Chris Hedges on the "uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class"

[Better Believe It]

Why Liberal Sellouts Attack Prophets Like Cornel West
by Chris Hedges
May 23, 2011

The liberal class, which attempted last week to discredit the words my friend Cornel West spoke about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, prefers comfort and privilege to justice, truth and confrontation. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members. It refuses to challenge, in a meaningful way, the decaying structures of democracy or the ascendancy of the corporate state. It glosses over the relentless assault on working men and women and the imperial wars that are bankrupting the nation. It proclaims its adherence to traditional liberal values while defending and promoting systems of power that mock these values. The pillars of the liberal establishment—the press, the church, culture, the university, labor and the Democratic Party—all honor an unwritten quid pro quo with corporations and the power elite, as well as our masters of war, on whom they depend for money, access and positions of influence. Those who expose this moral cowardice and collaboration with corporate power are always ruthlessly thrust aside.

The destruction of the old radical and militant movements—the communists, socialists and anarchists—has left liberals without a source of new ideas. The link between an effective liberal class and a more radical left was always essential to the health of the former. The liberal class, by allowing radical movements to be dismembered through Red baiting and by banishing those within its ranks who had moral autonomy, gradually deformed basic liberal tenets to support unfettered capitalism, the national security state, globalization and permanent war. Liberalism, cut off from the radical roots of creative and bold thought, merged completely with the corporate power elite. The liberal class at once was betrayed and betrayed itself. And it now functions like a commercial brand, giving a different flavor, face or spin to the ruthless mechanisms of corporate power. This, indeed, is the primary function of Barack Obama.

The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor.

The liberal class is incapable of reforming itself. It does not hold within its ranks the rebels and iconoclasts who have the moral or physical courage to defy the corporate state and power elite. And when someone such as Cornel West speaks out, packs of careerist liberals—or perhaps one should call them neoliberals—descend on the apostate like hellhounds, never addressing the truths that are expressed but instead engaging in vicious character assassination. The corporate forces, which have taken control of the press and which break unions, run the universities, fund the arts and own the Democratic Party, demand the banishment of all who question the good intentions of the powerful. Liberals who comply are tolerated within the system. They are permitted to busy themselves with the boutique activism of political correctness, inclusiveness or multiculturalism.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/23-4

[ProSense]

1. Cornel West

defends himself

Must-see!

Hedges piece is an exercise in distortion, ignoring the basis of the criticism in order to call out West's critics as "sellouts."

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Does Chris even touch Mr. West's apparent racism/anti-semitism?

Or is that not important? Admittedly, I only read the "selected" quotes provided by the o.p. :shrug:

[Better Believe It]

6. " I only read the "selected" quotes provided by the o.p." You should read the entire article.

That's why I provided a link.

And I don't think progressives should repeat the charges made in the character assassination campaigns directed against brother West and other progressives pushed under the bus rather than critique their positions and articles.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. So you're okay with racism & anti-semitism as long as he goes after your political enemies?

Ask yourself, if he had made those same ridiculous comments, and instead of maligning "white men" and "jews", he had gone off on LGBT's would you still be as supportive? I doubt it, and you'd be right to take him to task for it.

West has no one to blame but himself that his larger message got lost in a hissyfit of race hatred & anti-semitism. He did that. Or do you blame the president for that as well? :shrug:

[Better Believe It]

27. Read the article and comment on it. Are you suggesting that I'm a racist and anti-semetic?

You're off topic.

Read the article.

Post a critique of the article if you disagree with it.

Don't engage in "drive-by" personal attacks.

That will get you on my ignore list real quick.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

124. Oh shit , the dreaded BBI ignore list

Man don't pull out that card dude, you're supposed to save the Ace of Spades as a last resort

:rofl:

[OnyxCollie]

37. So you're okay with torture if a Democratic President says so?

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html#ixzz1NCOYSWZs

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

So torture was bad when the Bush administration did it, but now that a Democratic president is in charge torture is OK. Right, Tarheel_Dem?

Oh, the hypocrisy.

[guruoo]

116. Please provide evidence of incidents of torture carried out under the current administration.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

126. Why do I need to provide evidence of torture carried out under the current administration?

Failing to investigate, let alone prosecute, the crimes of torture committed by the last administration is bad enough.

Should we move on to indefinite detention instead?

[Hannah Bell]

72. i don't see any comments about "whites" or "jews" in the op. could you link?

cause otherwise i don't know what you're talking about.

[dionysus]

81. in cornell west's rant, he claimed that obama feels most comfortable around upper middle class

white jewish men.

[Hannah Bell]

86. which paragraph? i don't see that in the op, thanks.

if you're talking about some other "rant" please link to it.

[dionysus]

89. sure.

“He feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want,” he says.

http://www.chocolatecity.cc/2011/05/19/cornel-west-obama-is-a-black-mascot-and-a-black-puppet/

[Hannah Bell]

98. ok, i read the quote in context. so tell me again how it's "racist" and "anti-semitic"?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sulphurdunn]

115. While it is not possible

to know with whom the Presidents feels most comfortable without asking him, it is possible to know with whom he spends his time. If those people happen to be white Jewish men, then that is a fact. If not, it is a falsehood. Either way, the statement is neither racist nor ant-Semite merely for having been uttered.

[JJW]

121. May be

The past is not distant in which African Americans were slaves. So a real African American can not forget. It is in their heritage. So who could ever image Obama would hoodwink and bamboozle, turning into a corporate tool and indenturing middle class workers to Wall Street and the Banksters?

It sure is a betrayal to constituents and what used to be the Democratic Party. It is simply amazing riots have not broken out and cities are not on fire.

[dionysus]

8. Hedges is just another batshit crazy d-bag. good to laugh at though.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. You said it!

:rofl:

[Romulox]

16. The only "sane" Democrats are RIGHT WINGERS!!!1!!!!!1!!

:hi:

[ProSense]

22. Hedges and West are Democrats?

Who knew?

[Romulox]

24. Some of us see the world as a place to make moral choices, rather than just pick a side and dig in

:shrug:

[ProSense]

26. Some of us

see self-righteous assholes like Hedges as just as judgmental as the RW assholes.

<...>

By extolling the power of the state as an agent of change, as well as measuring human progress through the advances of science, technology and consumption, liberals abetted the cult of the self and the ascendancy of the corporate state. The liberal class placed its faith in the inevitability of human progress and abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism. The state, now the repository of the hopes and dreams of the liberal class, should always have been seen as the enemy.

<...>

And most people, not even most blacks, do not consider Cornel West a "prophet."

Absurd!

[Romulox]

30. See--teaching moment!!!!--making "judgments" ("moral choices") is the essence

of being a moral actor. It is not possible to play the middle of every issue for the sake of retaining power. The results are a muddled, incoherent mess that ultimately must lead to a loss of the very thing to which you attempted to cling.

[ProSense]

33. "It is not possible to play the middle of every issue for the sake of retaining power."

Better to fight and lose, and then complain about what could have been!

The problem people like Hedges they try to define the political process as "my way or the highway." That's not democracy.

A system that operates with an executive branch and 535 members of Congress will always require compromise to enact policy, and someone will always be diappointed by the results.

[Romulox]

35. You mean like the President "fought" for the Public Option?

Or how he "fought" to renegotiate NAFTA? Or to end the persecuting of Medical Marijuana patients? Or to end the two (ooops THREE!) overseas wars that we are currently losing?

The President didn't fight very hard for ANY of that, despite paying lip service to it. But when the Banksters needed a taxpayer handout? The President had their back.

[ProSense]

40. So

"The President didn't fight very hard for ANY of that, despite paying lip service to it."

...this is the basis of the "moral choice," your opinion that the President "didn't fight very hard"?

And you know this how?

Was ensuring that a health care bill passed a "moral choice" or should he have let that bill go down in defeat because it lacked a public option?

[Romulox]

45. Obama took the Public Option "off the table". Do you expect people to not remember recent history?

????

"...this is the basis of the "moral choice," your opinion that the President "didn't fight very hard"?

And you know this how?"

The President famously took the Public Option "off the table" before the public debate on his healthcare plan even began. Do you expect people to not remember recent history? :silly:

[ProSense]

49. "Obama took the Public Option 'off the table'."

Hence the Hedges article: "Why Liberal Sellouts Attack Prophets Like Cornel West"

[Romulox]

50. LOL. I guess gibberish is ONE strategy, when one's arguments fail them...

:shrug:

[guruoo]

117. Divide and conquer nt

[dionysus]

56. so if you're not into the crazy ranting of hedges, you're a RWer?

[Romulox]

60. I am reminded of the Jeff Foxworthy bit...

If you approve of war without end, and bankster bailouts, and expanding "free trade" at a time when the real unemployment rate is in double digits, you might be a RWer...

If you fight against meaningful oversight of Wall Street, for expanding the ruinous War on Drugs and for mandatory private insurance, you might be a RWer...


Just like the Foxworthy joke, it doesn't seem like the values or practices are even in dispute. It's just a matter of people's feelings being hurt by the linking of this ideology with its historic RW roots.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

78. you're not really going to find any fans of wall street, endless war, or the war on drugs, ect, here

painting with an awful big brush there.

[Romulox]

79. Dude, I've been here for years. Fans of all of that (and more) find lots of support here.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

67. LOL @ your framing while complaining of framing.

DU is funny. :)

[jefferson_dem]

84. Yuppers...

I'm loving it. What a sad tool. :popcorn: anyone.

[Ramulux]

100. Why?

You feel like articulating a criticism or are you just gonna throw around ad-hominem attacks?

[nyc 4 Biden]

127. that batshit crazy d-bag is a liberal trailblazer.

he is way left of DU, as am i. so you can laugh at me too.

your post reminds me of a verse from the tao te ching...

...When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao...

[msider]

134. yup!

*like

[sendero]

132. Yes because if he isn't perfect..

... then everything he says must be wrong. Here is your sign.

[aquart]

3. We're a "class"? Would that be low or high class?

Or the tattered remains of the middle?

[Doctor_J]

11. He's not talking about individual liberals

You need to follow his writings for awhile. By the "liberal class" he means Obama (not a liberal, as we've seen), DC "liberals", writers for real newspapers, etc.

[Better Believe It]

13. That would be what I would call the "liberal wing" of the rich and powerful ruling class.

I don't especially like the term "liberal class" because it's not sharp enough and can be misunderstood. That's why I don't use it.

I think the writer is writing about what most progressives would term "the ruling class" and doesn't mean working people who have some "liberal" and even "radical" political views but lack any political power or influence in the nation.

It is about class, but more wealthy "ruling class" in terms of real economic and political power than a "liberal class" or "conservative class".

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Didn't Cornel basically call Obama a sellout

Now Chris calls critics of West sellouts?

Oy vey.

[Romulox]

7. You know how we know you didn't read the article?

:hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

9. How?

I don't like the term "sellout" used in any context.

[Romulox]

14. Because the only place the term "sellout" appears is in the title.

Here's a tasty excerpt (the word "sellout" doesn't appear, so a deeper level of analysis will be required!):

The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Chris definitely makes some good points

Can't disagree with that.

[Better Believe It]

17. I think that's too simplistic. It's far more complex and worse than simply being a "sellout".

It's about class and he can't sell-out to his class.

President Obama could betray the ruling economic class, but so far he has not done that.

I wish he would.

[Romulox]

5. K/R. This article also explains why the putative "Left" will never allow class to be an organizing

principle.

[mmonk]

12. This part hits home:

"The corporate forces, which have taken control of the press and which break unions, run the universities, fund the arts and own the Democratic Party, demand the banishment of all who question the good intentions of the powerful. Liberals who comply are tolerated within the system. They are permitted to busy themselves with the boutique activism of political correctness, inclusiveness or multiculturalism. If they attempt to fight for the primacy of justice, they become pariahs."

[Zenlitened]

19. Yep. - n/t

[ProSense]

21. "The corporate forces,

which have taken control of the press and which break unions, run the universities..."

Cornel West works for Princeton.

"They are permitted to busy themselves with the boutique activism"

Sounds like projecting.

[mmonk]

99. You're making the article about West.

[Vinnie From Indy]

114. Personal attacks on the messenger has become the favored tactic of many here on DU

While that tactic has been used for eons, I trust (and hope) that many here will not be distracted or misdirected.

Cheers!

[Better Believe It]

123. That's has become the standard MO for those who are incapble of civil debate and argumentation.

[Zorra]

29. + infinity squared. To take this a bit further...

Subcomandante Marcos:

But neoliberalism not only fragments the world it pretends to unite, it also produces the political economic center that conducts this war. And yes, as we referred to before, the financial centers impose their (laws of the market) to nations and grouping of nations, and so we should redefine the limits and reaches pursued by the policy, in other words, duties of political work. It is convenient than to speak of Megapolitics> Here is where the "world order" would be decided.

And when we say "megapolitics" we don't refer to the number of those who move in them. There are a few, very few, who find themselves in this "megasphere". Megapolitics globalizes national politics, in other words, it subjects it to a direction that has global interests (that for the most part are contradictory to national interests) and whose logic is that of the market, which is to say, of economic profit. With this economist (and criminal) criteria, wars, credits, selling and buying of merchandise, diplomatic acknowledgements, commercial blocks, political supports, migration laws, coups, repressions, elections, international political unity, political ruptures and investments are decided upon. In short the survival of entire nations.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://www.raptorial.com/Zine/Marcos/Marcos6.html

[ProSense]

31. "But neoliberalism "

The new stupid meme. Everyone who supports Obama is a "neoliberal" because Obama is a "neoliberal."

Never mind that it's ridiculous on both scores.

[Romulox]

34. "Neoliberal" has a *specific* meaning.

It's not possible to mount a serious argument that the below doesn't describe the President and many of his supporters. The President's mandatory private-insurance medical scheme is a prime example.

Neoliberalism describes a market-driven<1> approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[ProSense]

38. Hmmmm?

It's not possible to mount a serious argument that the below doesn't describe the President and many of his supporters.

Yes it is:

The President isn't a dictator.

Bernie Sanders voted for health care reform and co-sponsored the Senate resolution calling for a Libya no-fly zone.

Denis Kucinich voted for the Afganistan AUFM.

You know what else has a "*specific* meaning"?

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")<1> is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.<2> Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.<3><4><5><6><7> These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

link

[Romulox]

41. None of what you just wrote even speaks to the subject.

"The President isn't a dictator. "

That has zero bearing on whether he is a neoliberal. :wtf:

"Bernie Sanders voted for health care reform and co-sponsored the Senate resolution calling for a Libya no-fly zone.

Denis Kucinich voted for the Afganistan AUFM."

This doesn't speak to the idea that Obama prefers so called "free market" solutions to big problems. Repeat: Neo-liberalism has a historically specific meaning. Whether you choose to engage with the term's meaning in its historical context or not cannot change the history of its usage. Nor can citing "liberalism" negate the very different meaning of the phrase "neo-liberalism".

None of which is really to the point. You aren't arguing that Obama doesn't prefer "market based" solutions--you're just complaining that he's being called out on it with a term you're not familiar with. :shrug:

[ProSense]

47. LOL!

"That has zero bearing on whether he is a neoliberal"

Does this speak to who Obama is...

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")<1> is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.<2> Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.<3><4><5><6><7> These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

link

...or do you expect everyone to accept your definition of who he is?

[Romulox]

53. Mature adults will judge a man not by "team" or label, but by actions.

The President has established his priorities through actions--blank checks for additional wars, bankster bailouts, "free trade" deals, and mandatory private insurance. He can call himself a "Movementarian" for al I care--his actions are what define him. :hi:

[ProSense]

55. Hmmmm?

"The President has established his priorities through actions--blank checks for additional wars, bankster bailouts, "free trade" deals, and mandatory private insurance. He can call himself a "Movementarian" for al I care--his actions are what define him."

Maybe you have the executive and the Congress confused?

[Romulox]

58. "Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

This has become ridiculous. Your debate techniques might work on children or those recently emerging from a coma. Anyone with a functional memory (not to mention, a dictionary and a working knowledge of civics) won't be fooled by your games. :silly:

[ProSense]

62. "This has become ridiculous.

Your debate techniques might work on children or those recently emerging from a coma."

Yup, it has.

Was the "moral choice" in this instance to "sellout" middleclass and umemployed Americans?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

75. The point was addressed

but obviously over your head.

[Hannah Bell]

76. sure. sure.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

36. This essay was written in the mid-90s. But it does not surprise me,

no malice or personal disrespect intended, that you would believe that it is a "new stupid meme".

The term has gotten very little press over the years, outside of the internet.

Interesting. I did not mention Prez O or his supporters in my post.

Would you mind extrapolating on what exactly this "it's" is that is "ridiculous on both scores"?

Thanks!

[ProSense]

43. Interesting

So you introduced an article written in the mid-90s to not illustrate a point unrelated to this discussion?

[Zorra]

61. If you don't care to extrapolate, that's fine.

I will answer your question, however.

The essay extrapolates upon Hedge's passage that was posted by mmonk, I introduced it to reinforce the general point that was being made both by Hedges writing, and mmonk in posting, the passage. Specifically, that yes, corporations have taken over our government, and other major related (and unrelated) institutions, and have been engaged in the takeover of sovereign national governments for economic purposes for quite some time. Because of this power, they have the ability to dictate political and socio-economic policy according to their needs and desires. Those that that do not agree with these policies are castigated and dismissed by those that support these policies.

What I found interesting is that you immediately seemed to associate President Obama and his supporters with, and possibly as, neo-liberals.

Do you believe that they are neo-liberals?

Unfortunately, I have to leave now, so if you respond I'm not sure when I can reply.

peace

[ProSense]

68. Hmmm?

I will answer your question, however.

The essay extrapolates upon Hedge's passage that was posted by mmonk, I introduced it to reinforce the general point that was being made both by Hedges writing, and mmonk in posting, the passage. Specifically, that yes, corporations have taken over our government, and other major related (and unrelated) institutions, and have been engaged in the takeover of sovereign national governments for economic purposes for quite some time. Because of this power, they have the ability to dictate political and socio-economic policy according to their needs and desires. Those that that do not agree with these policies are castigated and dismissed by those that support these policies.

What I found interesting is that you immediately seemed to associate President Obama and his supporters with, and possibly as, neo-liberals.

Do you believe that they are neo-liberals?

Unfortunately, I have to leave now, so if you respond I'm not sure when I can reply.

So your point is that Hedges and West are laying a situation decades in the making at Obama's feet and that anyone who criticizes West for his personal attacks on the President are part of the problem?

"Because of this power, they have the ability to dictate political and socio-economic policy according to their needs and desires. Those that that do not agree with these policies are castigated and dismissed by those that support these policies."

Which policies: the one's that Obama ran on in 2008?

Chris Hedges: Curb Your Enthusiasm for Obama (September 2008)

Barack Obama's health care plan coddles the corporations that profit from the misery and illnesses of tens of millions of Americans. The plan is naive, at best, and probably disingenuous when it insists that we can coax these corporations, which are listed on the stock exchange and exist to maximize profit, to transform themselves into social service agencies that will provide adequate health care for all Americans. I wish we lived in such a rosy world. I know, and I suspect Obama knows, that we do not.

<...>

You think Hedges needed West's latest screed to write the piece in the OP?

[mmonk]

131. Thanks Zorra.

That is the problem we now face. The rest seems to be staking out positions to run on while the corporate umbrella problem remains.

[gratuitous]

15. There are always terrific reasons to attack

When you're upholding the status quo, you have a built-in counterattack to any criticism, no matter how fact-based or correct it is. Whether it’s because the critic used an “inappropriate” word, or has some skeleton in his or her closet, or is too “shrill,” or is too mean, or not “respectful” enough (some might even say “uppity”), or doesn’t understand or appreciate “reality” like the gimlet-eyed defenders of the status quo, there’s always a reason for things being just the way they are. There’s no reason for things to be any different, and anyone who says otherwise is Not Serious. Oh, and none of these counter-attacks can be disclosed prospectively; it's an organic process tailored to the individual critic (which this time had to unfortunately leave out one of the favored objections of racism - maybe next time).

And while continued war in far-flung locales while our own citizens are starving and homeless seems like a bad idea, it’s just because you radicals just don’t understand the hard realities of the world.

[Mimosa]

88. 'Status Quo Dems' ?

Excellent description of certain D.U. operatives, Gratuitous. Their defensive incrementalism comes to nothing and Republicans have been determining the nation's agenda, sad to say. ;(

[coalition_unwilling]

93. There's also the Panglossian view (from Voltaire's 'Candide') that

we live in the best of all possible worlds :) Voltaire did not believe this idea and held it up for well-deserved scrutiny and ridicule.

[nashville_brook]

18. bookmarking for later. thanks BBI -- i love Hedges.

[Better Believe It]

23. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members

This is true for many wealthy "liberals" holding positions of power to justify their latest political "views" and actions while attacking progressive critics on "the left".

They will make whatever political adjustments are needed to maintain their respectability, acceptability and lucrative careers in the ruling class.

[FarLeftFist]

28. REMEMBER:

This is just some guys OPINION. His opinion is not worth more than yours or mine. We are all created equal.

[cali]

32. chris hedges is remarkably full of shit. rather sad as he was once

quite a good and reflective writer. How full of shit is he? Consider this: He opines that the liberal establishment is "the press and the church" - among others. And that right there is a fucking whopper of a lie.

Hedges is what he screeches against- and that's what I find most grotesque about him.

[Better Believe It]

46. Are you demonstrating your skills as a "good and reflective writer" in your response?

[cali]

74. Do you agree with Hedges that the press and churches are bastions of liberalism?

[Hannah Bell]

80. he didn't say "bastions of liberalism". the meaning of your paraphrase is different

from what he actually said.

[cali]

82. bwahahahahahahahahhahah. yeah, he said "pillars"

you do realize, genius, that "pillars" is tantamount to "bastion", right? Or don't you understand either word, dear? Let me suggest you consult a dictionary.

:rofl:

Oh, and did I mention PATHETIC?

[Hannah Bell]

85. "The pillars of the liberal establishment". I was not questioning the difference between "pillar" &

"bastion," but the difference between "liberalism" & "liberal establishment".

the first pair are synonyms, the second are not.

i've had many thoughts about things you wrote, but i never figured you for a deliberate spinner.

i'm disappointed, cali, really i am.

[nyc 4 Biden]

128. yes the press (media) and the liberal churches were definitely...

...two of the pillars of liberalism in the united states, along with the arts, the trade unions, academia (universities) and the Democratic Party. but i see how you could miss that, this knowledge would involve opening a book if you are as young as i am. just visiting DU could lead you to believe those evil Christians are only concerned with proselytizing, killing abortion doctors and putting the ten commandments in courthouses.

[Bobbie Jo]

92. It would be interesting to see a demonstration of your "skills" as well....

Google/Copy/Paste....will only take you so far.

[Better Believe It]

95. Are you responding on behalf of "cali"? Maybe you think "cali" needs your help to respond

[Bobbie Jo]

104. No other responses allowed?

You opened the door, I just walked in.

Glass houses, etc....

[xchrom]

39. recommend

[Fuddnik]

42. I just finished reading Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class". Dead on!

Like a hammer hitting a nail.

[EFerrari]

44. As painful as it will be, I want to read that.

It's at the top of my wish list right now.

[Scruffy1]

54. Just moved it there myself.

If he gets the party faithful du'ers underwear in a twist , it must be good. As far as the op goes it just seems to be a statement of the obvious. We are no different than the rest. We are afraid of change, but prefer a nicer face on reality. Changing presidents seems like changing advertising pitchmen or talk show hosts to me. Just cosmetic. The big money still runs it all and we are still screwed.

[EFerrari]

57. Hedges used to sound completely over the top to me.

Not any more. :(

[nyc 4 Biden]

129. I agree. that book gets a 9 out of 10 from me.

it would have gotten a ten if it was better organized and provided more solutions to our predicament.

[socialist_n_TN]

48. Geez, is this guy a commie?

I could have written this.

[EFerrari]

52. He's at least one commie and probably more.

lol

:)

[Better Believe It]

71. No less than a commonist terriorist!

[blindpig]

59. He's pretty much right, but...

implying that there is a continuum from anarchists/socialists/communists to liberalism is false. At one time in history there was a marriage of convenience between the two camps. The liberals borrowed some ideas from the other camp in order to preserve capitalism and the Left cooperated in order to bring relief to the people. The liberals bailed as soon as capital was deemed safe and have been abandoning those borrowed ideas ever since, the circle is nearly closed. That the liberal party has continued parade that New Deal cred is a matter of electoral expediency, nothing more.

[socialist_n_TN]

66. And of course, that's what the "liberal class" ALWAYS

does in order to save the system they ARE A PART OF! When the danger is passed, they revert to the total bourgeoisie selves that they always were.

That's one reason that we're going through what we're going through NOW. NOBODY'S scared FOR THE SYSTEM ITSELF. Until that fear is there, they WILL be no changes, not even of a reformist nature.

[leftstreet]

122. +1

An excellent description

[JoePhilly]

63. Sounds like Chris is going to start a 3rd party.

But when?

[EFerrari]

64. In order to believe that, you'd have to completely miss 90%

of what Hedges is saying about the liberal class and its institutions.

[JoePhilly]

69. He is claiming that "the liberal class" is really just part of the Democratic party.

And he tries to distinguish that "liberal class" from the "rebels" who need to be silenced.

He's trying to coin the term "liberal class", and position it relative (within) the Democratic party, and probably separate from the "professional left".

On Edit: He should separate from the "liberal class" and start his own party. Nothing stops him from doing so.

[EFerrari]

70. No, he isn't. n/t

[Better Believe It]

65. Or maybe a 2nd party! As many would say.

Or maybe a liberal wine and cheese party!

:party:

[mmonk]

102. Yeah. I was thinking two right now would be nice.

Not one with a good cop, bad cop routine.

[Mimosa]

77. Great points here:

Inarguable:


The destruction of the old radical and militant movements—the communists, socialists and anarchists—has left liberals without a source of new ideas. The link between an effective liberal class and a more radical left was always essential to the health of the former. The liberal class, by allowing radical movements to be dismembered through Red baiting and by banishing those within its ranks who had moral autonomy, gradually deformed basic liberal tenets to support unfettered capitalism, the national security state, globalization and permanent war. Liberalism, cut off from the radical roots of creative and bold thought, merged completely with the corporate power elite. The liberal class at once was betrayed and betrayed itself. And it now functions like a commercial brand, giving a different flavor, face or spin to the ruthless mechanisms of corporate power. This, indeed, is the primary function of Barack Obama.

The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor.

[jefferson_dem]

87. Inane word salad with limited (at best) basis in reality.

Sorry.

[Mimosa]

90. That you don't 'get it' is why right wingers (like Limbaugh) have so much influence

You didn't understand, won't ever understand:

"And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor."

Nobody fights for them. 'They' are losing ground, seeing jobs outsourced and being sent to fight globalist wars.

[jefferson_dem]

83. Haha! This whiny heap of loony-tunes defeatism put a smile on my face.

:popcorn:

Hedges knows he jumped the shark with his screed on Professor West, and was rightly called out for it. Now he keeps digging ... and then hops in the hole just before shoveling the dirt back in.

[blindpig]

91. It is only 'defeatism' for those who put party over class. n/t

[StarburstClock]

97. "whiny heap of loony-tunes" -- Attack people much? It doesn't work.

It's bullying and a common right-wing tactic.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

94. k&r

[StarburstClock]

96. Like a woman in Greece said "We traded civility for corruption"

We being the democratic party leaders. We won't prosecute torturers, WMD liars, criminal banks, propagandists or any other part of the political elite. Until we start holding people accountable, nothing changes and it only gets worse.

[emilyg]

103. +1

[DirkGently]

106. Hedges nails it. We're left w/Conservative & Conservative Lite. All the corporate influence; but

just half the social injustice! Hoo. Rah.

[alarimer]

107. I think liberals and Democrats are a huge part of the problem.

While I take issue with some of what West said, by and large Hedges is right about liberals, especially the members of the ruling class. They are sellouts and never saw a principle they weren't willing to compromise if it ensured more corporate donations.

While I like what Obama has said recently about Israel and the two-state solution, he is a man basically of no principles whatsoever. He will sell out any promise in the interest of "bipartisanship", even though it mostly means Democrats give in to Republicans, no matter how much of a majority they might have.

[quaker bill]

108. I have met "rebels and iconoclasts"

I have occasionally even enjoyed pot-luck lunch with them. They are fun to listen to and occasionally pleasant company. Political force for change? not so much.

They quite often suffer with this problem, they see folks who do not fully agree and comply with their wisdom as either "too stupid" or "sellouts". This prevents them from ever becoming politically effective.

Liberal guilt trips are a fun blast from the past. I don't abide them much anymore, I have too much real work to do.

Here is a concept, put the high flung rhetoric down, and help me prepare good free meals for the poor. I am sure there is something philosophically wrong with that, but the poor folks seem to like good food, and I enjoy making it and passing it out. So, it works. The door is always open to new volunteers. As it says on the sign, all are welcome.

[coalition_unwilling]

109. Are you addressing your 'concept' to Hedges, to Better Believe It, to

anyone reading your post. to everyone?

Just curious, not going to snark.

[quaker bill]

112. Sort of at Hedges

more "casting bread on the water". Don't know Better Believe It well enough.

[tiny elvis]

111. cult of the self. are our problems personal or systemic? nt

[Gregorian]

113. I really love and identify with Chris Hedges.

I see exactly what he's talking about. I've watched this like frogs in warming water. The red baiting he mentioned was just one of the warmings. The problem is there isn't a big enough mass of brave people. The group of actors who tried to put McCarthy in his place were quickly skirted back to Hollywood. Had a million people all stormed the place they would have put a stop to what ended up being Vietnam, if I may be so loose as to project my thoughts. Of course it's not that simple. But if we don't have a strong voice, we'll be forced to creep backwards. And that's how we ended up here. In little pushes.

We let this country become what it is. Market forces always push in this direction.

[paulk]

120. really don't like Hedges use of the term "liberal class"

I agreed with a lot of what West wrote, even though he is prone to hyperbole.

As is Hedges.

I consider myself a "liberal", and Hedges makes no friends alienating people like myself with his rhetoric.

[Mosaic]

130. Hedges a closet conservative?

Sure seems obvious with his constant attacks on the liberal class, as a supposedly concerned liberal. I've seen this techinique many, many times on the net and on cable from fake liberals, or sell outs.

[msider]

133. CH is one smart guy

Cornel West isn't so bad either