(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
It’s no secret that the far right loathes anyone and everyone to the left of Adolf Hitler. Just try to get into one of Sarah Palin’s Nuremberg-style rallies; you’ll find plenty of evidence for that statement. But a certain branch of liberalism is hated even by unapologetic left-wingers.
In a 1996 column by Adolph Reed, reproduced this week on CommonDreams.org, the progressive writer summarized the reason for his hatred in one paragraph:
during the ’80s liberal opinion gradually accommodated to Reaganism by sliding rightward. Two rhetorical justifications emerged for this adaptation. The Democratic Leadership Council called for a new centrism, jettisoning egalitarian politics and the constituencies identified with it. Additionally, an excesses-of-the-’60s-as-fall-from-grace fable propelled this slide and justified the smug dismissal of those of us who didn’t want to go along. This new liberalism curtly demanded that we grow up and accept the realpolitik; Reaganism was all our fault for going too far anyway.
That evaluation is echoed this week by self-professed socialist and TruthDig.com writer Chris Hedges, who writes:
They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama-as if he reads them-asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.
Robert Scheer blasts Obama for wearing the mask of a reformer while continuing business as usual. Glenn Greenwald reports on the creepy, cult-like devotion of Obama’s remaining supporters, exposing them for the false leftists they are.
Can one really begrudge these guys their bitterness? John Conyers can bitch all he wants about everything from witnesses thumbing their noses at subpoenas to continual waffling by Obamacrats, but at the end of the day he still cannot be counted upon to actually follow through on his frustrated-sounding rhetoric. The tired old man who had the power to start impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for two years and refused sure as hell isn’t going to start playing hardball with Hopey McChangerton now.
The same holds true for the rest of the so-called liberals, who have proven as dangerous to America and the rest of the world as any right-wing, fascist Republican. These are the same people who regularly denounce anyone to their left as “purists,” as though not selling one’s principles for access to power is somehow a bad thing. These are the same people who promote half measures as the only reasonable things to push for, proceed to accept less and less when told no by the powerful, and then lecture us on the left for calling them on it as though we’re made up of children who can’t handle the grim realities of political activism.
Small wonder they earn the scorn of genuine left-wingers. Perhaps it is time for all of us who haven’t thrown away our principles to look upon these pseudo-liberals for what they are: shameless phonies masking their true right-wing ideology.
10 comments
Skip to comment form
http://www.commondreams.org/vi…
“Liberals, I Do Despise”. This followed the Chris Hedges article titled “Liberals are Useless”.
It’s not hard to notice the way the liberal label is used by many whose comments seem anything but. I read the comments in the article from Common Dreams and a number explained their reasoning for switching from the liberal label to the “radical” label. Some sense was made. I may be a liberal when it comes to people, but maybe I am a radical when it comes to politics and government. I’m going to continue to review that.
those that never left the left are still there. Progressives in my mind were supposed to be a change from this. But many, are just liberals in the mode you speak of.
recognize that capitalism begets greed, and recognize that this is not a good thing for a country, nothing will change.
2 articles that prompted this thought… so…
It’s not Left and Right, it’s Big and Small.
Corporate vs Main Street is not Left vs Right, it’s Big and Small.
Centrism vs Left or Right is not Left vs Right, it’s Big vs Small.
Sustainable economy is not left vs right, it’s big vs small.
Over and over it’s Big vs Small.
More freedom and opportunity for the BIG, and less freedom and less opprtunity for the small.
And I’m renouncing my Progressive Moniker and replacing it with Socialist.
I am a socialist.
The accusation that the pretend left aims at us that we don’t understand politics of realpolitik may be partly true but I think that’s changing pretty quickly.
But how can they critisize us on that count. First of all the traditional left wing of the Dem party has proven that they are utterly incapable of realpolitik — they just whine and do nothing to challenge conventional wisdom which is, in Washington, Center/Right so that the “liberals”, given the narrative, will always, always lose and appear apologetic for even existing vis a vis the solid and ever-so-sure-of-themselves spokespeople on the right. Either traditional liberals are indeed fake and essentially just serving the oligarchy and lying to us (yes, many of them are just that) or they are self-deluded and naiive beyond belief.
They never show a fist towards the powerful they just cringe and whine. Far better to be out of office and standing up straight than to be in power and on your knees actively fellating the FIRE sector and MIC.
you’ve nailed it in a number of ways and whatever the labels are, “we know what we’re all talking about” here. The DLC mentality (and Obama is another Clinton on this) is the left side of capitalism, thus the connections with Wall Street and the MIC. That is the mentality of Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel in building the Democratic majorities that are so feckless.
Right now supporting Obama as “pragmatism” is the ultimate in folly. We are the pragmatists, we are the realists. The other view defines a captive audience. Over healthcare, Afghanistan, and Obama’s performance, let the Democcratic Party be split asunder, with the weakness of the GOP, our wing could still win in a three party race. We need a viable, independent candidate to present to the country in 2012 when Obama’s utter failures will lead to another-Bush presidency, maybe even ole Jeb! or Cheney, who-the-f knows?
Right now this country and we the people seem like an object of pity like those who lived in the Soviet Union in the last days of communism. Overwhelming majorities want the public option, our masters say NO! We want jobs and out of Afgahnistan/Iraq, our masters say NO! We want Walkl Street bonuses taxed, our masters say NO!
Enough pandering to those who refuse to realize they were had by the Obama team, let them spend their remaining days hunting trolls on their website, it doesn’t even belong to Markos anymore! His views are the minority there!
Obama is a pure creation of the minions of the oligarchy, those who feed off the scraps from the super-rich’s table: Rahm Emmanuel (ex-Clintonista) and his long-time buddy David Axelrod put the lowly state senator from Illinois together out of whole cloth. He’s a pathetic, lightweight puppet, who in eight years will be sucking off the tit of Wall Street being paid off with $ 500 plate speaking fees, underwritten by Lloyd Blankfein. Enough: Sanders/Kucinich in 2012, win, lose, or draw!