Motivation
I think Atrios hits close to the mark in this post on Jonathan Chait: one should never underestimate an author’s vanity. Chait, like so many other Sensible Liberals, can’t admit he was wrong about Iraq.
But I think along with that, one should not discount the fear that Sensible Liberals have of the Left. I mean it when I say that they really do fear the Left more than they fear the Right, although the reason for this greater fear is most often, probably, on a simple calculus of the familiar vs. the unknown. Sensible Liberals are used to the Right (even the Extreme Right) being in power; they at least know what that’s like. Having the Left in power, however, is an unknown.
Thus Chait’s slur that the netroots are attempting a powergrab in going after Lieberman’s scalp. It’s a symptom of a mindset based on the ideology of triangulation: Chair fears that Sensible Liberals’ day may be done where they can no longer co-opt or blunt the desires of the Left. Which in turn nicely dovetails with Marty Peretz’s silly if typically tribalist idea that the Pali-loving Left is less desirous of going after Lieberman’s scalp than it is of going after his own yarmulke. Which in turn nicely dovetails with the so-called “Decent Left’s” fear that with a resurgent genuine Left, naked imperialism “liberal interventionalism” might be dead in the water (as if it’s not already). Which in turn nicely dovetails with the neoconservatives’ fear that a resurgent Left will put the brakes on their Blow Up Shit All Over The World schemes. …Which in turn nicely dovetails with the reactionaries’ fear that with a resurgent Left’s demand of US withdrawl from Iraq and cessation of expensive imperialist activities, there finally might be some real reform coming on the domestic front in the form of progressive taxes, better social services, gay marriage, secular humanism… AIEEEEEE save me Jebus!!!!
It’s not very flattering being part of a group that can unite so many in common irrational fear, but then neither is it a new thing. It took a Great Depression of the wingnuts’ own making to beat back the fearful horde long enough for the New Deal. Of course, Bush’s bid toward Hooverness has fallen short so far, despite his best efforts, but who knows how long the country’s luck will last. I think Chait and his fellow-travelers know deep down that the Left’s return to power is inevitable. I also think they know deep down that with their stupid pro-war positions, they instigated their own political demise — they know that they are responsible. Thus, self-loathing compounds the fear. And in Chait’s case, he truly does dislike Bush, yet his fear of the Left forces him to defend Lieberman, Bush’s Democrat enabler; so Chait has to know that he’s indirectly aiding the wingnuts, which in turn has to addle him even more.
The only powergrab worth noting is the one perpetrated by Chait, TNR, Drum, et al — the Sensible Liberals — who long ago took the position that their degree of “Leftism” was as far in that political direction that anyone could responsibly go.
Sensible Liberals are used to the Right (even the Extreme Right) in power; they at least know what that’s like. A Left in power, however, is an unknown.
Wasn’t that Joementum’s actual pitch to the voters of Connecticut? ‘Vote for me, so that when the GOP maintains power, you have a nice little dog to grab the crumbs from the table’? He’s the epitome of Grover Norquist’s fixed Democrat, who no longer pees on the furniture.
In contrast, Lamont wants to be part of a Democratic majority that serves as a Democratic majority. What a fucking novelty. And that scares Chait: after all, you don’t want to piss off the Republicans for when they next take power, do you?
Well, how about this: you don’t want to piss off the Democrats, for when they next take power.
Whenever liberals vs the left is burped up I’m reminded of the old Phil Ochs song. Geoffrey Nunberg – a good liberal he – recently described this as smug and arrogant.
Maybe. But it was always the uptown types who always held their noses when they had to come into contact with radicals. A lot of progressives were “goo-goo” types who always saw solutions to social problems as either managerial or moralistic. Never got anyone a bigger paycheck. ‘Cept the liberals.
Love Me, I’m a Liberal
By Phil Ochs
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I’d lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I’m glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don’t move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can’t understand how their minds work
What’s the matter don’t they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I read New Republic and Nation
I’ve learned to take every view
You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I’m almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like korea
There’s no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I vote for the democtratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I’ll send all the money you ask for
But don’t ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
Wow, I had never paid close attention to that Phil Ochs song. It’s stunningly apropos!
Spot on. Therein lies the inherent intellectual dishonesty on the part of Chait and his ilk. Admitting that you were wrong and the unwashed masses on the blogs were right is an anathema to the old guard of professional pundit. We do it on the cheap and we’re better than you – our Hyundai to your Buick. That’s a bitter pill to swallow and most of these folks are refusing to do it with Socrates’ grace.
I don’t think it’s fair to lump Kevin Drum in with TNR and Chait. Here’s a post where he specifically takes on Chait’s Lieberman/Lamont argument:
Drum’s also admitted the Iraq war was a mistake. I don’t agree with everything Drum says, but I don’t think he’s a part of the “axis of sensibility” that is actively trying to stop “the left” from gaining power.
I absolutely would put Drum in that “Axis of Sensibility,” based on the general tenor of his entire body of work over the past several years. He’s pretty much useless to anyone but Faux News dems.
Ah, I love this topic. All across the land, Sensible Liberals clutch their handkerchiefs to their chests at the mere thought of those uncouth barbarians, those unwashed hippies, agitating for Social Change. It’s unseemly, I tell you!
Look, I deplore insistance on ideological purity as much as the next Sensible Liberal, but being fed up with Lieberman is a far cry from what the Republicans have been doing in the last six years, or (as has been pointed out) what Norquist’s been doing for the last coupla decades. And I agree that we ignore Norquist’s lesson at our peril: what he has done is called “organizing” (maybe you’ve heard of it), and he unified the diverse cross-section of crazy that is the American Political Right. Plus, the grassroots of that group are marginalized to the point that they are actively being screwed by the very people with whom they’ve united! We don’t even have the cross-purposes of the APR to deal with – we only have to argue about different solutions, but we (mostly) agree on what the problems are. And oh yeah: any organizing for the Democratic Party is going to come not from the DLC or the so-called “moderates” – it’s going to come from committed activists, as it always has through history. It’s nice the Party hacks are there, but their job is to win elections, and the activists’ job is to organize and develop the party base for future elections and to push an agenda. Maybe democracy has made us soft, and we don’t feel we have to fight as hard, and those at the top are only concerned with holding on to what little power they have left, but need I remind anyone what their record is on their part of the bargain? And they’re concerned that uprooting an established Democratic Senator who has done harm to the Democratic Party by shilling for the opposition in favor of a (gasp!) liberal is going to further harm said Party? It’s kind of like the Jew being stoned in Life of Brian: How can it get any worse?
If we can’t kick Lieberman out of the Party, and agree that some Sensible Liberals need to get over themselves and on board, then we don’t deserve the anticipated upcoming electoral successes. Even worse, once we get it, we will immediately be told that we must be Sensible, that we musn’t push too hard or too far, and we will have Clinton Redux: a conservative in liberal’s clothing.
Maybe. But I prefer to judge people by what they are saying and doing now. He seems to be making a conscious effort to atone for his previous actions. He’s on our side more often than not. I see no way of reconciling with the monkeys at TNR, but I also see no reason to shun potential allies like Drum.
Its a testament to how bad things are that a match-up between Led Namont and Lieberman is being staged as the political fight of the century. A wealthy businessman from the stereotype of Connecticut is being hailed as the second coming in the Democratic Party. Say what?
Sensible Liberals are establishment politicos who have, if any, a neoliberal ideology. Poke ’em and you’ll find support for work over welfare (despite the lakc of jobs), giving polluters incentives to behave (the government subsidizes polluters), fixing education (building charter schools to make it safe for white middle class kids to go to urban schools), balancing the budget (because we should all approach government spending as if it were our own checkbook).
Sensible Liberals tell us that they’re just as pious and devout as their evangelical kin. So sensible liberals hardly flinch putting God all over the place in politics.
Sensible Liberals are sensible about race and are just as quick to equate reverse discrimination and affirmative action.
There is so very little distance between Sensible Liberals and the right largely because Sensible Liberals are moderate Republicans. And Moderate Republicans and Far Out Republicans can agree on one thing: a real leftists is a Godless Commie and Friend of Terrorists.
Actually, zeitgaist seems to be quite lefty of late. TNR steers toward a genuine left of center. E.g. in the last issue Sen. Baucus was chided for his shilling for corporate interests. Punishment was called for — well, they did not urge a primary challenge but merely removal from the position of the ranking minority member of the Finance Committee.
Reports from Iraq are morose.
Hey, The Economist had a survey about excessive inequality in USA and the lack of equal chances for the youth etc. And their reports from Iraq are morose as well. And they support carbon tax. Perhaps The Economist should be used as the trendsetting magazine for Sensible Liberals (or Sophisticated Right). And there seem to be the consensus growing that Far Out Republicans are really bad.
At least in Italy the local godless commies were indicated as a superior alternative to the local far-out republicans. [Italian far right is more honest after a fashion. They do not pretend to revere any creators of Democracy but are nostalgic for Il Duce. And the richest of them all is the leader — no confusion there, like Bush taking order from Cheney who in turn is instructed by the real big boys in oil industry. But they are crude and godless commies, a genuine article in Italy, are suave.]
The Cold War was mostly characterised as “capitalism” (whatever that is as a unitary entity) vs. “communism” (ditto), but in the end, what sustained the conflict had more to do authoritarianism vs social justice. This is not to say there was no authoritarianism in the West and no social justice in the Eastern Bloc, just that the outcome of the Cold War seems to have depended on the relative degrees to which those ideals were held.
After the Cold War ends, there’s nothing blocking authoritarianism in America, no present comparison to point to in order to say “We’re trying to avoid that.” In earlier eras, America had monarchies, then fascism, then communism to sustain an image of an authoritarianism against which to measure a commitment to democracy or freedom. Now, even China seems to be edging toward a more open system and has adopted policies which have pulled some percentage of their people farther from abject poverty – or at least we can convince ourselves of this by calling the Chinese policies “capitalism”. As the radical Islamists are not Christian, it is easy for Americans to convince themselves that anything we do isn’t the same as what they would do.
However, since the force that won the Cold War is theoretically “capitalism”, those who care about social justice, and who are perceived as associated with the discredited “communism” are often left without any ground from which to gain traction for their position.
In some sense, that’s what the Bush administration has provided: evidence that without the Soviet bloc as a comparison, it is American “capitalism” that has no place from which to assert the moral high ground, and that, like other dominant powers in the past, the American state will pursue the maintainance of that status in the most merciless fashion it can convince it’s populace to sustain.
But what’s also clear, at least to the “left”, as it has played out so many times in recent history, is how much that power mania is maintained by a cadre of the powerful who have found an effective way of constructing a megaphone for themselves to rule through propaganda.
The Insensible Liberals presumably still assume that “capitalism” won the Cold War and that “left” can be equated with “communism”, whereas the real concern of the “left” (or those who are labelled “left” simply due to their opposition to the current order) are most often concerned with real social justice, while “communism” was more often concerned with using the language of social justice for authoritarian ends, just as neo-conservatism does now.
The obvious has been stated above with clarity. Marx has been put in his grave by people who have no conception of what he wrote. Marx spoke of history and philosophy. In both he still hasn’t been proven wrong. His only flaw was that he thought the worker’s revolution would happen either during his life or sometime soon after. He didn’t foresee energetic authoritarians highjacking his theory for personal gain. He absolutely thought of the two worst places his theory could be tested; Russia and China.
Marx is the next step in liberal thought. Yet, so-called liberals denounce him and ridicule his ideas. Please read Marx again and tell me if you prefer the jackboot approaching your neck over liberty and justice. I pity you who will justify your own petty prejudices and ingrained thoughts that humans can do no better because of our “innate” need for competition and that the only way to motivate us is with greed.
If so, we are doomed. I am not part of this human race and truly have never been. Loser is my calling… I hope you like your view from the top, Winners.
The obvious has been stated above with clarity. Marx has been put in his grave by people who have no conception of what he wrote. Marx spoke of history and philosophy. In both he still hasn’t been proven wrong. His only flaw was that he thought the worker’s revolution would happen either during his life or sometime soon after. He didn’t foresee energetic authoritarians highjacking his theory for personal gain. He absolutely thought of the two worst places his theory could be tested; Russia and China.
yeah, his historical theories haven’t been “proven wrong” in the same way that the “theories” contained in the Book of Revelation haven’t been proved wrong. All those waiting with hope for the worker’s revolution to happen — that is, people like you — are about as stupid as all the Rapture Ready fundies.