[Peace-discuss] Bill Blum asks T-Party questions:

[C. G. Estabrook]

That explains a lot.

A generation ago American liberalism, under the pressure to see the obvious that 
arose from the Vietnam War, had finally regained the insight - that politics was 
a matter of class - which had been destroyed in the post-WWII rectification 
campaigns ("McCarthyism" being a synecdoche).

But in the 1970s, having put its hand to the plow, liberalism looked back - into 
the seductive eyes  of identity politics.  The American ascendancy, knowing 
perfectly well what was happening (see The Crisis of Democracy, 1975) - 
encouraged liberalism's apostasy.  Racism was substituted for inequality as the 
bete noire (...) of American liberalism.  With its bad conscience for having 
given up on class struggle, American liberalism became a tiger on diversity to 
make up for it. Crimes became those of speech and hate - you can't say that or 
use those words - rather than actions of economic oppression and the constant 
alienating extraction of surplus value.

Of course neither racism nor sexism is a good thing - but as the Renaissance 
(not the Middle Ages) found, the surest way to prove you're orthodox (when you 
aren't) is to burn the odd heretic.  Neoliberalism - not coincidentally arising 
at the same time as I. P. - was down with the program.  Stamp out anything that 
sounds like racism or sexism, and maybe people won't notice that you've 
acquiesced in exploitation as a way of life.  So in the '80s and '90s the rich 
got richer and the poor got poorer at an accelerating rate - and liberals 
insisted only that the rich kids show a proper rainbow of colors (the poor kids, 
too - of whom there were more and more - if it came to that.)

Therefore the greatest taunt for the American liberal is "Racist! Sexist!" - and 
the capitalist is perfectly happy with an integrated workforce, which can only 
increase the reserve army of the unemployed, dilute unions, and depress wages.  
(My students are disbelieving when told that a couple of recent college 
graduates could count on living with a house, car and children - on one salary! 
- into the 1970s.)

Dante spoke of /il gran rifiuto./ The Great Refusal of our generation of 
American liberals is to fasten on to a fanatic concern for diversity to make up 
for turning away from the real source of inequality in our society - the wage 
contract: "the equal exchange between free agents" which reproduces, hourly and 
daily, inequality and oppression.

A majority of the US population sympathize with the tea-partiers, who are raging 
at their economic deprivation.  (That's what they mean by "socialism" - a 
directed economy run for the benefit of a privileged few - not a bad description 
of "actually existing socialism" as it was in the late 20th century.) And all 
the liberals have left is to shout "Racism! " at them. Such political obtuseness 
is extremely dangerous.


On 12/4/10 5:45 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>  On 12/3/2010 1:32 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>
> > the president is black.
>  That is Absurd.
>
>  Actually:
>
>
>  1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus
>
>  WASHINGTON—According to a poll released Tuesday, nearly 20 percent of
>  U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus, the most
>  Americans to identify the president. ...The poll, conducted by the
>  Pew Research Center, found a sharp rise in the number of Americans
>  who say they firmly believe Obama was either born a cactus, became a
>  cactus during his youth, or has questionable links to the /Cactaceae/
>  family.
>
>  "We asked people of varying races, ages, and backgrounds the same
>  question: 'What is President Barack Obama?'" Pew spokeswoman Jodi
>  Miller told reporters. "And a fifth of them responded, 'A cactus.'"
>
>  According to the poll, Obama has lost favor among many voters who
>  supported his candidacy in 2008 but have since come to doubt he is a
>  mammal. While these Americans concede Obama may not specifically be a
>  cactus, most believe he is a plant of some kind, with 18 percent
>  saying the president is a ficus, 37 percent believing him to be a
>  grain such as wheat or millet, and 12 percent convinced he is an
>  old-growth forest in Northern California.
>
>  When asked why they agreed with the statement "President Obama is a
>  large succulent plant composed of specialized cells designed for
>  water retention in arid climates," many responded that they "just
>  know," claiming the president only acts like a human being for
>  political purposes and is truly a cactus at heart.
>
> 
<http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus,18127/#enlarge>
>
>
>
A number of polled Americans identified the above as a photo of President Obama.
>
>  White House officials have asserted that the nation's 44th president
>  is a person.
>
>  "You can't go a day without hearing how Obama's a radical cactus
>  sympathizer who wants to sap America of all its drinking water, or
>  how he was actually born in the Kalahari Desert," said media critic
>  Lynn Pelmont, referring to cable news outlets that suggest the
>  president has prickly spines he uses to protect himself from thirsty
>  animals. "For a man who prides himself on delivering a coherent
>  message, there's an awful lot of confusion out there about whether
>  he's a Harvard Law graduate or a leafless flowering shrub."
>
>  "He must speak frankly to the American people about his mammalian
>  background," Pelmont added. "If not, it's only a matter of time
>  before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim the
>  president of the United States is actually an old washing machine."
>
>  Some Beltway observers have accused Republicans of tacitly
>  encouraging the cactus rumor, pointing out that if millions of voters
>  believe Obama produces buds through spirally arranged areoles
>  situated along his stem, the GOP has a much better chance of retaking
>  Congress in November.
>
>  "If the president says he is a human being, I'll take him at his
>  word," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday on /Meet
>  the Press/. "Though I've never heard him complain about being
>  thirsty. Not once. That could be a coincidence, I suppose, but it's
>  really not my place to say."
>
>  During a Wednesday morning briefing, White House press secretary
>  Robert Gibbs once again denied that President Obama is a cactus,
>  citing numerous physiological attributes of the nation's chief
>  executive, including his ability to walk upright and to manipulate
>  objects with his opposable thumbs.
>
>  "Cacti don't talk," said Gibbs, shaking his head. "They just don't."
>
>  President Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI
>  to parents Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. From the ages of 6 to 10
>  he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where he
>  attended Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi Catholic
>  School. In 1971, Obama returned to Hawaii, where he was raised
>  primarily by his grandmother until he left home to attend Occidental
>  College in Los Angeles.
>
>  "I don't care what he says or what his people say or what anybody
>  else says," 48-year-old Kansas resident Jake Nolan told reporters.
>  "The guy's a cactus, plain and simple. I mean, Christ, look at him."
>
>  (the ONION)
>
>
> > To Libertarians and their defenders:
> >
> >
> > Some questions to ask our quaint little Teaparty friends
> >
> > The Teaparty folks never tire of calling for "smaller government".
> > How sweet. Most other Republicans repeat the same mantra /ad
> > nauseam/ as well, as do many liberals (not to be confused with
> > progressives). So for all these individuals I have some questions:
> >
> > * When there's a plane crash the government sends investigators to
> > the crash site to try to determine the cause of the accident; this
> > is information that can be used to make air travel safer. But it's
> > really BIG GOVERNMENT, forcing the airlines to fully cooperate,
> > provide all relevant information, secrecy is not permitted, and
> > make changes or face severe penalties. Do you think the government
> > should stop doing this? * Following this year's BP oil spill do you
> > think the government was right to bully and threaten the company
> > for an explanation and solution for the catastrophe, or should it
> > have been "hands off" for the sake of small government? * Following
> > a major earthquake there's usually a cry from many quarters: Stores
> > should not be raising prices for basic necessities like water,
> > generators, batteries, tree-removal services, diapers, etc. More
> > grievances soon arise because landlords raise rents on vacant
> > apartments after many dwellings in the city have been rendered
> > uninhabitable. How dare they do that? people wail. Following the
> > 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles the California Assembly proceeded to
> > make it a crime for merchants to increase prices for vital goods
> > and services by more than ten percent after a natural disaster.^11
> > <http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-11> Following the
> > destruction caused by Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, the
> > governor and attorney general of Virginia called on the legislature
> > to pass the state's first anti-price-gouging law after receiving
> > about 100 complaints from residents. North Carolina had enacted an
> > anti-gouging law just shortly before.^12
> > <http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-12> Does such
> > blatant big-government interference in our God-given
> > Supply-and-Demand system bother you? Do you think that our
> > legislators should simply allow "the magic of the marketplace" to
> > do its magic? * Do you think that the government should continue
> > waging war against what they call "terrorists" abroad, since
> > there's no bigger or more expensive big-government action than
> > this? * Do you think the government should continue with its
> > electronic strip searches and body feel-ups at airports or should
> > we allow the risk of bombs being brought on board airplanes? (Or —
> > as an alternative to either — do you think the government should
> > cease its bombing, invading, occupying, overthrowing, killing and
> > torturing around the world so as to put an end to its creating
> > anti-American terrorists?) * If your bank fails — and hundreds have
> > done so in recent years — are you willing to accept the loss of
> > your life's savings? Or are you thankful that big, big government
> > steps in, takes over the bank, and protects every penny of your
> > savings? * Do you think that big government — federal, state or
> > local — should stop haranguing the citizenry about the environment:
> > recycling, air pollution, water pollution, soil runoff, etc., etc.,
> > or that people should simply be allowed to do what is most
> > convenient for them, their families, and their businesses? * Do you
> > think that manufacturers should have the right to run their
> > factories à la a sweatshop in a Bangkok alley 50 years ago or that
> > big government should throw its weight around to assure modern
> > working conditions, with worker health and safety standards? * When
> > a prescription drug starts to kill or harm more and more people,
> > who should decide when to pull it off the market: Big Government or
> > the drug's manufacturer? * Are you glad that food packages list the
> > details of ingredients and nutrition? Who do you think is
> > responsible for that? * A huge number of Americans would be facing
> > serious hunger if not for their food stamps; more than 40 million
> > receive them. Where do you think food stamps come from? No, not
> > from Sarah Palin. * And where, pray tell, do you think unemployment
> > insurance, housing subsidies, and Medicare come from? (There were
> > of course, lord help us, the Teaparty signs: "Keep your government
> > hands off my Medicare,"^13
> > <http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-13> while
> > simultaneously ridiculing Obama's push for "socialized medicine".)
> > Some of you would probably rather see widespread hunger, poverty,
> > homelessness, and illness in America than have people dependent
> > upon the BigGovernmentMonster. * Do you think that big government
> > is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting large and
> > important projects done? Big government in the United States has
> > created great dams, marvelous national parks, an interstate highway
> > system, the peace corps, social security, the National Institutes
> > of Health, and the Smithsonian Institution; it's also landed men on
> > the moon, wiped out polio, and built up an incredible military
> > machine (ignoring for the moment what it's used for), and much
> > more. * Do you know that twice in recent years the federal
> > government undertook major studies of many thousands of federal
> > jobs to determine whether they could be done more efficiently by
> > private contractors? On one occasion the federal employees won more
> > than 80% of the time; on the other occasion 91%. Both studies took
> > place under the Bush administration, which was hoping for different
> > results. ^14 <http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-14>
> >
> > We have to remind the American people of what they once knew but
> > seem to have forgotten: that they don't want BIG government, or
> > SMALL government; they don't want MORE government, or LESS
> > government; they want government ON THEIR SIDE.
> >
> > I think the Teapartyers are motivated primarily by two factors: 1)
> > they don't have the intellectual competence or ideological
> > independence to place the blame for the sick economy where it
> > belongs: the recklessness and greed of Wall Street, the banks, and
> > other financial corporations; and so they blame the president and
> > his "socialist" policies; 2) the president is black.
> >
> > *Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War Fulbright
> > Scholar in Poland: "I asked my students to define democracy.
> > Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically
> > elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond
> > that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a
> > certain standard of living and to provide health care, education
> > and housing for all. In other words, socialism." *^*15*
> > <http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-15>
> >
> >
> > http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101204/a0adc5c7/attachment-0001.html>