A reader asked me to expand upon some slighting remarks which a previous post directed toward the Pacifica network. I responded in the comments section. Perhaps, just to churn up some debate, those ideas deserve airing here in the main body of this blog.
Arguably, those insults should not have been lobbed at the Pacifica network, which has broadcast a lot of good stuff over the years. (Amy Goodman comes to mind.) My main quarrel is really with a mind-set, with a weltanschauung, with a certain type of progressive I just cannot stomach. Alexander Cockburn, Michael Alpert and Marc Cooper are a few names prominent within this crowd. Christopher Hitchens used to be among their number. I always hated him. Thank God he switched -- or, if you prefer, showed his true colors.
This creepy cadre formed a "progressive mafia" in the 1980s and early '90s. Every time someone rallied the troops against Reagan/Bush perfidy, they would chime in: "The Dems are just as bad!" These are the guys who attacked the Clinton health care plan from the left. Are you happy with the results? These are the guys who assailed Clinton almost as mercilessly as the Republicans did, thus helping to pave the way for the 1994 GOP congressional takeover and the impeachment fiasco. Are you happy with the results?
These are the guys who keep telling us that it is better to back a sure-to-lose candidate than to back someone they define as impure. These are the guys who created the Nader vote. The asshole vote. The vote that gave us W.
These left-wing mafiosi pretty much ran all the organs of counter-cultural thought during the Reagan and Bush I eras. And what was their legacy? Let's judge their actions on a practical basis. Did the country shift to the right or to the left during that time? Did left-wing thought prosper during those years, or did it dwindle?
I say that Cockburn, Cooper and co. have resumes comparable to that of the Captain of the Exxon Valdez.
And I'm glad that we've found new voices. Give me a Randi Rhodes over a Marc Cooper any day of the effing week.
8 comments:
*sigh*
talk about the asshole left...
please stop talking out of your ass re: nader (oooo, he's scary, kiddies!) as being THE reason king george ii crowned himself during coup 2000...
only a properly propagandized person would maintain such a false and ridiculous meme...
(you do blame *ALL* the other prez candidates equally who got more votes than the margin, right? yeah, i thought so... *snort*)
chickenhearted dem'rats who act as if votes are 'owed' them are the very same 'practical' minded mushmouths who compromise themselves out of EVERY FUCKING 'PRINCIPLE' they hold dear for the sake of supporting weak, spineless dem'rats who *might* have a chance of 'winning'... (whatever they are 'winning', besides their sinecure...)
why not blame gorewhore who ran about as breathtakingly inept campaign as can be possible ?
why not blame the media who falsely portrayed gorewhore and boy george ?
say, kampers, i've got an idea: why not blame the real and true culprits who STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION, YOU STUPID, PISSY, PRISSY MORONS ?
geezus, scaredy 'rats spent more time excoriating a TRUE PROGRESSIVE, a TRUE AMERICAN, A TRUE LEADER than daring to even take the slightest peek at our fatally flawed election systems...
gee, WHERE WERE the dem'rat leaders, patriots, and brave soldiers for small-dee democracy when coup 2000 (and coup 2004) went down ? ? ?
*WHERE* were they again ? ? ?
were they jumping up and down, outraged at the destruction of the bedrock of democracy ? ? ?
gee, i don't remember it that way...
were they like terriers on a tug-o-war, demanding fair, free, transparent, and trustworthy elections ?
uh, nope, not hardly...
*WHERE* were those stalwart defenders of democracy all you cut-and-run progressives (he said with a sneer) voted in to office ? (some victory, huh? congratulations)
*WHERE* WAS ONE -*ONE*- FUCKING DEM'RAT SENATOR WHO STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE WHEN THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS *TRIED* TO GET THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CHALLENGED, WHERE THE FUCK WERE THEY, AGAIN ? ? ?
i guess they were too busy getting ready for the inaugural parties and shit; not a time to be, well, you know, a skunk at the party...
(...and where the fuck were *YOU* assholes: i didn't see you on the street corner next to me and my wife and a ragtag mix of true patriots and progressives protesting coup 2000; i didn't see the dem'rats leaders (aside from jesse jackson)with me in tallahassee when we were protesting coup 2000, gee, they musta been around the corner or sumpin'...)
piss on lily-livered, panty-waisted, pseudo-progressive, milquetoasted, compromised-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness dem'rats...
progressives my ass...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
artguerrilla@alltel.net
eof
Joseph, thank you for leaving the art guerrilla's comment on here. I am not as up on the finer points of issues and players as you two are, but it seems to me that he's attacking you unnecessarily. Like him, I think the snipe at Nader is gratuitous; third party candidates like Nader have played important roles in US history, re-directing the major parties when they fail to address grassroot concerns. It seems to me, however, that you have consistently railed against exactly the kinds of Dem'rats that art guerrilla lumps you in with. Let's not misidentify the enemy.
I'm 100% with art guerrilla. "Did the country shift to the right or to the left during that time? Did left-wing thought prosper during those years, or did it dwindle?" Apply that to the Clinton years. If you think Nader, Cockburn et al had more to do with that than "Big Dog" and Hillary and Daschle and Gephardt, you have had too much of your own Kool-Aid.
That's precisely what I think.
Between 1980-1996, we let the Cockburn-style "squishy socialist" left define what "left" meant. The American public instinctively couldn't stand those guys. Consequently, all progressives were tainted. The wrong "spokesmen" made all the noise.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but I don't hate her. I do hate Nader. If (in some alternate universe where Nader stood a chance) it came down to a contest between Nader and McCain, I'd hold my nose and vote for McCain.
And just for the record, I really, really, REALLY don't like McCain either. I just happen to hate Nader with a bit more vehemence.
I may be willing to entertain some theories and views and opinions which others would consider wild and wacky, but when it comes down to the fundamental "how I'd run the zoo" questions, I'm a mainstream Dem. The happiest votes of my life were for Gore, Kerry, and Walter Mondale.
Such are my politics; dig or split. There ARE other blogs.
By the end of the Clinton years, mainstream democratic values finally started to make a comeback, even thought the right had commandeered much of the media. I may not always have agreed with "Big Dog," but his success speaks for itself.
Restrict discussion to the Reagan/Bush I years -- the years when the "asshole left" controlled much of the non-Republican dialogue in various periodicals -- and my questions still stand. Did the left gain ground or lose ground? Did this nation's ideological centerpoint shift to the right or to the left? Did the public find left-wing opinion attractive or repellent?
Cockburn, Alpert, Hitchens, Cooper, Jesse Jackson, Navasky and even the sainted Chomsky (who spent much of the early '90s combatting Main Enemy JFK) are all proven FAILURES. Even a few folks I genuinely like, such as Vidal and Parenti, fall into this same dismal category. Let's not pretend that they suffered from a shortage of opportunites to address the public. They spoke and spoke and spoke -- and people just plain disliked them.
They failed.
The Clintonistas largely succeeded; they brought this country back to some measure of fiscal sanity and kept us out of war. So, yes, I respect them -- as I do not respect the Pacifica left.
Stop listening to them. Stop defending them. They FAILED.
The new generation -- the internet generation, the Air America generation -- is having much more impact. This new generation has learned not to sell puerile dreams of revolution to a populace that simply wants a little help paying for college tuition and medical care, and who want to keep both our jobs and our troops at home.
Only at the end of your new comment do you begin to approach the significant truth of the matter, which is that the financial and economic state of the nation drives politics.
Liberal Democrats cannot succeed politically while the pie is shrinking. Can't happen. On the other hand, when the pie is expanding, and real productivity is growing, liberalism flourishes.
Since about 1970, the American pie has been shrinking. THAT is why fascism has been creeping in. It does no good to rant against Nader and Chomsky, Mr. Cannon. What they are saying is simply and plainly true. You might not like their message, and the public may refuse to vote for them, but at least they aren't LYING to us.
And I have to say something else. I don't post comments much here or elsewhere, not anymore. Because, none of this matters. Liberalism is not coming back, not until the underlying economic structure of this bankrupt nation is shattered and reconstructed. I admire the fight and spirit of you and Brad and so many others, and support you and your efforts with calls and letters and donations, but it is a losing battle.
Someday, Joseph, if civilization survives the train wreck that is coming, historians will make their judgments, and trust me on this--they won't have much good to say about Clinton-type Dems or Bush-type Reps. They will, however, have a lot of praise for Nader and Chomsky. As they do for Tom Paine and Thoreau and Socrates.
Well, I can imagine that art guerilla has a great time talking to the image in the mirror. That kind of raging diatribe is so popular with the freeper wingnuts. One can read the entire post and learn nothing.
However. I haven't entirely given up on Pacifica.....Ian Masters may not like to think about the conspiracies, but he has good interviews, as does the ever more lauded Amy Goodman. And there's Larry Bensky and Roy of Hollywood at nights. But I might agree that they preach to the choir.
My problem with Nader is that he's over. I would have more respect for him if he actually did something for the Green Party. In 2004, he just sat back and made a stab at running at the last minute. That looked like nothing more than a grab at glory to me. If he were serious, he should have been out there for 3-4 years doing the trench work to build up the Greens. Just not that into it, I guess.
McCain has lost all the respect I once had for him. He talks a good line, then turns around and hugs W. Ugh! He's become nothing but a toady to power....."From the Terrace."
But I still luv ya, Joe. Keep up the good work and I'll keep reading.
babbit babbled -
Well, I can imagine that art guerilla has a great time talking to the image in the mirror. That kind of raging diatribe is so popular with the freeper wingnuts. One can read the entire post and learn nothing.
okay, smart guy/gal, tell me again (as senor cannon saw fit to ignore)the flaw in my valid and telling point that spineless dem'rat morons blamed nader unfairly for gorewhore's loss...
no ? ? ? gee, why not...
oh, by the way, mainstreambreath, i'm so lefter-than-thou, that *some* of my views circle all the way around to meet up with *some* freeper positions...
you want to sling out our liberal dicks and compare ? ? ?
i don't think so...
oh, by the by, you -as well as the estimable cannon (who i *do* appreciate for his news/views, he is just misinformed on some progressive issues)- are both ignoring the FACT of massive vote fraud during coup 2000/2004, why is that ? ? ?
(you know, just part of my totally fact-free, content-free diatribe you dismissed with, um, absolutely no content in your own diatribe... huh, that's ironical, ain't it...)
of course, you are dismissing my blockbuster factoid that NOT ONE USELESS DEM'RAT senator stood up for democracy, now didn't you ? ? ?
not significant ? mere diatribe ?
careful, sparky, you'll reveal more about your thought processes than might be flattering...
if you're not raging against the machine, then you simply aren't paying attention...
art guerrilla
(nb, two 'r's, babbit, thank you)
aka ann archy
artguerrilla@alltel.net
(nb, *real* email eddress, babbler, get you some... if you can take the truthiness, hhh)
eof
The resurgence of the Iran/Contra players in this Bush administration, like the Bush administration itself, could only have come about because Bill Clinton masterfully swept the manifold illegalities of Iran/Contra under the rug in his earliest days as president.
Same thing the Democrats did with the October Surprise.
Post a Comment