Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:5
Begin first with this understanding; Mr. Brooks is a Professional Conservative.
Without that one pony to ride, Mr. Brooks has nothing.
Nothing at all.
Which is why, Mr. Brooks, Professional Conservative, has written another 800-word column for the New York Times about Liberals.
In this column, Mr. Brooks:
- Wonders aloud why nobody like Liberals.
- Puts the entire burden for fixing everything that is broken in America on the back of Liberals.
- Suggests that the very first thing Liberals need to do to fix what is wrong with America is to stop everything and purify Liberalism.
Even though he has demonstrate over and over again in great detail how embarrassingly little he knows about Real Liberals and (conversely) how much of his writing is driven by an obsession with the same Imaginary Liberals which live under Rush Limbaugh's bed, Mr. Brooks nonetheless continues to write frequently -- compulsively -- about us.
Continues to make a princely living telling tale tales about Liberals and hippies and 1960s.
Like his writings on economics and history, most of what Mr. Brooks writes about Liberals is not simply wrong, but always wrong in exactly the same way. All sifted through a corrupt ideological filter which prevents Mr. Brooks from coming to terms with the fact that every problem he identifies has either been created by or made vastly worse by the diligent application of his own ideology.
Or, more simply, Mr. Brooks cannot write honestly about what is wrong with America because Mr. Brooks is what's wrong with America.
That being said, let us poke a stick into today's fresh helping of mire and see what oozes out.
First, Mr. Brooks assertion that nobody like Liberals.
Why aren’t there more liberals in America?
It’s not because liberalism lacks cultural power. Many polls suggest that a majority of college professors and national journalists vote Democratic. The movie, TV, music and publishing industries are dominated by liberals.
...
Given the circumstances, this should be a golden age of liberalism. Yet the percentage of Americans who call themselves liberals is either flat or in decline. There are now two conservatives in this country for every liberal...
Mr. Brooks never bothers to cite any sources for his assertions about how or why American's identify themselves with this or that label, and this graph from Pew explains why.
Because if you simply substitute the word "Progressive" for the nearly-identical word "Liberal" (which the Right has spent billions demonizing) Mr. Brooks' entire argument collapses.
Mr. Brooks' third observation -- that the "solution" to a the nonexistent problem is the mortification of the Liberal flesh, the purification of the Liberal ideal --
..Sailors scrub their ships. Farmers clear weeds. Democrats have not spent a lot of time scraping carbuncles off the state.
Worse, in an attempt to match Republican rhetoric, Democratic politicians are perpetually soiling the name of government for the sake of short-term gain. How many times have you heard Democrats from Carter to Obama running against Washington, accusing it of being insular, shortsighted, corrupt and petty? If the surgeon himself thinks his tools are rancid, why shouldn’t you?
In the past few weeks, the Obama administration has begun his presidential campaign by picking a series of small fights with the Republican-led House over things like recess appointments. These vicious squabbles may help Obama in the short term by making him look better than Republicans in Congress. But they will only further discredit Washington over the long run.
Life is unfair. Republican venality unintentionally reinforces the conservative argument that government is corrupt. Democratic venality undermines the Democratic argument that Washington can be trusted to do good.
Liberalism has not expanded because it has not had a Martin Luther, a leader committed to stripping away the corruptions, complexities and indulgences that have grown up over the years.
If you’ll forgive some outside advice, President Obama might consider running for re-election as Luther. It’s not enough to pick a series of small squabbles and then win as the least ugly man in the room. He might run as someone who believes in government but sees how much it needs to be cleansed and purified.
-- is equally absurd not because the Liberal stables don't need cleaning, but because of the idea that we should turn our attention to cleaning out those stables in the middle of a pitched battle as the wingnut hordes are swarming us with bayonettes fixed is suicidal.
No, amid our many problems, Conservatism stands out as American democracy's Number One massive, sucking chest wound. The top of the triage list. And the first civic duty of every public-spirited Liberal must be to hasten the extinction of the Modern Conservative Movement, which is a project that must begin in the Center.
The reason Modern Conservatism was not laughed off the stage decades ago is that it is willing to drop a 16 ton weight on anyone in the media who refused to treat it with respectful seriousness. The Right -- with its legions of bigots, buffoons, Bible thumpers and billionaires -- gets its every Bronze Age theory and popskull proclamation treated with the utmost seriousness because the mainstream media is terrified to do otherwise.
Because news is a commodity, and the Right has convinced the Mainstream Media that it can cut them off at the wallet if they speak out of turn.
And so, behind the shriveled figleaf of objectivity, the Right is permitted to do and say anything no matter how traitorous, destructive or loony while from the Center we get nothing but the mantra of "Both Sides Do It" repeated forever and ever and ever.
Which is not only morally offensive, but also the proximate cause of exactly the kind of public mistrust of government which Mr. Brooks pretends to care about:
...Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.
A few decades ago they did, but now they don’t. Roughly 10 percent of Americans trust government to do the right thing most of the time, according to an October New York Times, CBS News poll.
Why don’t Americans trust their government? It’s not because they dislike individual programs like Medicare. It’s more likely because they think the whole system is rigged.
The public distrusts government because they have been told by the very same fuckers who clubbed the media to its knees that the government was their Enemy. Not the imperfect manifestation of the will of a conflicted people, but a force for Evil constructed by Liberals to destroy them, And every time those fuckers got hold of the keys to the government they chopped it for parts, sugared the gas tank, slashed the tires, set what was left on fire and then rolled the burning hulk off the nearest cliff to demonstrate that -- See! See! -- that thing was not safe at all!
So, strike two for Mr. Brooks.
On the other hand, I do happen to agree with Mr. Brooks that Liberals have not been taking sufficient, intelligent action on our own behalf.
Of course, the irony of Mr. Brooks calling for a sense of bravery and purpose which he himself complete lacks is not lost on me -- that when it came to bearing any of the cost or responsibility for his war of choice, the economic disasters his ideology has wrought, or the toxic disaster his party has made of Washington D.C., Mr. Brooks has made a career of excusing himself to the Reasonable Centrist bathroom and then crawling out window whenever another Republican butcher's bill comes due.
However the fact that Mr. Brooks is a coward and a fraud does not mean that Liberals are not occasionally, ridiculously self-defeating.
Yes, we fight for Big Principles, but too often we also let the "narcissism of small differences" turn relatively minor differences into full-on range wars. I have walked away from Liberal organizations more than once because they failed completely in their primary duty: getting out of their own way long enough to do the good they all said they believed in doing.
We can also be very bad at communicating. Yes, we are quite good at semaphoring to each other in the language of graphs, policy prescriptions and eyerolls at the latest Republican perfidy, but often we just suck at street fighting. Quit waving charts at the muggles and expecting them to change their minds! You have to be able to connect with people emotionally. You have to explain to people why they should care in the language the respect and understand. And frankly you have to be able to reach into a Conservative's chest cavity and rip out his heart: our current situation requires it and we are all too often insufficiently competent at delivering it.
We are also cheap fuckers (a theme I heard over and over again at Netroots Nation.) I'm not talking about the rank and file -- not the people who are barely scraping by, who write to Blue Gal and me every day, who drop us a fiver they can't afford "thank you" notes that blows us away. No, I'm talking about Liberals with very, very deep pockets. The ones on Obama's platinum donor list. The ones who kick it at Davos. Who spend summer on the French Riviera and winters in St. Moritz and who are cheap fuckers when it comes to building the institutions on which a movement depends.
The Right beat us into a corner because they were willing to spend without limit, decade after decade after decade. Willing to spend whatever it took to build political think tanks and interlocking media empires which all geared to pour continuous hellfire onto the word "Liberal".
And it worked.
We, on the other hand, couldn't manage to keep the Koufax Awards going.
15 comments:
Nice piece. Are we certain that this individual doesn't actually believe what he is writing? Frankly, it looks more and more likely that he does.
A pity that.
The public distrusts government because they have been told by the very same fuckers who clubbed the media to its knees that the government was their Enemy. Not the imperfect manifestation of the will of a conflicted people, but a force for Evil constructed by Liberals to destroy them.
Um....right. Y'know, just perhaps if rightwing fucknozzles like El Rushbo hadn't been saying for thirty odd years that guvmint is eeeeeeeevul, people might not feel this way. On the other hand, when you think of the Southern Strategy and how the Eeeeeeeeeevul Guvmint was responsible for the Civil Rights Act that cracker assholes to this day hate the way the devil hates holy water...things fall into place.
And, while I'm thinking of it, Bobo better read up on his medical terminology. A carbuncle is a boil, and if he tries to scrape one off he'll be in a horrible infected mess. Of course given that he's a walking weeping pustule already, he may not see this as a problem.
Didn't Micheal Moore used to repeatedly cite a survey that: when questioned on a wide array of individual issues, without regard to which end of the ideological spectrum people self identified, put the actual number of "liberals" in this country somewhere around 78%?
The right has so muddied the nomenclature at this point, starting with the southern strategy, that similar attempts to debase the term "conservative" come off as sounding like sheer hyperbole.(nazi, brownshirt,facsist ect..) ...but, when someone starts off a conversation by immediately identifying themselves as a "conservative", I can make some pretty accurate assumptions about who they actually are, and their relative level of knowledge.
The term "liberal" on the other hand, has been morphed in to some kind of straw man creature that does not and never has existed. The right can and does safely use it as code for for every "non-white affluent male" they oppose....along with "urban", "entitlement", etc..
and they link these words in a never ending loop, repeated ad nauseum..
Perhaps, "progressives" should adopt a similar approach with the word "conservative". ...such as never uttering a sentence with the word, without also including the terms "reactionary", "luddite", "senile", "destructive"...but then again, understanding those words might tax the comprehension of the average "conservative".
...and..here you go:
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2011/03/03/center-right-yeah-right-americans-favor-progressive-taxation-socialism/
what a vile, execrable, mendacious POS brooks is. the 10% figure he cites as the amount of people who trust government is even a lie. he conflates congressional approval numbers with trust in government, when the two are clearly different beasts. i am frankly amazed that approval numbers are even that high, but i do not confuse that with trust in government.
I'll go with Anonymous #1. Where D. Brooks is wrong is that "liberals" and big Gov't are not considered evil because they actually ARE evil..but because for thirty years the Repub Noise Machine has been filling people's heads with Reagan Kool-Aid,to convince them that that was the case...and to get them to vote against their own best interests. I well remember the 1988 Presidential campaign, where Bush I & Co. worked overtime to convince the public that "liberals" were on about the same moral level as child molesters.
But I think the point about the Dems' lack of aptitude on messaging is true..for some reason they are incapable of making their points to ordinary Americans in a way they can understand.
Thomas Frank has pointed out that the Democratic Party has become a party of professionals oriented toward professionals. And I think that's part of the problem. Dems are apparently much happier with the dry ,passionless language of the technocrat, rather than making their points in the simple--and yes, visceral and emotion laden--language that most people understand, and that the Republicans have used so well to get people to swallow their pernicious ideas.
Odd how a patrician like FDR was so good at reaching out to ordinary folks, but Obama just comes off as a dry law professor who doesn't seem interested in defending his policies with any real passion....
Dems' ..for some reason they are incapable of making their points to ordinary Americans in a way they can understand.
Democrats try to appeal to People's common sense and intelligence, and when the appeal is emotional they try to appeal to the goodness, kindness in people.
Repugs encourage hatred, rage, contempt for Others... greed. Somehow their message SEEMS to work better, but I think a lot of that is just propaganda spin by our Corporate Owned "News" media.
As MM said, Americans respond positively to a LOT of "liberal" notions and goals- when they hear about them.
Agree completely with DG. That said, 3 significant challenges facing liberals, party self-inflicted: (1) The liberal position is fundamentally unsustainable. It accepts the structure that concentrates wealth and power, and advocates for ad hoc redistribution to mitigate the effects. Ad hoc redistribution is vulnerable over the long term to rhetoric, especially during times of low prosperity, as we now see. Better to argue for a change in the structure. That's what separates liberals from progressives, in my book. (2) Liberals get drawn into the narrow and illogical "us vs them" of the Right. The Democrats are only incrementally less corrupt than the Republicans. The argument is "elect the Democrats to buy a little time, then all work together to throw both corrupt, corporatist parties in the ash bin in favor of leaders who will represent the peoples' interest. (3) Republicans operate by exploiting voters at Level 1 of the Maslow hierarchy, while the Democrats are aiming at Level 3 or 4. That's a nearly impossible obstacle to overcome.
The fake center, you mean.
There is no center.
Unless Huntsmen qualifies.
And then you need to accept that this "center" wants to repeal Medicare, Social Security, Disability and all the rest of the social safety net benefits.
So, yay the Center!!!!
And I always respond to any conversational use of the term "Conservative" with the "Radical Conservative" you mean retort.
And it usually works if the audience has any desire to continue the conversation with me at all.
And, since I'm in the South . . . .
Love ya,
S
casimir is confusing "Liberal" with Democrat. NOT the same anymore.
KWillow - we all define our terms a little differently but I'm not conflating liberals and Democrats. The latter (capital D) I define as the party as represented by its establishment: a large proportion of corporatists, a substantial minority of liberals, and a few true progressives. It's definitely the place for a leftist to pitch a tent and start from, but its overall programme is controlled by the corporatists, slightly mitigated by the liberals and almost unaffected by the progressives. My suggestion is that it's liberals that conflate "Democrat" and "liberal" by falling into the Reichwing way of thinking that there are only two camps (Republicans and Democrats) and that you have to sign up with one instead of criticizing them both, each as they deserve it (the Republicans always, the Democrats most of the time).
"President Obama might consider running for re-election as Luther"
Personally, I would say he should run as *Martin* Luther (without the antisemitism), and literally nail his treatise on the doors of congress.
The symbol would be powerful.
Mike.K.
Perhaps progressive is a more accurate term than liberal in this new age of the anti-science, anti-education, anti-personal freedom conservative. I am 50 now, and it seems to me, that when I was growing up, the tremendous problems we faced as a society, and as a civilization were being fought out as a battle against the past. The horrible legacies of poverty, war and racism were still fresh in the minds of the adults of the time, and there was an underlying sentiment that changes from that past were inevitable. Societal progress seemed like as an inexorable process as scientific progress. The sheer weight of it would force change to come in to being, despite the dragging reactionary influences of ignorance and hatred.
Now it seems progressives see the state of the world as it is, with all of the attendant problems, but their very efforts to fix those problems are falsely depicted as an attack some mythical status quo that never existed.
I don't know when the tipping point occurred, perhaps when the generation of people who saw the past as it really was, brutal and oppressive, was replaced by a generation that didn't remember how bad it really was, but it has happened.
The right has gone from a force dragging it's heels in the face of progress, to one hatefully and actively trying to drag us all backwards.
Some how "Liberal" doesn't really do those who oppose that kind of ignorance justice. They may have ruined the word, but they cant kill the idea.
Oh, my fuckin' word. Bobo is accusing liberals of not respecting government, and encouraging the public not to, either? What the fuck happened, exactly, to Reagan's First Commandment (to which every Repug has been faithful for nigh on three decades): "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem...."
Who, in fact, does he think he's kidding? Does Pinch believe the public thinks he's a humor columnist, an Upper East Side version of Dave Barry?
Jaysus H. Kee-rist on a Segway, how far up his ass is his head, anyway? His belt buckle has to be irritating his hemorrhoids....
As Chris Hedges points out quite regularly and quite nicely, "liberal" is not the same as "progressive." Anyone who reads about the progressive era, with its tendency toward some degree of Nativism and its centering on rural issues would probably agree.
Liberalism, to the extent that it obsesses with short sighted "identity politics" (see attacks on Ron Paul) and maintains a blind eye to gov't/corporatism, it invites huge gov't, and that's a gov't run exclusively by the money interests. Liberalism thus effectively empowers the financial and corporate sector to the detriment of working people and the small businesses who employ them.
Liberals would rather be pall bearers at the Republic's funeral than fight for the radical change in power structure that might actually save the patient. Unfortunately, that radical change will require the short term and medium term radical shrinking of gov't power and resources. The beast must be starved before it will submit to the will of anyone other than the money interests.
There is a split growing between the true progressives who are now focused on restoring Constitutional liberties rather than redistribubtion and identity politics, versus liberals who simply want to divert resources to pet causes. Liberals are about empowering gov't more, while progressives are about disempowering it in the interests of civil liberties and the dismantling of the empire.
So long as liberals stand in the way of that, they are no friends of progressives.
Post a Comment