Lately my Lefty mailing lists have been, as usual, a fertile source of material for studying the mental processes of Democratic Party apologists. Doug Henwood's list, I'm sorry to say, has been particularly rife with near-demented thinking, in connection with (of all things) the Wiener-waggler's, erm, comeuppance.
Some of us were pretty amused by the whole business, and several suggested that even without this particular Weiner, the roast would go forward without much alteration in its program. Our breezy nonchalance was quickly rebuked, by a half-dozen or so earnest souls eager to explain to us why the Weinerdämmerung was really a Very Bad Thing. A few samples:
I think it is a bad idea to cheer too loudly when the bad guys are taken down by the worse guys. As with Clinton taking hits for a blow job, Weiner taking major hits for sexting helps reinforce American puritanism, something that is already quite bad enough. And its being used as an excuse to give credibility to Breitbart. Hell with cheering that shit on.Another:
it is amazing how quickly the reasoning process of certain sophisticated leftists can degenerate into mindless Cheneyism. Just as for Cheney there's a fixed number of terrorists and once you kill them all the terrorism stops, so too there are apparently a fixed number of ultra-Zionist politicians in Queens, and if you get rid of enough of them their race is extinguished.This poor chap seems to be still hagridden by wounding memories of his college days:
And your semantic bullshit only makes you look like a fool. Reminds me of the Pomo profs I had who would attack endlessly how a student said or wrote something only because they were completely inept to deal with what they said or wroteA profound Marxist theorist:
It matters on what basis a neoliberal like Weiner is tossed out of office. If a Clinton is impeached for sexual transgressions by the ultra-right, it tips politics more rightward still, as we saw after 2000. If the collapse of the Spanish economy led to the resignation of the Prime Minister at the instigation of the right-wing People's Party, it'd be a bad thing, whereas it would be positive if it resulted from an uprising like France in 1968....A number of perennial themes here.Does anyone seriously suppose that center-left bourgeois politicians being forced from office by conservatives and sexual puritans advances the interests of the working class? Where's the evidence for this assertion?
- Quivering fear of the ultra-Right, and a corresponding belief that the centrists are somehow containing or countervailing it;
- A devotion to universal values like anti-"Puritanism";
- A template for revolution, which must be followed;
- A fondness for incinerating straw men -- nobody, of course, had actually advanced the notion that Boner-Boy's political detumescence would "advance the interests of the working class";
- And of course the usual coarse puerile personal abuse, well below the level of imagination and eloquence you'd hear in any schoolyard these days.
I think, on balance, it's the guy who was worried about the Puritan threat. There was a certain irony in this; at about the same time, another participant on the list -- a female one, as it happens; call her St Joan -- had incautiously described the odious school "reformer" Michelle Rhee as "an ugly cunt". Here's Rhee below; decide for yourself:
Poor St Joan was subjected to the near-universal hiss of the list. All based on the highest political principles -- of course.
I wish somebody would write a really searching critique of this concept "Puritanism". To use it in a serious way, as if it were a genuine analytical category, seems a desperately shallow thing for any thoughtful person to do. But the history and usage of the term, in its modern sense, would be an interesting study. There's a certain pleasing symmetry in the picture. "Puritans" (in the modern sense) often have vivid secret sex lives; and modern anti-Puritans often seem strangely -- and openly -- Puritanical.
Comments (21)
I like the term "prurience-prudery." It's what "puritanism," in its post-1970s form, is.
Posted by Jack Crow | June 14, 2011 10:46 PM
Posted on June 14, 2011 22:46
I don't know if this fits your theme, but this is too good not to share. This is a Yelp review for a coffee shop in Sacramento:
Only go here if you're under 30 years old or the people behind the counter cannot be bothered. Maybe if we'd have worn shorts in the rain with Birkenstocks we could have passed as old school hipsters, but we don't work in academia. My husband and I wanted a cup of freakin coffee to go, not to hang out and ruin the ambience with our decrepitude. The guy behind the register chatted endlessly with the hipster girl waiting for her coffee, but couldn't be bothered to wait on us for the longest time.
It was the closest experience I will ever have to what people of color experience in the Deep South.
And so, giving the company my money became a challenge. I leaned against the post for three minutes while he had his back turned
Posted by Paul Alexander | June 14, 2011 11:30 PM
Posted on June 14, 2011 23:30
The imputation of adherence to the Lump of Zionists Fallacy is amusing. That damn Lump shows up everywhere.
Posted by Al Schumann | June 15, 2011 6:36 AM
Posted on June 15, 2011 06:36
So let me get this straight: The Puritan Democrats who are drumming the Wienie out of office are, in fact, the anti-Puritans, or are our last bastion against Puritanism?
Meanwhile, the non-Puritans appear to be many of the people in the Wiene's district who don't actually want him to resign, and/or don't want their representative's fate determined by a Puritian/Zionist party hack from Florida.
Posted by chomskyzinn | June 15, 2011 11:12 AM
Posted on June 15, 2011 11:12
Heck...Our gloroious Soviet leaders were only one step removed from Cotton Mather, no? Did Lenin ever have sex? So...bring on the glorious working class puritanism, no? LOL
Posted by Brian M | June 15, 2011 11:47 AM
Posted on June 15, 2011 11:47
This post evoked some odd responses, didn't it?
Posted by MJS | June 15, 2011 6:55 PM
Posted on June 15, 2011 18:55
more than you know.
Posted by Boink | June 15, 2011 8:39 PM
Posted on June 15, 2011 20:39
Tell me more.
Posted by MJS | June 15, 2011 9:01 PM
Posted on June 15, 2011 21:01
I think I ruined the comments for this post. And it had such potential considering it had some really shining examples of the mindset that this site is trying to expose. I will do better in the future.
Posted by Paul Alexander | June 16, 2011 2:57 AM
Posted on June 16, 2011 02:57
LOL mea culpa.
Posted by Brian M | June 16, 2011 12:01 PM
Posted on June 16, 2011 12:01
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/16/targets-anti-union-propaganda-actors-revealed-to-be-union-members/
Is this what is wrong with the labor movement?
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/target-forces-employees-to-watch-this-anti-union-propaganda-video/
Posted by Boink | June 16, 2011 12:39 PM
Posted on June 16, 2011 12:39
I am not above mea culpas Brian!
Posted by Paul Alexander | June 16, 2011 12:55 PM
Posted on June 16, 2011 12:55
Currently enjoying lavish SSBs, I interrupt this summer wiener roast to applaud AARP and its associated insurance businesses for putting America's future first.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Economist-Mom/2011/0617/Well-good-for-you-AARP
Posted by Boink | June 17, 2011 6:53 PM
Posted on June 17, 2011 18:53
Now, who has the mustard?
http://beachlandballroom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/polser.jpg?w=240&h=180
Posted by Boink | June 17, 2011 8:24 PM
Posted on June 17, 2011 20:24
Boink,
The AARP lady is an economist and a mom! That's like a one-two punch combo. She's not just any mom, however, she's a proud mom. In terms of punching, that's like being George Foreman in his pre-meat grilling days.
Posted by Al Schumann | June 18, 2011 5:53 AM
Posted on June 18, 2011 05:53
God, this site just gets worse and worse. The post is a new low.
Chomsky-Zinn should have his own blog. He's the only serious person here.
Posted by miguelito | June 18, 2011 11:05 AM
Posted on June 18, 2011 11:05
Posted by MJS | June 18, 2011 12:07 PM
Posted on June 18, 2011 12:07
... but I agree, CZ should have his own blog. If that's too much trouble, he's welcome to post here, anytime he likes. Drop me a line, CZ, and I'll make an author login for you.
Posted by MJS | June 18, 2011 1:11 PM
Posted on June 18, 2011 13:11
From dreary experience, seriousness means gnawing over structural critiques and trying to tease fresh insights out of them. People who put their hearts into original thinking get nipped to death by the ankle-biters; and every last one of the nippers is so authentically left wing that they can fart the tune of the Internationale.
Posted by Al Schumann | June 19, 2011 9:50 AM
Posted on June 19, 2011 09:50
"In terms of punching, that's like being George Foreman in his pre-meat grilling days."
Tell that to Michael Moorer (no, not "Moore," "Moorer.")
Posted by gluelicker | June 20, 2011 12:00 PM
Posted on June 20, 2011 12:00
I am genuinely flattered, MJS, but I think I'll continue with my drive-bys. To mix my metaphors, and veer inevitably toward sports, I like being a middle-inning reliever: Happy to come in and get a batter or two out in the 6th.
Though miguelito writes kind words as well (at least about me!), I do have to disagree with him about SMBIVA. This site pushes boundaries all over the place, and God, er, Karl bless 'em for that!
Posted by chomskyzinn | June 23, 2011 3:01 PM
Posted on June 23, 2011 15:01