had banded together in the beginning there is no doubt who would have won.
Uh, no. The original 5 Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy formed in the 1100's. The oldest participatory democracy in existence was very far from a "last ditch" repulse of the white man.
Once the Europeans gained a foothold on the continent the game was pretty much over. The indigenous peoples of Turtle Island would've inevitably suffered the same fate all pre-intensive agricultural societies of Europe and Asia suffered centuries, if not millenia, before. No amount of banding together could've offset the starkly asymetrical warfare advantage of the established Europeans. Perhaps if all Indians reacted to Europeans like the Beothuks of "Vineland" did...
Similarly, I'm inclined to think no amount of banding together can offset the asymetrical political advantage demagoguery, scapegoating, jingoism and ideological woodenheadedness the right usually wields. The liberal, progressive left can no more consciously appeal to ignorance than a Micmac or a Cree or a Gwitch'in in 1650 could fabricate a musket.
I don't know what the answer is but I know what the answer isn't: Accommodate those who would not do right by you - just as the Beothuks didn't to Eirick the Red and his coterie and what the Wampanoags shouldn't have done with the pilgrims.
From Lee Vogt at 3:15PM:
ReplyDelete"He thinks the Republicans have a chance in 2008? A snowball's chance."
Don't discount the low animal cunning the RWNM, or desperate stupidity (or just plain stupidity) of the Bush Administration.
They've already reduced one country to so much rubble, ignored more strategically significant issues, hollowed out our own economy, and all but ensured the next major attack will prove all the more devestating.
Who's to say they won't do something even more ridiculous within the next few months? American's have already shown they'll follow 'the man with the plan', even if its clear 'the plan' leads over a cliff.
Ah, it appears my work is done on this thread.
ReplyDeleteYet you didn't quit. You're still posting.
When the lefties resort to their usual name calling and ad hominem attacks, the debate is over and won.
If you'd been paying attention you'd have noticed I was calling myself a rube, not you. I don't know that you're a rube in the classic sense of that word. I think "obnoxious prick" is probably closer to the truth. And "Kool-Aider" works, too. But maybe not "rube." I'd have to know you better to make that judgment.
Be sure to let us conservatives know when you lefties decide what you believe in and come up with a narrative to explain it to the rest of us "rubes."
Oh, we know what we believe in (note that values and principles are different critters from a "narrative," which IMO is something like a mythos), and if you'd spend more time reading liberal blogs and less time soiling the comments with the same old, tired, zombie ideas and talking points the Right has been spewing since Goldwater, you might catch on to what that is. Our problem is that much of the Democratic Party is spineless, clueless, and has sold us out. So all too often they don't reflect or articulate our ideas.
From Barbara O'B. at 9:10AM:
ReplyDelete"I don't know that you're a rube in the classic sense of that word. I think "obnoxious prick" is probably closer to the truth."
Now, now. Bart is a lawyer, and as such can only do one of three things: he can argue the facts, argue the law, or pound the table.
The first two are out, so he's reduced to option three. Not that it isn't fun to lance his arguments when he (repeatedly) tries the first two anyway.
spark said...
ReplyDeleteChatty McChatsalot Lee Vogt said
Awww, cut Lee some slack. As he said, he's new here, and to the internets. At least his posts aren't long, boring paeans to Ayn Rand and the internally incoherent ramblings of Bart. BTW, even Jefferson and Franklin found the Iroquois ideas on self-government interesting and appealing.
I am convinced that those societies [as the Indians] which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
Lee,
Glad you found the Henry George stuff of interest. Google as much as you can, you will find it interesting. Some call it geo-liberatarianism and there is an entry at Wikipedia under that name. In fact, Thomas Paine was probably the Godfather of progressive political economy and Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Locke and Adam Smith were sympathetic to the ideas that Henry George later explored in depth. Even John Stuart Mill. Little known fact: The game we call Monopoly was invented by Henry George as a teaching tool. And the town of Arden, Delaware mentioned in that PBS piece is one of the places in the U.S. where a Georgist economic model has been put into practice and thrived for years, unlike the other kind of theoretical glibertarian free market capitalism which is thriving in modern day Somalia. Even Bart said he gave up on libertarianism long ago because it was "too utopian". I thought that was a riot because it's only led to dystopia when put into practice, like in Somalia today. Of course, Bart would be opposed to any "quasi-utopian ideas" that involved Georgist economic policies even though they are healthy and harmonious functioning political economies extant today, a claim no one can make for free reign, laissez-faire capitalism.
Georgist Economics is becoming quite popular here and in other places throughout the world, in spite of all the bullshit, and when Mark Twain is framed by the power elites of America as a "leftist whackjob" you know your country is in knee deep in bullshit.
Barbara..."I don't know that you're a rube in the classic sense of that word. I think "obnoxious prick" is probably closer to the truth."
ReplyDeleteMichele Malkin may think Barbara is "unhinged" but I don't. I think she calls them as she sees them anf I like her just fine.
david ignatius has been spinning this "the two extreme sides are equal" crap for months now, if not years. he is almost always wrong, almost always mischaracterizes both the issues and sides therein, and seems to do so because this way the "press" seems to stay nicely in the middle
ReplyDelete(example. "the earth is flat." "No, tis round" ignatius: "both these extreme views refuse to compromise:"
an article that calls ignatius the metaphorical talisman for our times, and why.
Worth repeating, because it cuts to the heart of the matter:
ReplyDelete"I’m just saying that we liberals and most Democrats are “extreme” only in contrast to the extremism of the Right. Genuine left-wing extremism is marginalized even by most of the American Left. In truth, that part of the Left that has any political influence in America are moderates with feet firmly planted in historically mainstream political traditions. Ignatius sees a conflict between opposing political extremes. But the reality is that an aggressive right-wing extremism has appropriated media to slander, discredit and eliminate the moderate liberalism that used to be the center in saner times."
I have been making this case to the media (and in particular the Washington Post) over and over and over. but 50,000 other people need to politely and effectively make the case as well.
you are right. what is needed is amplification. big time.
All most excellent points. You know, what really woke me up to the absolute seriousness of this issue was a special I saw on PBS about Goebbels.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary simply quoted his diaries while showing Nazi footage from the time. It was like being in the mind of a Republican propagandist given everything I have read about their tactics attitudes. Goebbels spoke about Jews using the same sort of eliminationist rhetoric, motifs and imagary we hear from the right wing about "liberals".
This all began with the impeachment of Clinton. The right wing declared out all political war on "liberals/democrats". It reminds of the moderates in Germany and the Russian democratic socialists during the time the Nazis and Bolseviks took over. Both the German moderates and the Russian democratic socialists did not understand the extremists and what they were willing to do. If history is any guide, the next step is pretty obvious to me.
Much of the liberal counter to Coulter that is allowed in the mass media sounds to me like the complaints of a high school debate coach crying foul over some rules infraction while not noticing that the oppenents are bringing knives to the debate.
It has been noted by commentors in some way or another, but the culture/political war against "liberals/democrats" has indeed reached a an inflection point. And given Bush's systematic dismantling of civil liberties, it ain't going a positive inflection point.
Or maybe I am just being paranoid....
Goebbels spoke about Jews using the same sort of eliminationist rhetoric, motifs and imagary we hear from the right wing about "liberals".
ReplyDeleteMy blog buddy Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog calls it "The Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism."
This all began with the impeachment of Clinton. The right wing declared out all political war on "liberals/democrats".
The demonization of liberalism goes back a lot further than the Clinton impeachment. The Right was laying the groundwork for this in the 1970s, at the latest, although one could argue that the 1970s-era Right was just updating McCarthyism. By the 1980s Democrats were already starting to run away from the "L" word. In the Dukakis-Bush I presidential campaign the GOP hurled "liberal" and "liberalism" at Dukakis very effectively, and the Dems had no clue how to respond. The GOP tried this tactic in 1992 with Clinton, too, but Clinton confounded them by moving right and seizing conservative positions. This proved, I think, to be a smart tactic for winning elections in the 1990s but a lousy strategy for dealing with right-wing propaganda, long-term.
Thanks for the reference to "The Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism." I will definitely look it up.
ReplyDeleteTrue about the demonization of liberals starting much earlier and its political consequences. I guess the impeachment may have been the high point of that phase.
Again, thanks for great post and link...
Yank calls 'em as Yank sees 'em. No mincing words. That makes you from the Native Indian Raven clan which was the only clan who could intermarry with the eagle clan because of their quick, no bullshit communication skills....cool.
ReplyDeleteChatty....I realize my flub. I was thinking about the Irqois Nation after the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee when Ghost Dance became the movement to call down the power of the ancestors to defeat the white man. If every one of the 500 tribes banded and had a slight technology upgrade maybe they could have won.
Anonomator....Can't wait to read about Mark Twain. Twain and Dickens were both court reporters. I did a couple day trials in the antique Virginia City Courthouse in Nevada where Twain worked as a newspaper reporter....erie.
Lee is unisex. I'm a woman.
You have all the attention you could ask for right here, but you spend must of your time complaining about how effective the Right is at using the media to get their message to the public, instead of using the opportunity to deliver the Democrat message [whatever that is...] to this blogs readers. How lame is that
ReplyDeletein general I would agree. when one is talking to or through the media directly, and when one makes a point that really does not say anything (sort of like democratic stratetists and others tend to do sometimes).
neither of those apply here.
first of all, this is a blog, which means you discuss what you think needs discussion, not your 15 second sound bite for the media. kinda of a key difference, to say the least.
secondly, what Barbara had to say in this instance, though it did not have to be given differentation number one, was of tremendous importance.
if the media does not objectively and accurately report the facts, then demcoracy does not do as well.
a quote put on HUME's excellent post about cutting off information, (loosely, from memory)
"information is the oxygen of democracy"
the media provides that foundation of information and ultimately, the perception that derives from that, to a great majority of americans. if they do a poor job, democracy can never work as well as it should, regardless of how well (or not well, I have argued) the democrats convey their message when they do get the opportunity or, more importantly, potential opportunities that they let slide away.....
its a bit of a long piece., (on the media and the democratic party both) but buried deeply in it is this particular quote:
It was like the political equivalent of a very powerful tank otherwise missing one side, had pointed its barrels out and was firing at them, and instead of turning that tank around, or moving to the side and getting a shot with their tank onto its weak side, they stood around chit chatting about the weather, or how their pea shooters were very effective weapons indeed, or, to be true to the analogy, how their opponents' strategy was terrible.
those analogies are all references to what was repeatedly stated to the media during that time period in the spring of 2003, while the bush campaign mercilessly misdefined a previously undefined John Kerry to the American people.
that's your seminal example of failing to not only not make the case to the media, but of not making any case, (and at the worst time to, though all times are bad)
More Twain & George. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteTwain had Indian spirit and sense. I need to explain my interest in the Native Americans. I spent a lot of time doing Native Indian Arbitrations in the Southwest. My Gorton ancestors were the first mayors of Corning and fought the Indians in the NY Finger Lakes. They spared the women and children to become a burden on the British and took a couple Indians as wives. I was born with jet black hair which quickly fell out and was called pet Indian names as a kid. I was unofficially adopted into the Onondaga tribe but quickly found out how corrupt and tied to the mob some NY/PA Indians are. I have blue eyes, fair skin and old Indian hair. I still don't know why they called me Wee-Wah-Chee. I looked for the closest Indian translation, and it's Ghost Dance. My oldest friend was raised white on a reservation and is trying to uncorrupt the Aquinnah, Mass. Indians. Her father still puts out a reservation newsletter. My son is living with a full-blooded Canadian Indian grandfather, no blood relation, but is my father-in-law. I don't claim to be an ounce Indian, but there is just so much interesting history and weird coincidence. My dad's aunt commissioned, "The Life and Times of Samuel Gorton," in the Library of Congress. Then my Uncle Hugh spent years tracing the European American geneology on my mom's side. There is not a dime of inheritance. So what? Money corrupts. There is so much to be ashamed and proud of. I'm just a mixed up American.
Anonomator....Can't wait to read about Mark Twain. Twain and Dickens were both court reporters. I did a couple day trials in the antique Virginia City Courthouse in Nevada where Twain worked as a newspaper reporter....erie.
ReplyDeleteLee is unisex. I'm a woman.
My apologies, Lee. ;)
Let me know what you think, and if you come across anything of interest.
Barbara O'B. said... The demonization of liberalism goes back a lot further than the Clinton impeachment. The Right was laying the groundwork for this in the 1970s, at the latest, although one could argue that the 1970s-era Right was just updating McCarthyism.
One might say that it began in earnest with this:The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, was a conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. When that failed, the same sector founded the first think tank in 1937, The Tax Foundation. The site is down or I would link to it but Source Watch has a good entry on them. They are the grand-daddy of all think tanks, founded by wealthy business interests (or American fascists) who want to keep America a fantasy land for it's super-citizens, corporations. In point of fact, it goes back farther to Henry George...
The "Georgists" were determined to free labor and all productive effort from the burden of taxation. Land and natural resources were gifts of nature to be fairly shared by all. The role of government would be to secure democratic rights to the earth for all people via the collection of resource rents, the surplus value accruing to natural wealth, which would be distributed in social goods, services or by direct citizen dividends.
But just as this solution to the rich/poor gap was gaining momentum, the Georgist movement was stopped in its tracks. Wealthy individuals poured their money into leading schools of economics to encourage the writing of treatises against George and the movements he had spawned. The ethical perspective that land is a common heritage and the policy approach of land value taxation were subsequently eliminated from the field of economics. The newly dominant theory focused on only two primary factors - labor and capital - with capital having the upper hand as "employing labor." "Labor," of course, is quite capable of self-employment given access to land. This is what the elites and the plutocrats feared most - that labor would gain full power to directly produce capital given conditions of equal rights to the resources of the earth.
Despite the elites' success in mangling the science of political economy, the Georgist paradigm has had some influence over the years.
Things haven't changed much. Money can now even buy your own "facts" and "science".
Companies like Enron have learned that small investments in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programs or hiring moonlighting professors can return big payoffs in generating books, reports, articles, testimony and other materials to push for and rationalize public policy positions that damage the public interest but benefit corporate bottomlines.
Ralph Nader, January 31, 2002
Ivan,
ReplyDeleteElenor Roosevelt for president. She founded the Watch Dog Society. First criteria flagging the downfall of democracy is bias in the media. We let it happen. How do we make it right? Stand up for what WE believe in, and I'm only sure what I believe in. There is such scism in the party, because we let the Republicans get away with dividing us. Isn't it the perfect time for a strong third party? Is it possible?
GOOD MORNING EAST COAST !
Lee,
ReplyDeleteYou may enjoy this. All of the reviews at Amazon are excellent, but there are so few because it is such a rare find and so few people have read it. So rare the whole book is online.
The Forgotten Founders
Chapter Six is a good chapter to read, but you will enjoy the whole thing.
Anonymous, All I knew was that they must of hated Roosevelt enough, because after his fourth term they changed the rules. No more four term presidents. I'm clueless about this. I'm putting serious time aside tomorrow to read up on The Business Plan.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna speed read The Forgotten Fathers tomorrow, especially Chapter Six. I'll have to get out in the sun. It's a Portland rule. I'll duck into the bookstores and libraries when it gets clowdy.
ReplyDeleteThe Forgotten Founders Duh....and I sure am clowdy....It was a long day...I'll think better tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteLee Vogt said...
ReplyDeleteThe Forgotten Founders Duh....and I sure am clowdy....It was a long day...I'll think better tomorrow.
Pay no mind to the friendly chiding. I know all to well the way it is when you first stumble on to blogs. I was the same way and I stumbled onto one where I was given posting front page privileges right away, on several different blogs, in fact. Although one has now been put to rest, and I am mostly just commenting at other blogs now. I needed a break. The fellow who is the webmaster handles quite a few, the whole gamut from raging right-wingers to the mainstream (far left whackos to the wingers). I think new voices are always an infusion of new ideas and new blood and... well, new voices. Start your own blog. It's free, ands in the mean time keep posting here. I enjoy your posts.
If you want to change other peoples' thinking, you have to avoid turning them off in the first minute you open your mouth. This might mean they won't know exactly what you think about each issue immediately--and if you are more concerned about maintaining your leftist bonafides than changing anybody else's mind this might be a problem--but otherwise, just maybe when you finally tell them you'll have earned the possibility they might listen to what you say with some respect--maybe even change their own mind about something.
ReplyDeleteIt never happens on blogs in threads. Polarization happens, it leads to a point where the tension breaks or snaps back before breaking, then it resides until the stress builds up and it happens again. The right is not intersted in "coming together". Learn that.
HWSNBN is clueless:
ReplyDelete[Anonymous]: Bart continues erecting straw men. The smell of burning straw is oppressive when he's around. If there wasn't a left wing, fascists would have to invent one. They have time and againn.
[HWSNBN]: Posters around here keep using terms for logical fallacies which they do not understand.
Typo: Let me fix that:
"Posters around here keep using logical fallacies which they do not understand."
Much better. See below.
A straw man argument is raising a weak argument which your opponent did not make in order to rebut it and claim a false victory over your opponent and distract from your opponent's real argument.
Hmmm. That's what I thought it was. Kind of like this, you mean?:
[HWSNBN, from the middle of the thread somewhere]: "New Leftists believe that government should regulate and direct nearly every aspect of business they find objectionable."
Thanks for the example.
Cheers,
Anonymous & Armegedonoutahere
ReplyDeleteThe Forgotten Founders, Chapter Six:
FRANKLIN, a believer in simplicity and "happy mediocrity," thought that an overabundance of possessions inhibited freedom because social regulation was required to keep track of what belonged to whom, and to keep greed from developing into antisocial conflict. He also opposed the use of public office for private profit. If officials were to serve the people rather than exploit them, they should not be compensated for their public service, Franklin stated during debate on the Constitution. "It may be imagined by some that this is a Utopian idea, and that we can never find Men to serve in the Executive Department without paying them well for their Services. I conceive this to be a mistake," Franklin said.
To JEFFERSON, public opinion among the Indians was an important reason for their lack of oppressive government, as well as the egalitarian distribution of property on which Franklin had earlier remarked. Jefferson believed that without the people looking over the shoulder of their leaders, "You and I, the Congress, judges and governors shall all become wolves." The "general prey of the rich on the poor" could be prevented by a vigilant public.
I'm ready to be amoung the first vigilant public. Just let me know when and where. You know much more than I do. Why would it do any good for me to start a blog site? Don't forget to let me know when the ACTION starts.
Armagedonoutahere:
ReplyDeleteAwesome info about the Haudenosauny (Iroquois League)
The 1100 AD date is amazing.
Gotta thank you & The Annonomator for letting me know what books to read.
The Forgotten Founders and the Iroquois League/Haudenosauny book should be mandatory U.S. history reading.
The netroots blogosphere does not have an editorial board to filter opinions. As such it reflects a diversity that the MSM lacks. It is essentially operated by private individuals or private groups of likeminded people. The role it does play and can play better is to form communities of people who can unite on issues that the MSM ignores. These issues are not discrete but interconnected, however, it is difficult to converse with 'others' on all such issues all at once. To suspect lack of transparency in registering ballots in the last two elections does not rule out understanding that corporatism subverts democratic processes or that its inevitable legacy is worsening economic and social inequalities and entrenched inequities or that terms like 'globalisation' are essentially euphemisms for undercutting government authority whether at home or overseas or that the Iraq war remains indefensible not because the US is not likely to win the war in Iraq but because it was unjustifiable aggression and against international laws. Nor does being against racism imply that one does not care about national strategic interests which are not served when fiscal and trade imbalances grow faster than GDP or when consumption that feeds corporatism is reliant on credit raised through international sales of Federal Reserve Bonds rather than adequate returns to labour to support that consumption or questioning a consumer culture of disposables. Caring for the environment does not imply a pro nuclear energy stance since that ignores the pollution generated in mining and refining uranium and our lack of substantive answers to decommissioning old plants and waste disposal issues. To complain about uglification of landscapes with windmills does not mean one disagrees with alternative energy sources. To believe in equal access to opportunities and equity of outcomes for all peoples regardless of their race, religion, sexuality or gender does not imply one does not respect marital contracts nor that such contracts can only be entered into by select social groups.
ReplyDeleteMy personal observation is that countries without proportional representation tend to be dominated by two-party political systems, neither party adequately reflecting the diversity of issues that concern the electorates they serve. This is apparent in the UK where the Labour Party owes its origins to organised labour. Unlike in Germany, however, the British Labour Party is a broad church which attracts both radical left and moderate non-conservative voters. This partially explains the Blair phenomenon in that Blair does not stand for many traditional Labour values yet can get to be the Labour leader and push through reforms in the party structure that disempower the rank and file.
The DailyKos and the FDL, both have the goal of promoting Democrat representation. That does not mean they have no regard for other issues, including promoting an environmentally friendly lifestyle. Green issues are not discrete to issues of equal access and equity of outcomes or socio-economic realities of entrenched generational disadvantages.
One point of the netroots blogosphere though, it is essentially middle class. How many have access to the internet? How many are inclined to seek out opinions or information? How many are comfortable with using the technology? That last is not a generational issue but one of nurture and exposure and awareness and means.
armagedoutahere cited,
ReplyDeleteThe Haudenosaunee thus would have the second oldest continuously existing representative parliaments on earth. Only Iceland's Althing founded in 930 A.D. is older."
...to which davidbyron said...
The Althing is not continuously existing. It was suspended for a period. Tynwald the Manx parliament would therefore be oldest continuous as far as I know.
I stand by my statement. While arm's quote labels the Iroquois league a representative democracy, which would place it second oldest to the Manx parliament, I and others do not put it in that same "representative" category.
As wikipedia (yeah, I know) puts it, "[p]articipatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a political group to make meaningful contributions to decisionmaking, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities."
Not only were "the sexes [of the Iroquois] assigned seprate social worlds", but age as well. With none being subordinate to another it is believed this system of co-equal "worlds" inspired the institutional checks and balances found in the American Constitution.
It is this organizational type focused on "opportunities for all members of a political group to make meaningful contributions to decisionmaking" that makes it more a participatory democracy - as opposed to a representative model which typically enfranchises some or most members of a political group but only empowers middle-aged, propertied men. Needless to say Indians traditionally do not respect the concept of property or of property rights.
As for the date of formation, the 1600 date you cite is courtesy of author Carl Waldman B.A., "a former archivist for the New York State Historical Association". Doubtlessly his research is impeccable but its likely his professional bias would not deem oral histories on the same par as western modes. As arm' amply backs up, the 1100's is the most widely accepted date among cultural anthropologists and is very far from "stretching".
I'm not sure how the Iroquois federal system is supposed to work with the original tribes split up though.
As far as I'm aware they aren't.
Lee Vogt...Why would it do any good for me to start a blog site? Don't forget to let me know when the ACTION starts.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Everybody has one. It's not important if you have all the traffic that Glenn or the other big guns do. Most are not so well trafficked. It's just a soap box for you to stand on, collect your thoughts and say your piece.
Please tell me Jack Murtha is not corrupt. The Real Jack Murtha article in the Washington Times is pretty damning. www.washingtontimes.com. I typed this excerpt from the article:
ReplyDeleteLA Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more that $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting-- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill. Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. Few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr.Murtha was named by the FBI as an unindicted co-conspirator.
I saw "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie last night. I'm seeing if I can work for a 30-year-old Oregon organization calling for 25% clean renewable energy sources for the state by 2025. I sure feel good about biking and taking public transportation now.
I wouldn't read the Washington Times. It's owned by Rev Sun Myung Moon.
ReplyDelete