Stop Me Before I Vote Again

I liked him better in Mr Soft Touch.

great guy
great
strikes a perfect pitch to his pitch

i suspect he could use some
pol econ back up
--but what red hot rad couldn't--

the man's a vanguard squadron leader
for sure

Agreed

I really enjoyed that.

unintended irony in Part I around 7:30 or so...

I hear "martial plan" instead of "Marshall Plan"

I love how at Part I around 8:00 Glen Ford makes the same point I've been making since 2006 regarding Obama's then-twinkling stardom -- White liberals look to Black people to decide what to do. Liberal White Guilt, baby. If Black pundits suggest ignoring everything for the sake of electing Obama, ignorant preppy-yuppie White Liberals don't question whether Obama is a fraud. No, they pwogwessivewheee extend the metaphor of Obama as Messiah.

Glen is punchy and on point as usual. I think he really nails it when he says that someone ought to have been taking notes on the collapse of Wall Street in the British Museum- or anywhere else- much as a certain very conscientious critic did a century and a half ago. Certainly a re-read of Marx's "the Class Struggle in France 1848-1850" reveals some of the same kind of phenomenon we see in our day, the collapse of the French financial system, a public bailout of same and the suspended animation of the labor movement during that period. At the very least, the "left" should have been on the speculator collapse like brown on rice, if we're such hot shit, but we have miles to go. I can think of no post-marxist writer anywhere today who writes as revealingly of the current moment as Marx did in his own day.

Glen says its an opportunity for leftists and with all due respect to Comrade Glen, I say that leftists go nowhere because so many of them think they've out thought marxist method, and the reality is that marxist method still runs circles around the postmodern "anarchists" who guide much of the fortunes of the "left" today. Toss Marx and the experience of communism out if we must, but we'd better have something a hell of a lot more substantial to offer, rooted not only in "post marxist" theory but a concrete understanding of the contradictions of early socialism. Most of what parades about in the United States as "the left" or "progressives" or "libertarian socialists" or "libertarians" or "anarchists" or what have you isn't anywhere near what it thinks it is, led as all such movements are by the lazy minded and the self-righteous. None of them are worthy of lacing Lenin's shoes, though most all of them have plenty of nasty things to say about Lenin and the Bolsheviks. I say look before you leap. This work is hellishly difficult, and we're all going to fuck up major before we're anywhere near where we need to be.

One thing Ford's talk illustrates is that we (as a country) need to talk. Some of us are doing that online, but few are doing it face-to-face. If unmediated live discussions are the key to ending empire, then we better get with it.

White liberals look to Black people to decide what to do. Liberal White Guilt, baby.

Certainly true to a point, but I am pretty sure white liberals would have been on board with Obama anyway. Look at the extent to which they indulged Bill Clinton and it's not like they had abundant alternatives. Obama's blackness just adds an additional feel-good factor and makes him harder to criticize. It also nurtures the favorite pwog illusion that once the political object of their affection attains sufficient power and standing, the REAL progressive inside will come out.

If you read, say, Tom Hayden and his ilk on Obama, clearly they believe he has no agency really in his metamorphosis from community organizer to bank-coddling, treasury robbing, imperialist-in-chief. It's all the Machievellians (Hayden's word) in his midst that are causing the trouble and the left's responsibility to lay a strong grass roots foundation on which the REAL Obama can stand when he's ready to emerge. If it took them forever to disabuse themselves of the notion that the Clintons were something other than the sociopaths they play on TV, you would expect it to take much longer with Obama.

On the other hand, I actually think there is a lot of disappointment among white liberals now that may actually be made more acute by virtue of Obama's blackness creating higher expectations. I mean, you can't really accept Glen Ford's assessment that black folks tend to be the most consistently left wing demographic and then fault white liberals for taking cues from them. To tell you the truthy, I would be happy if white liberals continued to walk behind black folks, if black folk were not so prone to forgiving and forgetting themselves. I mean, I am not sure that black idolatry of Obama exceeds the entirely unrequited adulation they lavished on Bill Clinton before he self-destructed on his wife's behalf.

On an issue-by-issue basis blacks tend to skew left more than other populations, but nonetheless are enmeshed in the same abusive relationship with the Democratic Party as their liberal white counterparts.

One thing Ford's talk illustrates is that we (as a country) need to talk.

I was thinking this very thing and I am not just talking about formal gatherings like the one in the video here. I think people should talk more about what's going on generally in gyms, bars, trains etc. Not doing so has definite political consequences in society that is the object of such sophisticated and relentless indoctrination.

I have noticed lately that small talk has gotten REALLY small. Where i live, folks don't talk much about politics even though they are the sort who tend to vote and maybe even belong to an activist organization or two. And with successive generations, actually arguing has become a really degraded practice. Being passionately angry about anything makes you a hater and the more critically you argue about something the more suspect it's likely to look.

Yesterday at my gym, I saw a guy with an Obama t-shirt and I wanted to confront him with the question -- Why do you wear that t-shirt now? The election is over -- is there something you still particularly admire about the President? But, of course, he would have thought I was a nut job and also there would be the several minutes explaining that I was not a right-wing Republican, so I left off. But I really feel in retrospect that I should have spoken up.

Something I learned as a guest speaker invited by church ministers and college professors to participate in their respective adult learning forums, is that people who are not activists are still concerned about the same things those who are active are, but usually lack access to informed analysis and opportunities to discuss serious ideas in a safe environment. If we begin with these types of venues, we will build confidence and understanding necessary to venture outside insular comfort zones. We will also establish relationships that are difficult to do online.

I am pretty sure white liberals would have been on board with Obama anyway.

Yes, because he is a Professional Light-Skinned Articulate Black, or in Malcolm X's terminology, a House Negro.

Which favoritism also is explained by Liberal White Guilt. As I imagine the internal dialogue in a lib-pwog Crackerbrain --

"He talks like I think. He's the kind of Black man we need leading America. Not one of those dark-skinned rabble-rouser Israel-haters like Cynthia McKinney."

As I've observed in other settings, the amount of "respect" and "admiration" shown Colin Powell by my lib-pwog friends, it's stunning. You can't even discuss Powell's role in My Lai or the fake yellowcake with those folks.

if we begin with these types of venues, we will build confidence and understanding necessary to venture outside insular comfort zones. We will also establish relationships that are difficult to do online.

I couldn't agree with this more. At the same time, you'd be surprised at the extent to which leaders in certain groups attempt to keep discussion within the confines of permissible opinion. Recently in my Brooklyn neighborhood, a local peace group -- Brooklyn Families for Peace -- sponsored what was billed as 'A conversation with Tom Hayden' about the war in Afghanistan. After Hayden finished his bloodless, passionless apologetics for Obama -- he didn't even seem to believe or care much about what he said-- a little authoritarian moderator from the sponsoring organization shouted down anyone attempting to take Hayden to task for his support for Obama and his general endorsement of continuing to work within the Democratic Party. He wouldn't have gotten away with this so easily were there not a large number of folks in the crowd who also thought the discussion shouldn't go there. Lots of booing of genuine lefties. It was disgusting.

It also seems to me that when these discussions evolve into what to do, there should be an answer in place. Just rejecting the Democratic Party is not a program. People really feel that they have no choice but to participate the the least-worst fraud every election year.

Decorum varies. The Quakers or League of Women Voters wouldn't stand for such misbehavior. Being prepared to encounter it, though, by discussing pitfalls of the public arena in advance, allows you and your friends to avoid being trapped. By anticipating misbehavior, you might even plan how to expose and undermine anti-democratic progressives. Imagine how their misconduct would play on YouTube.

Glen says its an opportunity for leftists and with all due respect to Comrade Glen, I say that leftists go nowhere because so many of them think they've out thought marxist method. . .

Is this REALLY why the left goes nowhere? It certainly seems to me we have no need of someone to hole up in the British Museum to unpack Wall Street for us: everything is right there on the surface. From a mobilization standpoint, do Americans really need to know more than what seems to be dawning on them already: that there is a kleptocracy standing at the top of American society that has control of every branch of government? I think the extent to which the Bush years and now the Obama years have laid all the rot bare is what Ford sees as the 'missed opportunity.'

"White liberals look to Black people to decide what to do."

One of the least accurate sentences in some time around here.

White liberals love to congratulate themselves for voting for Obama. But they never yet looked to black people for any advice.

In liberals' defense, I think many of them were opening themselves to the possibility that Zero might actually be another FDR figure, and that the state might finally do something about the racial aspect of economic inequality. They got snookered by Zero, big-time.

Alas, they are too ill-informed and lazy to figure out how and why and what conclusion to draw.

MD, I find it interesting that I can agree with your whole post above, excepting what you said about inaccuracy. Maybe you should've said the quoted statement (of mine) is inaccurate for your acquaintances and friends, since I'm not sure how you can judge the accuracy where I or my friends are concerned.

But in any case, the real point is that when white libs and pwogs I know say they look to what Black people want or need, they do it indirectly -- by checking to see what Tiger Woods wants, or what Susan Rice is clamoring for, or what Eric Holder is arguing. We only need to travel back 4 posts or so here at SMBIVA to remember the ML-H thread where it was seen that Professional Black Pundits comprise a good chunk of the source material for "informed" libs and pwogs like those who read The Nation.

I don't think you and I disagree, I think you just misunderstood my reference points. I agree with michael above, who said more actual talking needs to happen. Consulting Melissa Lacewell-Harris for a barometer of what Black America wants, that's a bit inaccurate for sure. It would only tell me what ML-H believes she should say, publicly, in order to advance her career.

I don't care for identity politics one iota -- I understand how they mesh with and reinforce the merit class neo-liberalism so articulately dissected at this site. But if I were a "white" leftist, I'd be a little more circumspect about throwing around the Uncle Tom/house negro etc. labels -- EVEN IF the shoe fits. It's not the most welcoming way to form alliances with Af-Am radicals who are already on our side (not that there is a clearly demarcated "side" here, but I think you get my drift) -- much less those who are close but not all the way there. A less careful reader might get the wrong impression that blog denizens are arguing that privileged black flacks for Obama are a lodestone of DP rule... I don't think anyone here is arguing that. Although I would agree, trends are dismal. (Witness the wretched antics of the Black Congressional Caucus these days.)

CF, I'm not even sure I think there are many liberals of any color these days who actually think about things, let alone seek counseling or example from anybody. In my experience, liberals are merely reacting to vibes they harvest, mostly from TV, with maybe a dash of NPR or Think Progress or somesuch thrown in to make themselves feel like they're trying harder than those they scorn. The vast majority have no clue that their sources are the CBS Evening News with a few extra syllables and hip reference points.

I though Glen was talking about white lefties looking to black lefties for insight and to some extent for direction -- not about white liberals.

If that's what he meant, I think it's a true observation, and not entirely a bad thing.

It's hard to get the balance right. One wants to think for oneself and make up one's own mind, but then the black movement has been central to anything good that's happened in this country in my lifetime, and nothing good is going to go anywhere without the energies of black folks being a big part of it. So a certain amount of respect, to say the least, is called for.

CF, I'm not even sure I think there are many liberals of any color these days who actually think about things, let alone seek counseling or example from anybody.

If the people you are talking about are just 'harvesting vibes' then they're not liberals. They're not political creatures of any sort regardless of what they say about themselves.

I know a lot of liberals and they have very specific beliefs about things They tend to believe in gay marriage, national health insurance, a social safety net, they dislike guns and tend to oppose the death penalty. They take somewhat libertarian positions on sexuality and drugs and moralistic positions on food and the environment, two things that concern them a lot.

They look upon Canada favorably as a place where they might escape if things get too horrible here. They are fairly ignorant about many things, particularly as to just how evil American foreign policy is and has always been. The white ones do care what black people think, I believe, and are not indifferent to their troubles.

I am frustrated less by their beliefs than by their sanctimony, their conviction that the average American is a very stupid right-wing idiot, their authoritarian streak with respect to things like tobacco and food, their blindness to anything on their left and their insane allegiance to the Democratic Party even though they cop to being betrayed by it and occasionally express a certain regard for Nader and the need for more political diversity.

Really, these cartoon pwogs and liberals that get concocted here, who are they exactly? I mean, not everyone calling himself a liberal is some self-regarding half-wit, though certainly some of them are -- particularly the public ones.

It's the level of thinking that makes one politically literate, and that requires a degree of honesty or integrity that few are willing to face, primarily because it involves the risk of having to live with a disturbed conscience that can't be assuaged by being politically correct in one's demeanor or by adopting green consumption habits.

There's also the risk of social discomfort, employment vulnerability, as well as self-esteem. Perhaps the largest risk is realizing that moral choices are risky, even dangerous, and that shying from these moral obligations is not something you'd want your kids to know about.

I though Glen was talking about white lefties looking to black lefties for insight and to some extent for direction -- not about white liberals.

If that's what he meant, I think it's a true observation, and not entirely a bad thing.

That is what he said, but if people are confused it's probably because both the left he is talking about and the blacks he is talking about sound more like white and black liberals since he credits them with being of political consequence. There were a handful of exceptions, but the people most of the folks here would describe as the left didn't seem to have any more illusions about Obama than they did about Kerry. In fact, they expressed a lot of the same cynicism that Ford does about the extent to which his race might immunize him from criticism.

That's my problem with Ford's talk. I honestly don't recognize who or what he's talking about too much of the time. What's this about the 'traditionally oppositional character' of the black community. I mean, didn't that ship sail a while ago on a wave of adulation for Bill Clinton? Is there a community that the Democratic Party can more easily take for granted without delivering shit? Am I really supposed to read historical significance in the fact that a ritual demand for a Marshall Plan for the cities -- that gets issued and goes unheeded apparently each election cycle -- wasn't among the vacuous political gestures this time around?

Ford seems to be saying that Bush's disastrous wars and the financial crisis had set the stage for a left resurgence, a moment for the left to really gain traction, but that all of that was upended by corporate America's clever trick of putting a sexy brown gloss on the same old shit. I just don't buy it. If Obama hadn't been elected, Clinton most likely would have been, and I really don't think things would look all that different now.

As far as looking to the black left for guidance -- what is the black left exactly, apart from a small handful of commentators and web sites. It's certainly no one Obama ever worried over.

Michael, I see after a preview of my comment that Jay has said it better than I will. But for what it's worth, the caricatures and generalizations are solidly grounded. All individual liberals are going to part from them, to a greater or lesser extent, but the major things nevertheless hold true.

For the majority of liberals, liberalism entails support for the Democratic Party, and support for the party takes precedence over advancing the principles of liberalism. Whenever the two activities are mutually exclusive, and this is often, liberalism is redefined in a way that allows continued support for the Democratic Party. The public, professional liberals set the pace for the rest. When individual liberals rebel against that, they get treated to a pecking party. The majority of those so mistreated still maintain a Democratic Party brand identity. For all the fine individual qualities they may evince, they're ultimately authoritarian followers. It's this that inspires lampooning and ridicule.

the caricatures and generalizations are solidly grounded

At the risk of leaving myself open for a pecking party here I'll say that an endorsement of all caricatures and generalizations past and future really doesn't merit an argument.

In my post, I was mostly taking specific issue with the Michael Dawson's caricature, that the don't think about things, that they harvest vibes, that they take their leads from CBS News. This does not describe the liberals I know, that's all.

Two questions, MJS:

1. Why did you take this thread to mean white lefties?

2. What evidence is there even for that (perhaps) excessively generous reading?

At the risk of leaving myself open for a pecking party here I'll say that an endorsement of all caricatures and generalizations past and future really doesn't merit an argument.

That's snide. No one has proposed an "endorsement of all caricatures and generalizations past and future". Which makes your meritless argument oddly appropriate. You should make a belligerent idiot of yourself when you attack a strawman. There's an aesthetic fit, if nothing else.

In my post, I was mostly taking specific issue with the Michael Dawson's caricature, that the don't think about things, that they harvest vibes, that they take their leads from CBS News. This does not describe the liberals I know, that's all.

And that's making a caricature of what Michael Dawson actually said. But assuming you did so in some degree of good faith, if that's where you're taking issue, why did you address your closing question to SMBIVA at large?

I understand that your personal experience with liberals confounds what you read about them here; more precisely what you read into what you read about them here. However arguments based on personal authority are not generally compelling. As it is, you've made no effort to address the substance of my response to your question.

Jay and Al are talking about what I'm talking about, but more accurately and concisely. Thanks guys.

And I need to credit Jay with the idea that more personal discussion, more talking face-to-face, is needed. I credited michael with that but it was Jay who said it.

MD, I think maybe where you got me wrong above was in that hazy area of interpreting what I mean by "liberal" and specifically "white liberal." I don't make distinctions between "liberals" and "progressives," though many seem to draw such lines. To me they're equivalent, a liberal, a progressive, an Obamaphile, a Kennedy-worshiper, an FDR-worshiper. Anyone who romanticizes the Democrats, they're all cut from the same foul cloth that created the Emperor's new robes.

MD -- check the counter at about 2:00 remaining here.

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/5959755/

MD -- I thought he was talking about lefties because of the context: he's discussing a "demobilzation of the left", and I bet he distinguishes as sharply between "the left" and "liberals" as any of us around here.

Also of course I always try to apply what I hear to myself -- old church training. De te fabula narratur -- the tale is told of thee.

The difference between appearance and substance is illuminated by the rift between those who support the corporate state while retaining social security and civil rights (liberals), and those who wish the corporate state to be more accountable to their notions of human rights (progressives). Both want reform of the existing corporate system, but neither advocate democratizing capital in order to achieve their goals. That would also entail a shift in posture from begging to demanding, and involve risking those corporate paychecks and foundation grants.

Socialists who've succeeded in attaining a better deal for everyone, though, have endured blacklisting, harassment and assault from church and state and their lackeys. Sometimes the lackeys are conservative, sometimes liberal, but the marginalizing of peace activists by Obama supporters demonstrates that even progressives are essentially anti-democratic.

This labeling identity conundrum is causing unnecessary consternation among dedicated human rights advocates; if they are committed to a socialist agenda, then they need to abandon the notion of working within the capitalist system. But due to the prevailing mindset of most Americans, taking this step is much too frightening. So, for now, progressives and liberals continue to seek rights without the corresponding responsibilities, and the empire rolls along.

"But due to the prevailing mindset of most Americans, taking this step is much too frightening."

One of the cleverest features of capitalist disciplining of the world is the removal of everything but labor power including mental as well as physical as an economic asset. Most of us simply have to go the labor market to negotiate with the corporations for our next meal, next rent payment, etc. For most there is no backup system for the individual as, for instance, some relative's farm or shop 100 years ago where you could help out and vegetate for a bit while the economy bottomed out.

People see that the social safety net is inadequate and will do anything to avoid being tossed into it. The inadequacy of the net is part of the system of discipline.

My take on the prevailing mindset. Maybe the good old day's weren't ideal but the distribution of productive assets was different, though already trending towards today's distribution.

Also many skills have been lost. As Braverman explain decades ago.

I like that observation very much, Flak. It filled in a gap in my thinking, and I think it gives a lot to the peripheral interests/projects of this blog's immediate neighborhood.

I feel like a MH-L twitterer wandering into this saloon for the first time. What are the terms and stakes of this debate/discussion? I've lost track. Participants seem to have trouble making out the nametags of the interlocutors, much less their motives and arguments.

That's snide. No one has proposed an "endorsement of all caricatures and generalizations past and future".

Let me preface this by saying, I don't really care what folks think about liberals. They annoy the shit out of me also as previous posts should make clear. I honestly don't know why I decided to take issue with one more blanket generalization. But now that this argument is underway, and I have been called an idiot, I am going to respond to this.

Al, perhaps you should have been more specific about which caricatures and generalizations you meant. If you meant Michael Dawson's in particular, you didn't make a strong specific case for it. If that's not what you meant, then my interpretation of your remark as a blanket endorsement was understandable if not correct. You're right, I was snide. I apologize. I should not have commented at all, since it's not something I feel strongly about.

I didn't respond to the 'substance' of your response because I agreed with just about everything you said about liberals who support the Democratic Party and agree with most of what you and MJS post here. I just didn't see a clear line between those sentiments as fortifying an argument for the caricature in question or caricatures generally.

As to arguments from personal experience not being compelling -- peoples personal experience is always germane to any discussion of the extent to which generalizations are true. A single person's experience that is in conflict with a consensus doesn't disprove the consensus, but it is germane. Most folks here are drawing conclusions about liberals based mostly on their personal experience.

I also do not think I mischaracterized Michael Dawson's particular caricature. I used shorthand but I did not distort and you haven't shown otherwise. Please just accept that I was not deliberately mischaracterizing.

Now that all has taken me way closer to defending liberals then I ever want to be again. Won't do it again.