The flipside of David’s Frum’s piece about the stupidity of the right was provided by Jonathan Chait, writing about the unreasonableness of the left. On the whole, I agree with Mr. Chait’s analysis. But I really feel like he missed something by going all the way back to FDR to show how liberals have been unhappy with every Democratic president in recent history.
In any broad historical piece, you’re going to run into definitional problems of what constitutes the left, or the liberal left, or the progressive movement, or even the Democratic Party. I don’t think you can talk about the left’s relationship with the Democratic Party in the same way pre- and post-Vietnam, or pre- and post-Civil Rights Era. Mr. Chait may be right there there are certain personality traits among liberals that have remained consistent throughout, but the liberal left changed fundamentally during the 1960’s. In the 1930’s and 1940’s, the liberal left was the intellectual soul of Democratic Party. It had to cobble together an uneasy coalition of socialists and Jim Crow Democrats and city bosses and ward heelers. But liberals were in charge of the big things, like implementing the New Deal, creating the United Nations, and setting up the Bretton Woods system. While liberals agitated for social reforms and found themselves stymied on many fronts, they didn’t feel completely left out of power. In many areas, they wielded power. And if we look back now with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the liberals were on a victorious march towards ending apartheid in the South and winning much of the argument over social policies with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. There was something of a liberal consensus in this country. At least, there was enough of a consensus for liberal ideas to win the day.
But then came Vietnam. That stupid war destroyed the liberal consensus. It created a counterculture. And that counterculture is where liberal legitimacy went to die. You cannot be a governing philosophy at the same time that you are countercultural movement. A countercultural movement is set up to oppose power. It is a critique of a country, not a platform for governing a country. And that’s where the left has been stuck since about 1968. This is something distinct from Will Rogers’s old saw about “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!” This isn’t just about herding cats. It’s a fundamental flaw in the progressive predisposition.
There are virtues in the progressive attitude toward power. Most obviously, you can look at the way Republicans will follow their leaders over cliffs to see what happens when you don’t have a healthy skepticism towards your own party’s leaders. But neither lemming-like obedience nor chronic dissatisfaction are smart or healthy political attitudes.
It’s easy to fall into lazy criticisms, like the Republican mantra that progressives blame America first and don’t believe in American Exceptionalism. But there is more truth to those criticisms than progressives are willing to acknowledge. What progressives need to do is find a way to make the countercultural cultural.
How do you do that? Some recent examples of how this has been done successfully include moving from the Stonewall Riots in 1969 to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the refusal to enforce DOMA in 2011. Or, moving from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to electing a biracial president in 2008. What was unthinkable has become part of our culture. Likewise, assuming the Affordable Care Act survives all legal challenges and isn’t destroyed by a Republican president, it will form part of our culture and join Medicare and Social Security as things that are taken for granted.
We need to act like we trust power to do great things, and project that we are the right people to hold that power. And we need to take our positions within that power coalition rather than positioning ourselves as always outside of it serving as the gadfly.
Liberals used to be able to do this. But since the disaster in 1968, it seems like we just want to attack all forms of power, even when they are our own.
Liberals used to be able to do this. But since the disaster in 1968, it seems like we just want to attack all forms of power, even when they are our own.
What Chait won’t talk about is how the Democratic Party establishment has been taken over by people wanting to the bidding of corporations(see DLC). Also, too, Chait wants to rip liberals while he was leading the charge for the Iraq cock-up when the DFH’s were against it. You can take Chait out of TNR, but you can’t take the TNR out of Chait.
I don’t think there is any reason to make it personal with Chait. You should debate his ideas rather than bringing up Iraq.
Why? He’s the one who supported Iraq, stupidly. Not to mention assholes like him piss me off. Because they think they know better. And they keep repeating the same mistakes. Chait is not a journalist. He’s just another soulless servant to power.
Why? Because this piece has nothing to do with Iraq.
It shows the same blinkered thinking!!
Other than “It pissed me off!” is there any way that Chait’s thinking here is similar to his thinking about Iraq, that you can explain?
That’s nonsense. Chait’s support of Iraq isn’t a personal subject; it’s a matter of his ideas. If we’re talking about Chait generally being a proponent of Democratic/DLC conventional wisdom, then how is his prior support of same irrelevant? It isn’t as though Chait’s support for Iraq was a facial feature or something.
No, it isn’t a facial feature, but it also has no bearing on his argument. If you want to dismiss his argument because he’s the one who is making it, that’s pretty lame.
And Chait has credibility how? His article is just another way of telling liberals to shut up and take what you are given.
Well, I clearly disagree with you. And I suggest the possibility that you didn’t bother to read his rather long article.
FWIW, David Frum has a record, too. That doesn’t mean his latest article lacks credibility.
I did read the article. It’s clap-trap. He quotes idiots like Little Tommy Friedman and Chris Freakin’ Matthews. Real leaders of liberalism they are!! Why doesn’t he ask Michael Moore or KVH why they are disappointed? I’d at least take his premise seriously then. Or why doesn’t he talk about how the Party has been gutted by the DLC? Maybe that’s why people are disappointed. Or by the fact that the President admires Ray-gun. If Chait would do his job, he’d connect things like NAFTA and why in fact a lot of liberals despise Bill Clinton(and by extension Al Gore). Maybe he’d make mention of the fact that Al Gore became liked once he started forcefully speaking out against W.
And Chait has credibility how?
Chait’s credibility only matters to the extent that he asks us to trust him. He doesn’t in this piece – he offers a position, and backs it up with evidence and logic. If his argument is wrong, it’s because his evidence and logic have holes that you should be able to pick out, not because it’s Evil, Awful Jon Chait making it.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
The biggest disappointment in politics for me is the way liberals always desert the prez they elect & expect to criticize them like the Right does and for the prez to deliver the entire agenda plus ponies ALONE. Despicable people!
Boo, you have been a strident supporter of this president & that is why I read your blog daily. I truly appreciate that you want to win and you try to educate people. I don’t comment often because all the usual suspects are in the comments spewing bile and blaming the president relentlessly for every fucking thing that ever happened in the world; whether he was born or not when it occurred.
Please keep doing what you do as you do it well. I’m going to keep supporting the presidents I vote for & doing what I can to keep Dems in office.
I think Chait’s column is a good rebuttal to BS like this:
Grumbles on the upper left
Huffington is upper left? Are you serious?
I consider Huffington a Repub in wolf’s clothings personally, but for whatever it’s worth, the Beltway considers her “upper left” and until she is no longer thought so, they will continue linking to the “left” way of thought.
On the spectrum of American mass media, Huffington is definitely upper left. And so are most of her readers.
On that spectrum, sure. But most of Huffington is standard Mainstream. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Counterpunch would be “upper left,” as would these people:
John Caruso
Ian Welsh
Avedon Carol
Jonathan Schwarz
Chris Floyd
Bruce A. Dixon
IOZ
I have no idea who any of those people are. Avedon Carol sounds made up. Like a Christmas themed perfume or something.
Avedon blogs at Atrios occasionally, but her site is here:
http://sideshow.me.uk/
Who is IOZ?
Heh, “Who is Ioz” indeed; thus the name of the blog. A nihilist anarchist pacifist who’s seen America as an oligarchy from the get-go of 1783:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/
I read most of these people even though I disagree with most of what they write. I like to do that for the reasons Obama recommends we read “right wing” writers. But the right wing isn’t worth reading, so I read the very, very far left. A few others:
Jack Crow (The Crow’s Eye)
The Promiscuous Reader (This Is So Gay)
Captain Capitulation (The Eye of the Storm)
Dennis Perrin
Charles Davis (False Dichotomy)
I realize now that I never heard the expression “upper left” before, and I don’t know what it means. All I meant is that Huffpost is on the left of the dial of mass media.
I thought the same thing, so you’re not alone. First time I’ve heard the phrase as well (assumed it meant far left) :S
I thought it was some modern-day version of the old “limousine liberal” epithet.
In the same interview BTW, Tweety said of Obama that he doesn’t seem to like being President, that Obama hasn’t shown graditude for having been “given” the office. He also basically maligned the First Family particularly the First Lady. He said that word on the hill is that she, Malia & Sasha obviously don’t like living in the White House.
You guys have been in politics longer than me, so please tell me has Tweety ever been a real legitimate member of the “liberal media” or has he always been so fair-weather?
He’s always been so fair-weather.
(That’s the short answer. The longer answer is that he’s similar to David Brooks in that they’re both incapable of following their thoughts through to a logical conclusion when events contradict their preconceived notions of how the world should be, or once was.)
You guys have been in politics longer than me, so please tell me has Tweety ever been a real legitimate member of the “liberal media” or has he always been so fair-weather?
The day George Bush sat in the back seat while a pilot landed on the USS Lincoln, Chris Matthews said on the air, “Everyone likes this guy, except the real whack jobs.”
Also a good rebuttal to this BS from this weekend:
I’LL PUT GLASS IN YOUR DINNER AND SPIKES ON YOUR SEAT
For even more fun & games, click through to Balloon Juice. Nearly a pie-war level skirmish over there in the comments.
Well, I have nothing to contribute, except that I think this is a well-written, concise and on the mark piece. I will send it to friends and family. It is vintage Booman.
I agree. Another thoughtful, brilliant post from the booman. My FB page has turned into a series of “likes” of various booman posts. At the very least, I think I should intersperse some youtube clips or something.
Another interesting post, Booman.
Looking on the bright side, there are the examples you give of the countercultural becoming cultural.
And, progressives made the countercultural become the dominant culture by embracing power, understanding self-interest and wrestling with the compromises they entail.
this is OT, This kids have almost single-handedly re-ignited my faith in the younger generation. BTW, check out the photo that goes along with this article. That young lady seated to Bachmann’s left is my hero of the day!
Bachmann gives students a 101 on issues, then gets lectured
“So screw the sick and homeless?”
“Who said that?” Bachmann asked.
“You have,” the student said.
Brilliant!
One aspect of the 2008 Obama campaign that I really admired is that it engaged a huge bunch of people in the electoral/political process for the first time, really, since the 1960’s. A big chunk of the left that had become too discouraged and apathetic over the past 40 years to get involved on any level – volunteering, advocating, donating money, working for elected officials or even running for electoral process themselves – found a reason to. Part of the reason for that was because the Obama campaign was fundamentally a people-powered and insurgent one. Part of it was because he was the first person of color to have a real shot at the Presidency. Part of it was that he was unafraid to take strong progressive positions in his campaign platform. And one part, very underestimated in retrospect IMO, was because he was clearly a person of character and integrity, who showed many of us that you can actually engage with the political process in this country without losing your soul. Frankly, that last point was a big surprise. I think many on the left had given up on it and it’s a big reason that the “counterculture” has remained so appealing for so long to so many.
Now, that re-engagement appears to have been temporarily stymied. It may reappear with OWS down the road, depending on how the movement develops. Elizabeth Warren certainly seems to have tapped into it with her campaign, although I’m not exactly sure what differentiates her from other progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders or Barney Frank (other than that she’s a new face). I don’t what the exact formula is for tapping into that energy, but the more that politicians can tap into, the more that a saner liberal approach to the power coalition will emerge. I suspect that demonstrated personal integrity on the part of candidates is a big part of it.
Very good piece, BooMan.
Barack Obama is right of center. Clinton was right of center. Carter was right of center. Johnson was a mass murderer. Even Roosevelt…
I.e., Democrats have always had a tendency to be right-wing assholes. Therefore, liberals are unreasonable to notice.
That’s one cogent flipping analysis.
I really could not get past the part where Chait began citing Jonathan Haidt on psychological differences between the reds and blues with respect to within- and between-group selection. I smelled “liberals are selfish.” I smelled “in-group/out-group” xenophobia. Perhaps I’ll check back on that slimey hunch when I have more time.
I don’t see how Chait’s (or booman’s) argument squares with the vast hordes of Obama die-hards recently cited by booman. Take for example, Shepard Fairey.
One almost hates to criticize Fairey, because anyone that gullible is like a two-year old. First, he makes the iconic “Hope” poster of Obama. Now he replaces Obama’s face with V’s from “V for Vendetta,” as a supplicating gesture to Obama, “hoping” that Obama is on the side of OWS. Now, this latter fact would seem to indicate some perceptive shift in thinking about Obama’s less-than-pure motives, a marginally astute discernment and skepticism based on the counter-vailing data available to date. Except he adds:
“… As flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to “a man on the inside” that we have presently.”
Obama is our “man on the inside?” What wide-eyed tenderfoot, what credulous simpleton is so thoroughly unacquainted with or unreceptive to the years-long, exhibitionist spectacle of Wall Street Welfare as to even house that thought as a dormant inkling recessed in the fringes of thought, much less a full-blown narrative articulated in the center ring of consciousness? How is it even possible to be soooo blinded and taken in? The man must be kidding himself. He must have experienced a stress-induced regression to happier, more comforting developmental niche, an innermost sanctum of memory completely walled off from present day reality.
I must confess to preferring Fairey’s wide-eyed wonder to Chait’s malevolent dishonesty.
or, perhaps, there is some systemic failure in your analysis.
okay. Perhaps the problem isn’t that every Democrat that becomes president is a right-wing asshole. Perhaps the problem is that every Democrat that becomes president has to deal with a Congress that:
a) thinks Jim Crow is great
b) expects the president to fight communists in Asia
c) is more interested in deregulation than addressing poverty
d) wants to impeach him for whatever reason they can find
e) won’t vote for anything to the left of Ben Nelson
You know, perhaps the problem is that a president can’t enact legislation. Perhaps you need a country willing to support progressive outcomes before you can get progressive outcomes.
I hear a lot of BS crap floating around the Twitterverse. How can the President be the most powerful person in the world, yet have to walk over broken glass to get Bad Nelson to vote for a giveaway to the same industry Nelson once worked for? Because HCR gives insurance companies millions of new customers. Now you can quibble on whether the new rules that come with those new customers will make a dent in their profits or not. I doubt they will.
I can’t really understand your comment.
My comment described the obstacles faced by the last five Democratic presidents. You’re response is that it is impossible for the most powerful person on earth to face obstacles?
How can the President be the most powerful person in the world, yet have to walk over broken glass to get Bad Nelson to vote for a giveaway to the same industry Nelson once worked for?
Because we have three coequal branches of government? Because the power of Congress is greatest on domestic issues, while that of the President is greatest on foreign affairs?
Yet when the President really wants something, he can get the votes for it. But we know that the incumbent protection racket is stronger than any desire for good policy outcomes.
Also, fight communists in Asia? That’s so 40 years ago!!
progressive goals. Powerful interests always seek to derail those goals through their corrupting influences on politics and their wildly successful propaganda campaigns. The president and congress are no longer distinguishable from these powerful interests. It was the president who appointed his own economic advisers, not Congress. And they ran circles around Congress, even if that was a superfluous end run.
I remember those stark and bittersweet warnings from Fall 2008 as if it were yesterday:
No, sir. It was not Congress, however a vile, pullulating snakepit of hardened criminals they are, that shoved the knife deep into our vital organs. Not that they wouldn’t have, mind you. But it was Obama who ran Wall Street’s playbook on every down. Healthcare, deficit, bailouts, you name it. The X’s and O’s on that chalkboard were not hugs and kisses.
It was Obama who refused to open the bank vaults. It was Obama who failed to prosecute the felons. These failures are his and his alone, his catastrophic legacy, because he had the power, but not the courage to set things right.
Must be nice living in that ivory tower where you don’t have to make dirty, nasty compromises with anyone to get things done. Please send a postcard.
No one forced the President to tout Bob Rubin as one of his advisers until Rubin became toxic like nuclear waste.
and everything to do with reality. Obama had one chance in his first two years to rein in the banks. He had the chance, full of difficult decisions, and failed. His over-riding decision, save the banks or save people, was very easy. He screwed that dog seven ways from Sunday.
Reap the whirlwind.
Odd that Wall Street doesn’t agree with you, then.
They just looooooove Dodd-Frank.
The really great part of the Chait article for me is the reflection on how conservative and liberal minds think and the key differences in how they think. Understanding that better would make liberals much more effective.
For example, it has been proposed that conservatives are much more comfortable with authoritarian, top-down leadership. Liberals on the other hand seem to need the give and take discussion of grassroots coalition building. What this says to me is that:
.
Change can only happen with super majorities in Congress … and perhaps four terms in power.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
You cannot understand the New Left of 1968 in isolation from the assassinations, the riots, the war, and the draft. Most of which boils down to the CIA. There really was no authority to respect.
The search for authority became a search for authenticity that led many to profound and surprising sources. But most couldn’t be bothered. Hence the Yuppies.
I was a DFH. Now I support Obama. And not because he’s black either, but because he’s a mensch. The last one I really liked before Obama was JFK.
You want to know what really fucked this country? The CIA.
Chait and BooMan make the same mistake: they write as if the “progressives” they are describing are, or are the greater part of, liberals as a whole, the way that the nutbar conservatives Frum describes actually are conservatives, or at least the greatest part of conservatives.
But this equivalency is false.
It’s seventy years older than ’68. And it’s not just the US. Deep down inside we still can’t decide if letting Alexandre Millerand enter the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet is the correct line or not. Or choose between Bernstein and Kautsky.
Nihil novi sub sole.
I don’t think this is so mysterious. I think that right-wing politicians, for a variety of reasons, are comfortable making extremely right-wing noises, and that satisfies their base to a large degree, even when the politicians don’t follow through. Left-wing politicians, on the other hand, are unwilling to make extremely left-wing noises, which leaves our base unsatisfied.
I’m not sure if it’s cultural/countercultural as much as a tribal thing. Maybe both. Maybe I’m just agreeing. If Obama had achieved half of what he has but talked twice as left, I would like him twice as much–even though I know that’s foolish. It’s irrational and inevitable and human.
I want liberals leaders who embrace the post-1968 left. I don’t think we want to attack all forms of power: I don’t think we’d attack them. I’ve seen plenty of hero-worship of powerful people. (I’m a Sanders fanboy, myself, and E. Warren = starbursts.) Hm. What the hell am I saying?
The gap between the more ideologically-driven Republican base and Republican elected officials is small.
The gap between the more ideologically-driven Democratic base and Democratic elected officials is large.
We’ve got the Progressive Caucus and maybe four or five Senators. So of course we’re dissatisfied. When we ‘never had the votes’ for some basic liberal priorities, of course dissatisfaction will result.
Actually, it’s not so foolish. It’s messaging. We know from polling that public sentiment is often on the progressive side of the issues, but all too often the dialogue is dominated by the right. It’s important to have our leaders promoting liberal principles even when they can’t deliver the votes.
The GOP aren’t afraid to make right-wing noises, and as a result they tend to enjoy a more enthusiastic voting base. They also know how to transform the opposition into polarizing figures in order to drive turnout.
The rhetorical war may be a depressing reality, but we can’t be afraid to engage in it. Ceding that battleground to the right essentially hands them the overall victory.
Or something like that. I’m having trouble putting my thoughts together today.
You are 100% right. It’s what I tried to say at the bottom(I think it’s there).
One point that is missing from your very thoughtful post: The left became a countercultural force in the 60’s when the predominant Washington power culture, on BOTH the democratic and republican sides, became so corrupted that its depredations could no longer be ignored. This was a rational response to the Washington corruption, in my opinion. The real tragedy is how very little has changed for the better since then. In fact, the backlash to the counterculture in the 80’s made things much worse. And the irony is that even with someone in the white house who may very well be trying to reverse this downward spiral, things have gotten so bad that there’s almost nothing substantial he seems to be able to do.
The left does not trust the powers that be in Washington, for good reason. I agree that it needs to become part of the system again to make progressive change happen, but its hard to see how.
I’d rec you up 1,000 if I could.
I think I figured out something, which I hope to put into a complete thought. When is the last time(Sanders and Feingold don’t count) that either a Representative or Senator called themselves a New Deal Democrat? Sure, you can point out that Huey Long was calling FDR a traitor to the cause and what not. Then again, it was also politically smart of Huey Long to do that. Why? Because FDR could point to them and claim he had to throw them a bone, so to speak to keep them at bay. Look at what those that might get compared to Long get today. They get called professional-left(which is funny because I wonder what use this as an epithet would call Melissa Harris-Perry and Joy Reid), firebaggers and more. Anyway, what have we had for the past 20 to 25 years in the Democratic Party? a group(DLC/Third Way/New Democrats) that want nothing more to call themselves Democrats but sell themselves to the highest corporate bidder. For what? We already have one political party that has pimped themselves out to corporate America. It’s called the GOP. How often do Representatives or Senators go on TV and sing the praises of liberalism/Progressiveism? When is the last time a Democrat on Fluffyhead’s show corrected him about a way he asked a question? Or challenged why we are even talking about deficits right now? What Democrat is out there making the point that the only time people go into deficit scare-monger mode is when a Democrat is in the WH? Do they ever point out that the GOP doesn’t give a shit about the deficit, and that if Mittens or any of those other clowns becomes President in January 2013 that no one will mention the deficit for 4 years? The over-arching point is is that very few Democratic politicians care enough to try and sell liberalism. Remember the odious Gene Taylor? Back during those infamous townhalls there the Teahadists conveniently sprang up, a video showed up on the web of a townhall Gene Taylor hosted. People were asking him questions about HCR using Faux Noise talking points. One, he didn’t know much about the bill. Second, he never even bothered correcting the bullshit some people were spewing. What does that tell you? It says that Taylor didn’t give a shit, and that he was a putrid Democrat, obviously. I know that governing involves making compromises, or getting less than you want. But what doesn’t have to happen is that Democrats let that limit them. And what I mean by that is this. When accepting a compromise, don’t accept that as being the end of things. Say something like this: “I know this is the best deal we can get right now. This is certainly not the best we can do, and hopefully Congress will see to it soon to make improvements so this bill will be improved upon.” That might not be perfect, but I think you get what that point is trying to convey.
Just to add a little missing context, it was big labor that sided with Richard Nixon.
It was big labor that thought they had a seat at the table and whose leaders came to see themselves as Captains of Industry. Boy did they get a surprise. huh?
It was liberals that pushed the war in Viet Nam into a quagmire. And really wished MLK wouldn’t confuse his nice civil rights movement by talking about Viet Nam.
It was hard hat union members that became Nixon’s unofficial goon squad in support of Viet Nam.
If you want to know how the left became a counterculture in the ’60s you might start looking there.
And don’t forget PATCO endorsed Ray-gun. We know how that worked out, as well.
You are certainly correct. The split of the Labor Movement away from the progressive nature the of cultural Left intellectuals in the 60’s has been the death keel of both.
Don’t tell Armando that…I tried, and he “disagreed vehemently”.
Tell him that Chris Hedges said so. Compared to Hedges, Armando is a pimp.