Richard Cohen’s iPhone played Ohio by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young (and why couldn’t they come up with a standard DFH name for the group, like the Perpetual Turnip or the Electric Underwear?) and he had flashbacks to Kent State. Cohen recalls that the hateful words of politicians led to National Guardsmen shooting students, leaving four dead. And he attempts to make a connection between those hateful words and today’s hateful words coming from the teabaggers.
That was the language of that time. And now it is the language of our time. It is the language of Glenn Beck, who fetishizes about liberals and calls Barack Obama a racist. It is the language of rage that fuels too much of the Tea Party and is the sum total of gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino’s campaign message in New York. It is all this talk about “taking back America” (from whom?) and this inchoate fury at immigrants and, of course, this raw anger at Muslims, stoked by politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Lazio, the latter having lost the GOP primary to Paladino for, among other things, not being sufficiently angry. “I’m going to take them out,” Paladino vowed at a Tea Party rally in Ithaca, N.Y.
There’s a point in there somewhere, although Cohen doesn’t make it clearly, I don’t think. He says those were angry times back then, and these are angry times now, and all that anger can lead to people killing each other. Well, yes. And both then and now, he ties the worst anger to the Right.
Back in the Vietnam War era, the left also used ugly language and resorted to violence. But the right, as is its wont, stripped the antiwar movement of its citizenship. It turned dissent into treason, which, in a way, was the worst treason of all. It made dissidents into the storied “other” who had nothing in common with the rest of us. They were not opponents; they were the enemy: Fire!
I don’t want this post to lead to a long discussion of what happened at Kent State, because we’ve got more current issues to worry about. To me, the issue isn’t anger per se, but the dehumanization of the Other. Cohen sorta kinda says that, but not clearly.
And, of course, the “angry” rhetoric Cohen discusses is not just angry, but eliminationist. Hey, everybody was angry back in 1970, and a smattering of people across the political spectrum were violent. But what was shocking about Kent State, to me at least, was the way most older people of my acquaintance just shrugged it off and thought the shootings were no more significant than the slaughter of some rabid dogs.
Kent State was also somewhat unique in American history in that the “rabid dogs” were young white folks from “good” families. Most of the time, when some part of government is behind the slaughter of humans on American soil, the victims are non-white and/or poor. So, while Middle America mostly shrugged off the killings at Kent State as just what the DFHs deserved, at least the massacre got more media buzz than the Jackson State shootings a few days later.
Another connection between then and now is that while there’s lots of anger across the board, conservative elected officials and senior leaders are far more likely to indulge in eliminationist rhetoric than are progressive elected officials and senior leaders. Richard Cohen cites the words of the governor of Ohio in 1970:
The governor of Ohio, James Rhodes, demonized the war protesters. They were “worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element. . . . We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent.”
Fast forward to earlier this year, quoting Krugman:
What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.†The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.†And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.
Every time some 20-something male showed up at an anti-Iraq War protest with a poster suggesting a violent end to President Bush, Michelle Malkin posted it as proof of that the entire Left is “unhinged.” And yes, there are those among us who are immature and lack the sense God gave toast. But show me Democratic Party leadership, progressive elected officials, or the handful of progressive “pundits” in national media spouting rhetoric that denies the humanity of conservatives and threatens death and violence against them. Anybody?
And for that matter, where is the Left’s James Addison? or Scott Roeder? or James Cummings?
You know that if Addison had spouted some leftist manifesto after killing two people in a church, the entire Left would still be apologizing for him. But since he spouted a rightist manifesto instead, we’re all supposed to pretend it didn’t happen.
Today, Predictably Dense Darleen of Protein Wisdom struggled to respond to Cohen with examples of mean things “lefties” say about the Right, and this was the best she could do:
It is Obama vowing to “kick assâ€, it is Pelosi calling for investigations into people raising questions about a mosque within the footprint of Ground Zero, it is Max Baucus calling on the IRS to investigate opposition groups, it is Alan Grayson dealing in hate-filled rhetoric and it is Democrats over and over again beating the drum, amplified and disseminated by their poodle media, of how evil and treasonous are conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party participants.
President Obama said he would kick ass? OMG, put a muzzle on him before he bites somebody! (/sarcasm)
Darleen might not think it is reasonable to have Cordoba House opposers investigated, but at least Pelosi was calling for the investigation of people, not the shooting of mad dogs in the street.
And how soon they forget — Dave Neiwert from 2003 —
We’ve been hearing for some time now, from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, that Americans who dissent from Bush’s war strategy are being “treasonous,” “pro-Saddam” and “anti-American,” and from the likes of Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz that liberals now represent a “fifth column” of potential traitors who would aid the enemy. Now, from the repulsive Michael Savage sector, we’re also hearing that such dissenters are a threat and should be arrested. And finally, President Bush himself has intimated that opposition to his regime’s war plans from neighboring nations can bring about unhappy repercussions for the citizens of dissenting nations, not from the U.S. government, but from “the people” — a hint that has the distinct sound of loosing the dogs.
Look, everybody’s angry, and everybody’s language gets a bit harsh sometimes.. But the difference between progressives and “conservatives” in America right now is that progressives want better government that works for everyone, while “conservatives” just want retribution.
Update: BTW, today’s “Teh Stupid, It Burns” Award goes to Tim Graham of Newsbusters, who interpreted Cohen’s column to mean Cohen thinks teabaggers were responsible for Kent State. Graham’s prize, should he choose to accept it, is a copy of The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle, plus an adult of his choice (other than me) to read it to him.
Update: Yeah, I thought of sending Graham My Pet Goat (actually The Pet Goat) too, but I think that book was written at a more advanced reading level.
amplified and disseminated by their poodle media, of how evil and treasonous are conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party participants.
What alternate-universe mainstream media is she watching? The network snooze bend over backwards to portray small groups of pissed-off Medicare-scooter Teatards as legitimate, with serious grievances and as representatives of the majority of the country. You’d look for a hundred years to find a similarly-sympathetic protrayal of the hundreds of thousands who protested the Iraq War.
Speaking of which, what happened to the rightards’ “Don’t question the President in a time of war”? Last I checked we’re still mired in the perpetual War on a Tactic in Afghanistan, so I guessed I missed the disclaimer about it only applying to Repig presidencies.
“how evil and treasonous are conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party participants”
I do read widely, and certainly there are some few on the left who say stuff like this, but it is not a widely held and publicized view.
However, of the Republican party and Libertarians I DO think – to myself – evil and selfish:)
The Tea Party, if it can be characterized, just seems plain deranged. Just sayin’
– Revisionist history won’t save you any money on your car insurance. When Liberal writers do this sort of fantilization, they just add to the legion of reasons why the majority of Americans can see they’re just not to be taken seriously.
– You don’t care to discuss it because you know its all an excersize in frustrated agitprop. I was there, and knowing what I know I don’t blame you. The SDS and Weather underground thank you for your support.
Precisely what did we “revise”?
By “it” do you mean Kent State? We’ve discussed Kent State to death already here, although I admit it’s been awhile. I just don’t want the comment thread to be hijacked by the old “who was responsible for Kent State” argument, because that’s not really the point of the post.
I wasn’t “there,” in Ohio, but I was a college student at the time and remember the incident pretty well. The SDS and Weather Underground were not a factor. There were some hotheads on campus who had instigated acts of arson and had sent threatening letters to some local businesses for some odd reason, but I don’t believe they were connected to SDS or Weather Underground, who were off doing something else at the time.
So, who’s revising now?
I think we’ve more often accused them of sedition, not so much treason, but of course on the web you can find an example of anything.
– Far too late for that sort of evasion. The Boyz of discontent were in and about town for several weeks prior to the “event”, drumming up anger and whipping the local nut cases into a frenzy. They got out of dodge just before it went down. The entire mess was well documented after the fact, but that sort of thing doesn’t serve “teh narrative” so it all gets revised and regurgitated with each new generation of young turks, hungry for some red meat.
– I’m seriously anti war, but I’m just as seriously against bummble-headed ineffective activist campaigns that attack the wrong enemy and serve no other purpose than to put activism in a bad light and get innocent people hurt.
I realize that was widely believed at the time, and James Michener reported all those stories in his book, but later investigation showed no evidence of outside infiltrators stirring up anger (a point that will be disputed on the Left, because many believed the “infiltrators” were agents of CREEP sent by Tricky Dick). Later and more sober investigation showed that the agitators behind the spate of arsons and threats were students enrolled at the University, most of whom were at the shootings.
The fact that you assume the alleged infiltrators must have been Weather Underground or SDS causes me to doubt you were really there or are even old enough to have been in college at the time. Gen Xers seem to think that the entire 1960s counterculture was Weather Underground, when in fact Weather Underground was a very small, specific group made up of some over-privileged assholes who probably went into terrorism to rebel against Mummy and Poppy. And SDS officially disbanded in 1969, which means it couldn’t very well have been behind something that happened in 1970.
The fact is, the anti-war movement was large, somewhat amorphous, made up of countless smaller groups and only semi-organized. All kinds of stuff went down with the movement, good and bad, that didn’t have anything to do with SDS and the Weather Underground, and if you were really paying attention back then you would have known that.
And believe me, I’m not making excuses for violence on the part of the anti-war movement, and especially not the Weather Underground, who would have been bad jokes except that they did actual harm. I’m just saying there is no evidence they had anything to do with Kent State specifically.
The original narrative that came out in the days and weeks after the massacre was that Communist agents had infiltrated the campus to cause violence, which justified the shootings. And you seem to have bought that one. There was a small cadre of hotheads on campus who set fire to an ROTC building and sent threatening letters to local businesses, plus some episodes of unruly behavior and looting off campus that were attributed to students. And there were rumors that some of this was set off by outside agitators, but no evidence of that exists beyond rumor. On the other hand, some people who were at Kent State have blamed a student named Alan Canfora, who was wounded in the shooting, as being the chief instigator of the arsons, etc. Canfora was never officially charged and has denied this.
I agree completely. Now, that’s enough about Kent State. Further comments along these lines will be deleted, because this post is not about what happened at Kent State.
To me the current anger on the right can’t be compared to the anger from the left in the late sixties, early seventies. The anger back then was demonstrated by people that had life and death interests in what they were protesting, it was the young students that would be sent to die in Vietnam, I’d say that’s a pretty dam good reason to be angry. The anger ginned up on the “Right†now comes from mostly middle class and elderly white folks orchestrated by their wealthy white puppet masters (FAUX news, AEI, Koch INC, et-al). This is the group of people least affected by the current economic downturn. Hell most of them are sitting pretty with pensions and a monthly social security check, fucking hypocrites. We all know the anger is really just thinly veiled racism, just look at the numbers, the spending, the deficits, the recession, rising unemployment, it all began under the bush administration. Yet the dimwitted teabaggers never whimpered a word, not until that colored fella got elected and then it was as if someone flipped a switch. The switch was flipped by wing-nut puppet masters, immediately they went into gloom and doom mode and have been in it ever since. Just watch the FAUX “business†network, it is hilarious, as the DOW has triple digit increases the “news” they report is 100% negative, then it’s time for a Goldline commercial, I mean it’s just a fucking joke. If we had a white republicant president tomorrow all the anger would vanish into thin air.
I have a book in my library “A People’s Tragedy” A history of the Russian Revolution. Scattered among the 822 pages are photographs of captured ‘enemies’ being subjected to indescribable tortures while onlookers either actually look bored or are laughing.
My stepfather lived through the Revolution and would often recount to me how it was to live when anarchy was the rule of the day, when ordinary citizens turned into monsters, when killing became commonplace. He explained that by the time people who for years have been subjected to great injustices, when rulers have been thoroughly corrupt or, in some cases simply incompetent, when (and he actually used the phrase) if you’re not my friend, you’re my enemy becomes a common sentiment, when pent up anger festering for many years turns to sheer hatred, it’s too late to stop it.
Perhaps my memory of his stories or perhaps the fact that I’ve been here for 78 years, or both, the mood and temper of our country seems uglier (and more frightening) than I have ever seen it.
I’d like to add something I recently read in Harpers. We continue to torture detainees at Gitmo by force-feeding them because they have refused to eat. All human rights organizations say that force-feeding is torture – and the descriptions of it in the article certainly bear this out.
The article tells of an incident when a detainee faced with permanent incarceration (suspension of habeas corpus) and after being subjected to force-feeding many times, attempted to kill himself by gnawing at the flesh on his arm trying to reach an artery so he could bleed to death.
The jailers knew about it. They did nothing except continue to force-feed him. Gitmo is an American prison, run by Americans, approved of by the American government.
“…our country seems uglier (and more frightening) than I have ever seen it.”
– And it will continue to escalate until we come to grips with some realities that neither side, indeed the people themselves, have as yet been able to face.
– The problem isn’t Socialism. Socialism itself is a defunct, unworkable ideology that generates zero wealth and pits identity and victim groups against one another, and always gets people killed in the end.
– The problem stems from the fact we have not established a working free market not based on wars. WWII and the cold war served as cover for this deficiency for all those years, but the WOT is just not the same and never will be unless the middle East explodes, which we all hope won’t happen but looks worse with each passing year.
– We need a legitimate wealth generating free market economy not based on war, and we haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
Ah, a True Believer. Folks, I don’t have time to debate this tool. Does anyone else here want to answer this, or should I just ban his brainwashed ass?
Well, yeah. We’ve been apologizing about being RIGHT about Vietnam for 40 years.
Some groups of people looks at situations, gets some facts and figures, look at history, and try to come up with solutions. People may disagree, but they use some methods of thinking that account for causes, effects, and consequences. It’s called using ‘reason.’ Modern progressives and liberals still do this. So did earlier generations of conservatives, to some degree.
But the newer group of conservatives don’t want to look at facts, figures or history.*
All they want to know is what does the other side think? “OK, got it. Then we’re against that!”
What’s your thinking? “Whatever they’re for, we’re against.”
Any reason? “Yeah, whatever they’re for, we’re against.”
They don’t try to think through to solutions. They have no new ideas. It’s all retreads. But they have beliefs. And some of them, like religious zealots, they figure if you can’t convert them, you have to kill them. And even if you can convert them, you can’t trust them, so you might as well kill them anyway. They’re not going to convert anyone to their line of thinking because there are no facts, figures, or reasonable historical evidence that will cause someone who uses reason to go along with their line of thinking. And so, they must be eliminated.
We are living in very interesting times. This country is on the brink. And which way it goes will mean its survival, or its eventual death.
*They will, however, look at facts figures and history that has been doctored to reflect not the facts, but their beliefs.
or should I just ban his brainwashed ass?
I’d say he’s a candidate for the twit filter!
The motion has been seconded. All in favor, say aye.
AYE!
Oh don’t ban him/her/it, maha. It’s a good example of cundgulag’s non-reasoning (individual.)
Big Bang – assuming that capitalism is based on accumulating capital (and it is) capitalists (large corporations, financial and non-financial) use government to make it easier to exploit the world’s resources and its people. The capitalist, ideally, needs to be able to sell where and when, to invest where and when, to move money and products in and out of countries and to repatriate profits at will.
To imagine that all this can be accomplished without a war or two or three is kind of naive. In fact, a case could probably be made that free-market capitalism causes wars?
For this purely idiotic line: “The problem isn’t Socialism. Socialism itself is a defunct, unworkable ideology that generates zero wealth and pits identity and victim groups against one another, and always gets people killed in the end.”
Aye-Yai-Yai, AYE!!!!!!!!
OK, but I was looking forward to BB’s explanation of how Bill Ayers torched the Kent State ROTC building.
‘Look, everybody’s angry, and everybody’s language gets a bit harsh sometimes.. But the difference between progressives and “conservatives†in America right now is that progressives want better government that works for everyone, while “conservatives†just want retribution.’
So, the only motive “progressives” have is better government, while the only motive “conservatives” have is retribution? But we wouldn’t want to “dehumanize” the “others” would we?
“Progressives” are usually leftists, and mostly “progress” toward tyranny (knowingly or unknowingly), and all too often disguise compulsion as compassion. But they are humans, and should be treated well.
Facts are what they are.
We’re usually liberals, meaning that we believe in civil liberty, equality, and republican (in the original sense) self-government. You must be a rightie, which means you believe in being a slave to corporations and a tool for mega-wealthy elitist family trusts. Pleased to meet you.
Not in this time-space continuum, although perhaps that’s true on whatever planet you live on.
Yeah, I’m sure you’ll treat us just fine after we’ve been processed at the David and Charles Koch Re-Education Facility.
Ive been thinking about retribution all day MS. Maha when you first printed it in your blog. What I see is that we are already involved in retribution. Observe all the lay offs going on while corporations are claiming billions of dollars in profit. Then they just sit ion it. They don’t invest it back into the economy. If thats the way free market capitalism works. we are in deep shut. Money needs to circulate to have an economy.
I love how the word “tyranny” has had a comeback. Even our “Godly” ‘Founding Fathers” weren’t really under a ‘tyrannical’ system until they started to rebel.
You want to see real tyranny?
Look at most monarchies in history.
Look at Russia during WWI.
Look at the USSR under Stalin.
China, under Mao.
And, now from the people who can’t possibly be associated with the left in ANY way:
Nazi Germany (sorry Jonah, we know you gave it the old college try – Junior College at best, maybe correspondence college. But, luckily for you, your Dad did manage to find the right vagina for you. Any other, and you wouldn’t be qualified to work at 7-11 or WaWa, except to mop the floor on the overnight shift, and jack-off to reruns of Rush in the bathroom while no one was around.).
Spain.
Chile.
Argentina.
Pick almost any Middle East country.
South Africa.
Etc…
Those were “TYRANNIES!” A less than 4% tax increase, health care expansion, and energy efficience improvements like “Cap and Trade” aren’t ‘tyrannical.’ No more so than a spending allowance and curfew are for teenagers. Which, if many of you screaming about ‘tyranny’ can mature enough, you may actually be qualified enough to be considered ‘teenagers.’
I wish I had bought stock in “Depends” years ago. The amount of assholes just keeps growing and growing….
Tim Graham’s bio lists one of his achievements(?) as being on the 700 club. That’s the pinnacle for Conservative nutjobs who want to showcase their conservative credentials, and at the same time honor the Old Testament tradition of seeking the father’s (Pat Robertson) blessing.
“And for that matter, where is the Left’s James Addison? or Scott Roeder? or James Cummings?”
One could start with the Left’s canonization of and apologia for the likes of convicted murderers Wesley Cook (a/k/a Mumia Abu Jamal) and Leonard Peltier. Your principal advantage, of course, is that no one in Media would dare make the connection and correlation between your politics and political expression and their criminal behavior, even though the Left continues to support these men and others like them after their crimes were committed – or rather because of these very crimes.
I defy you to find even the tiniest hint of apologia for Mumia Abu Jamal, or Peltier for that matter, on this blog, but thanks for illustrating one of the Right’s favorite lies. In the rightie mind, there are no distinctions between the Marxist fringe and those of us who are mostly updated New Dealers, even though we’re entirely different groups of people.
Well, considering that their criminal behavior took place in 1975 and 1981, you’d have a real hard time arguing that any of today’s political expression had anything to do with it. How far back do you want to go? The Democrats in the 1860s, for example, were mostly pro-slavery. Are you going to hang that on us, too?
Fantasy. They have factions of supporters, but for most of us they’re pretty much off the radar these days. Especially younger progressives, many of whom probably have no idea who Peltier is and only know Mumia from the T-shirts. I don’t know if that’s bad or good, but that’s how it is.
On the other hand, Addison, Roder, and Cummings committed (or planned to commit, in Cummings’s case) acts of terrorism just in the past couple of years as a result of political expression from some of the media and other “leaders” of today’s Right.
So, once again, I ask, “And for that matter, where is the Left’s James Addison? or Scott Roeder? or James Cummings?†Oh, I know — Harper’s Ferry! John Brown! He must have been a leftie, since he was against “property rights.” Wow, you got us. I feel so guilty.
“and all too often disguise compulsion as compassion”
This from a republicant, the party that gave us the compassionate conservative GW Bu$hco, give me a break, go spout your your 8th grade political views over at redstate.hate, I think they more your speed.
I was watching FAUX “buisness” today (me and about four other people, it’s really great comedy) and nearing the closing bell today faced with triple digit gains in the DOW and positive economic indictors, Neil (I never met a republicant I didn’t like) Cavuto pronounced the recent rallies on Wall Street are due to anticipation of the republicants taking control of the house and senate. You just can’t make this stuff up!
“We’re usually liberals, meaning that we believe in civil liberty, equality, and republican (in the original sense) self-government.”
You have just granted your imprimatur to a columnist likening political expression he finds disagreeable with “bullets,” a trope intended to lay the cultural groundwork to conclude that this “dangerous (LIKE BULLETS!!!!) language” should be curtailed or censored entirely as a clear danger to the civil order. You’re not really into civil liberties insofar as they would protect those whom you find repugnant because of what they believe – you’re into them only to the extent that you like the content of the speech in question.
“So, Alec ‘LameASS,’!!!
You have to go back to a guy who killed a cop in 1981 in Philly, and an ‘American Indian Right’s’ activist convicted of murder in 1977 as evidence? I gotta admit, even me, a die-hard Liberal’s liberal had to ‘Google’ those names up, since I couldn’t place, or remember them since I graduated college – IN 1981!!! And even then, I didn’t give them much thought as a Liberal. I thought they were violent criminals who went too far. They are remembered by people like you, who have nothing better to do than keep a Rolodex of violent lefites. Care to go into the rightie versions and compare BODY COUNT’S? Of course not.
So, HAHAHAHA!
What, the Rosenbergs were a ‘reference too far?’
“You’re not really into civil liberties insofar as they would protect those whom you find repugnant because of what they believe – you’re into them only to the extent that you like the content of the speech in question.”
Projection, little Alec?
You might want to get rid of your Freudian analyst and go with someone a llittle Jung’-er. Or, if you insist on ‘projecting,’ make sure your hands are behing your back, your zipper is closed, and maybe your mouth as well, or you might prove yourself a fool.
Alec, please do come back when you have anything coherent to say – or anything even more recent than back in the day when Jerry Bown and Linda Rondstat were an item.
What an asshole!!!
Someone left the cemetery gates open, and the zombies have escaped to walk among us, yearning for our brains.
“I defy you to find even the tiniest hint of apologia for Mumia Abu Jamal, or Peltier for that matter, on this blog, but thanks for illustrating one of the Right’s favorite lies. In the rightie mind, there are no distinctions between the Marxist fringe and those of us who are mostly updated New Dealers, even though we’re entirely different groups of people.”
Your challenge was to find counterparts of Scott Roeder on the Left. I have done so. I am born and raised in Philadelphia with PPD relatives and neighbors. “Free Mumia” rallies and celebrity supporters are neither rare nor the fringe of the Left. Wesley Cook has ample support from prominent figures on the Left, including elected Democrats. e.g., John Conyers. “Free Mumia” t-shirts were sort of de rigueur at protests of the 2000 GOP Convention.
“Well, considering that their criminal behavior took place in 1975 and 1981, you’d have a real hard time arguing that any of today’s political expression had anything to do with it. ”
One point I was making is that they still have support even now from the Left – after their crimes – in fact because of their crimes. After all, they killed jack-booted crypto-fascist racist oppressors, no? These men are heroes and icons. I mean we hear about ubiquitous fascists and oppressors and resistance and “one man’s freedom fighters” and so forth, right? Cook a/k/a Mumia gets invited to make commencement addresses at colleges and Universities, does he not? Matt Lauer parroted tropes about “questions” concerning Cook’s guilt only a few months ago.
Anyway, I don’t really know why you would be so defensive, when you’re under absolutely no pressure whatsoever to distance yourself from the supporters of Wesley Cook and Peltier and others.
Today’s Left, dear, not yesterday’s Left.
There’s a tiny fringe faction that supports Mumia, and who show up at protests with the Free Mumia T-shirts, but they are not representative of most of today’s progressives. I haven’t personally heard anyone even mention Peltier for several years, though.
Does he? And they let him out of prison for that? Seriously dude, I don’t know anything about Mumia except what’s on the T-shirts and Wikipedia. He’s not one of my “causes.”
The only crew I ever bump into who still supports Mumia is International ANSWER, and I have gripes about them going back several years (here’s just one post I wrote about them back in 2003). We don’t get along.
And, as I said, I haven’t even heard the name “Leonard Peltier” for several years. The only reason I even know who he is is that I met Peter Matthiessen (author of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse) in a Zen monastery several years ago, ca. 1988, and Peltier is one of Matthiessen’s causes. But Matthiessen is well into his 80s now. I think Peltier is a “cause” of his generation of activists that hasn’t really carried over to the young folks, that I can see.
Now, although it’s kind of fun to talk about ancient history, it really isn’t relevant to today’s progressives, so go away.
For Big Bang on the subject of the ‘free market’. I’m a believer in a modified free market system as Teddy Roosevelt suggested.
“The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
Teddy never suggested, but I believe, that no private business should get larger than 5,000 employees – beyond that point they should automatically be forced to break into 2 or more separate business entities – and any attempt by business entities to co-ordinate their economic activites should be deemed anti-competetive unless proven otherwise. THAT’S a free market.
Under this system, the government would not be communist or socialist – the free-enterprise system would produce all goods and provide almost all services. There would be MORE opportunity for startups and innovation. But the system would play havoc with the incompentent aristocracy who inherit fortunes and protect their mountain of gold with an army of lawyers.
“Your challenge was to find counterparts of Scott Roeder on the Left”
No shit for brains Maha’s challenge was ” defy you to find even the tiniest hint of apologia for Mumia Abu Jamal, or Peltier for that matter, on this blog”. I mean come on you have enough sense to copy and paste the challenge but then your poor little wing-nut brain went off the tracks, shut down, repeating FAUX news talking points like the brainwashed teatard you are. I feel a twit filter is in your near future.
You have become clairvoyant!
One point I was making is that they still have support even now from the Left – after their crimes – in fact because of their crimes.
No ,in fact it’s because of their convictions and how those convictions were obtained. Any support offered to them is being solely offered in the interest of upholding the integrity of the judicial process….not supporting criminal actions.
And in trying to respond to the challenge by finding parity between Mumia and Peltier, and Scott Roeder is not a satisfactory answer because Roeder has immersed himself in his criminal act and defends it as being obedient to God with total disregard and disrespect for the Laws of man. Roeder is incomparable in every respect.. a nutjob supreme!
That’s definitely Peter Matthiessen’s gripe about Peltier, that he did not commit the murders for which he was convicted. The criminal justice system railroaded Peltier into prison, Mattthiessen says, because they needed to find somebody guilty of the murders of two FBI agents, and Peltier was handy. Matthiessen thinks the evidence against Peltier was fabricated. Clearly a lot of other people think otherwise, and I have no opinion one way or another.
I take it many feel Mumia was framed also, and perhaps he was. I don’t know.
You wish to twit-filter Big Bang Hunter for writing:
“We need a legitimate wealth generating free market economy not based on war, and we haven’t figured out how to do that yet.”
Please explain your objection to this; for it seems fairly accurate to me. Perhaps overstated but if so then not by much.
If I’m mistaken, then so was Eisenhower when he warned about the military-industrial complex.
I believe your Addison link needs correcting.
I’m not sure what Maha’s exact objections are to:
but mine would run along the lines of it being either self-cancelling, or so vague as to be nonsensical. It presupposes a “free market” economy, which is a phrase fraught with peril that can mean many things, but most of them suggest economic systems that many would not consider “legitimate”, and many others would argue lead eventually to wars in order to provide new markets, new resources, or simply eliminate surplus. Perhaps the reason “we haven’t figured out how to do that” is because it can’t be done. It’s a bit like arguing that we simply need to move to a unicorn-based economy, but we haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
@Doug Hughes:
While it’s an interesting idea to keep all companies below 5,000 employees, I don’t think that’s strictly necessary with a proper progressive tax code. If the top four marginal tax brackets look like this:
> $100 million, 90%
> $50 million, 80%
> $25 million, 70%
> $10 million, 60%
…then I think one would find much less profiteering, selfish behavior, shoddy products, and low worker wages. These tax rates would strongly incentivize investment in workers, business infrastructure, and product quality. When the choice is between paying 60 or 70% tax on the one hand, and giving workers a raise or buying new equipment on the other, I think the choice is clear.
There’s a certain amount of equity and fairness inducement in wages with this kind of very progressive tax scheme, as well. After all, why would you give a $1 million dollar bonus to the CEO when he’s going to pay 50% tax on that? It would make much more sense to divide the bonus into fifty pieces and give those chunks to fifty different workers where they pay a much lower tax rate.
However, in favor of your idea, I will say this much: it may be that companies with fewer workers are relatively more efficient. That is, it seems quite plausible that small companies require less management and cooperate better because the employees know each other more thoroughly.
@paradoctor :
I don’t think he was cut off for merely that comment alone. There were three posts by Big Bang Hunter. The first two were blunt and evidence-free claims that history was being distorted. Their purpose wasn’t really very clear at all.
Then, in the third post, he just breaks out into ideology. The “problem isn’t socialism”, even though it’s a “defunct, unworkable ideology that generates zero wealth”. Way to contradict yourself in the very next sentence…utterly incoherent, and more importantly unconnected to any facts or even definitions of any kind. Such self-aggrandized talking points aren’t respected around here.
After that, he goes into free market ideology. The only part at all tied to reality is the military-industrial complex. Yes, it’s real. But it only consumes in reality five to seven percent of GDP. It looks like a lot when you run the relative percentage numbers on discretionary spending, but it’s not crippling the economy by itself. More importantly, the core reason to stop the military-industrial complex is that it isn’t making us any safer, and is killing a lot of people without justification. Economic arguments on this are entirely secondary.
I’d believe the statements on market economy were genuine if there was some kind of definition given, and/or a description on how it differs from what we already have. For example, if the big idea was that huge corporations have distorted the market with monopoly powers and are crushing competition underfoot, that would at least make sense. Nothing like that was said, let alone any advocacy for restricting or eliminating corporations.
For obvious reasons, I was interested in the link to “The Pet Goat”. I don’t mean to point any fingers, but, some of you seem a bit cranky this morning. Maybe I could lighten things up a little with my little “exegesis” of “The Pet Goat” Here’s a plot summary:
“‘The Pet Goat’ is the story of a girl’s pet goat, that eats everything in its path. The girl’s parents want to get rid of the goat, but she defends it. In the end the goat becomes a hero when it butts a car thief into submission.”
This deceptively simple story is a mixture of parable and prophecy, which becomes clear when the allegorical elements are defined.
“The Pet Goat” is the story of a girl’s (George W. Bush’s) pet goat (Post-Reagan, de-regulated American capitalism) that eats everything in its path. (Loses three million jobs, shrinks the middle class, turns a surplus into a huge budget deficit, tanks the economy, starts two unfunded wars, etc.) The girl’s parents (uninformed or traitorous liberals, amongst the “real” American electorate) want to get rid of the goat, but she (as formerly noted, GWB) defends it. In the end the goat (Reaganomics and defender GWB!!) becomes a hero when it butts a car thief (Saddam Hussein) into submission.
I think we can clearly see why our fearless leader was so enthralled by this book on that fateful day at Booker Elementary School and how it might have had a significant influence on G. W. Bush’s worldview, his decision making and America’s future.
I should disclose that I am working on a children’s book of my own. I have only the barest plot outline and some sketchy ideas for characters. But, it is the story of a traumatized young girl who grows up to be an embittered, self-centered, third rate intellectual, without compassion. But, she is armed with a simplistic worldview and a thorough dislike for the common stock of humanity. One day she is indulging in some particularly engaging fantasy and she comes up with an innovative, just and liberating economic system that some like-minded people think might actually be theoretically possible. The system has some very magical qualities that are beyond the understanding of “little people” but it would transform our dreary world into a capitalist utopia without any of the “revolutionary and transitional form” that authoritarian systems experience. It would have only good, pleasant and just revolutionary and transitional form, especially for good, productive people. The catch is the that system must be perfectly and completely applied or the magic will not work. When only bits and pieces of her idea are applied it leads to terrible consequences that make most people, confused by reality, think she is completely full of shit.
I haven’t quite decided on an ending yet. I hope to come end it with something uplifting, the kind of thing that would brighten an evening at a soup kitchen, tent city or re-education camp.
Any ideas?
Sorry for the bad editing. I lost the first version in cyberspace and I was in a hurry. I hope you can see through the errors.
@goatherd, it sounds like you’re critiquing Ayn Rand. I have no idea how you get yourself out of the box you’re in, but then I’m not a writer who’s dealt with the kinds of storyline you’ve described.
re Big Bang Hunter’s description of socialism as a defunct, unworkable ideology that generates zero wealth
When the word “socialism” comes up, righties’ knee jerk response is images of the worst cases imaginable: the USSR, Red China, or some failed Marxist state in Africa. They never talk about the success stories: most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and so on.
This black and white thinking, this pseudo competition between The Greatest Economic Systems of All Time, Capitalism vs Socialism, see it now on pay-per-view – is bogus.
Every grouping of humans, from nation-states down to families, is a tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. In other words, there is no pure capitalism and there is no pure socialism. All successful human groupings have elements of both. Those groupings that have tried to be purely socialist or purely capitalist – ie purely favoring the rights of the group or purely favoring the rights of the individual – turn out to be disasters.
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve tried to drum this simple point into the shuttered minds of wingnuts over the years. It was obvious to me decades ago, well before I began reading blogs, and well before the pathology of wingnuts was well understood. On this account alone, it would’ve been worth keeping Big Bang Hunter around for a few more hours to try and drill this lesson into his head.
I was going to suggest that goatherd’s heroine write some books and become the leader of an adoring cult, and then cult members go off to get jobs in government like being chairman of the Federal Reserve. But I guess that’s too far-fetched.
goatherd,
You could write about builder, who’s going to build the most beautifulest building in the whole world for himself up on top of a mountain.
You’d have to have to include a love story, jejunely written, awkward, and yet robotic – like Rand’s sex scenes. And have the guy give 300 page lectures throughout the book (yes, it’s long for children, but if they’re going to learn to be self-reliant, they’ll have to learn to listen to their better’s).
And, since he’ll have to rely on himself for everything from building materials, to water, to food, you can call it “The Mountain-fed.”
Good luck in your efforts. If it gets too tough, you can always shrug, and walk away…
The catch is the that system must be perfectly and completely applied or the magic will not work
Maybe you should develop a character who could act as an intercessor of sorts to the source of the magic to overcome the imperfections. Give him, or her a name above all names that can be called upon to guarantee that the magic will work.
Gosh, I really didn’t have anyone in mind. But, come to think of it, you guys have a point. I guess I better add:
“This is a work of fiction, any resemblance to persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.” I wouldn’t want to upset anybody.
On second thought, you’re right Maha, it’s too far fetched, not even a kid would believe it. Another ten minutes of intense planning wasted!
Yes, Moonbat, I agree with your whole post.
Regarding your fourth paragraph, I have known some people who were intelligent sorts, MENSA members and such, who were nonetheless, simple minded in the sense that they saw everything as black and white. Their logic was not the problem, so much as the way they thought their simple reasoning related to the real world.
David Coates had an article in which he cited the riches countries in terms of per capita income. They vary, but Luxembourg, Litchenstein, Monaco and Norway were the top contenders. I remember reading that Switzerland was the most competitive economy in the world (whatever that means). Germany is recovering from the global economic crisis faster than other countries despite 60% of its GDP being in the manufacturing sector. A little “socialism” doesn’t seem to have hurt them or robbed them of their inventiveness.
I remember Maha writing about the Sociatist vs. Free Market Capitalist conflict recalling the cold war era. I think the insight was that people assumed if “socialism was bad its opposite must be good.” I think that was well put.
In another sense it is easier to think of things as opposites when we compare their merits. But this is questionable when it somes to some ideas, because where they may be opposed in some ways, they often share characteristics. Socialism and capitalism were politically opposed during the cold war, but can they be said to be truly opposed in all categories, without shared characteristics?
As I have said, perhaps too often, the “blended systems” of Europe seem very good to me right now.
Bon soir!
@goatherd:
The perfect system’s catch is its refutation. It delivers perfection, but only if perfectly applied; it amplifies any imperfections given to it. But the world is imperfect, so the perfect system can cause only misfortune. In fact it is an error-accumulator. Our heroine learns this, to her sorrow.
Perhaps, chastened, she reverses the terms of her perfect system, and gets an error-corrector. This reversal assumes imperfection, delivers imperfection, but does at least improve on what is given to it.
The people praise her deliberately-flawed innovation, and adopt it. She in turn loses some of her alienation and bitterness, but at the cost of conscious compromise. This is called “maturation”.
This wouldn’t be a kid’s story; more like a young adult’s.
Perhaps you could give it a fantasy twist. The Perfect System was given to her by a spirit being, one who claims to be an angel, but who proves to be the opposite.