That Brian Coulter believed (at least ostensibly) that his straw man arguments in the Saturday June 27 edition of the Longview News Journal would prove effective with readers was patently insulting. That he may be right in his assessment of (many) of those readers is...well, just sad. But the straw man gambit is one of the oldest tricks in the rhetorical book: charge someone with a specious, fabricated offense, rail against it as though it were real, then claim a Pyrrhic victory and pretend that you've just done something significant. However, reality waits in the wings to dismantle just such fancies as these.
In a column appearing under the heading "Obama Is His Father's Son," the writer opens with a lengthy and unsourced quote which he apparently viewed to be "scandalously socialist." The quote, we come to find was spoken not by President Barack Obama, but by his father, Barack Obama Sr. The quote, which Coulter identifies as the theoretical musings of a Harvard-educated economist and "avowed Marxist socialist," seems rather mild in the reading, a fact which does little to quiet the paranoid jeremiads of the extreme right. His point of course, is that these socialist ideas were handed down from father to son.
First of all, it's comical to state a benign fact with overly ominous fanfare. Whose son could Obama be if not his own father's? Secondly, anyone acquainted with even the barest outlines of the President's story knows that the Obamas were divorced when the President was still a very young boy, and that his father was known to have visited his son only once in 1971 very briefly. I find it hard to believe in the few short weeks that Obama Sr. spent with his son, that he possessed either the will or the wherewithal to transmit to his young son's mind, the entirety of his socialist, economic philosophy. Nor does it seem possible, as Coulter seems to suggest, that said philosophy lay deep, dormant and patient in the convoluted strands of the President's DNA.
But such a tenuous connection is apparently no impediment to the unquestioning mandarins of laissez-faire capitalism who easily blow it out of all proportion into a complete embrace by Obama of the main tenets of socialism. Again, pesky facts say otherwise.
If Obama is a socialist, it's news to Billy Wharton, editor of "The Socialist" magazine, appearing on Common Dreams on March 14, 2009: "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know." In his piece, Wharton states succinctly, "The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies."
Wharton goes on to demonstrate through issues of national banking policy, health care, and the prosecution of wars just how far Obama is from his notion of a socialist leader. So how has he morphed into a harbinger of socialism in the minds of neoconservative wing-nuts, Libertarians, Randians, and some of the other unhinged members of the ultra-right? Its hard to say exactly, but the fact that few of these people are knowledgeable about what socialism actually is, clearly plays a large part.
Journalist/author Richard Wolff concurs: On Common Dreams, he gives a detailed list with descriptions of the main types of recognized socialism, concluding that "Obama has endorsed precisely none of these major definitions of socialism: not Marx's -- focused on the social organization of the surpluses in production, not the Soviet or Chinese models of state ownership of most industries, and not the European notion/model of significant state intervention (e.g. state production of gas, oil, transport; state subsidization of education and national health care; subsidized housing, and so on).
In an irony certainly lost on the writer, Obama is every bit (and quite possibly more) the capitalist that Coulter is himself. The socialist tag seems to have emerged from the strangely desperate final days of John McCain's failed campaign for the presidency. In classic conservative fashion, the socialist smear has gained traction simply through the myopic, zombie-like force which phrases sometimes gain through mere repetition. It matters little that Obama is as committed a capitalist as the next guy.
Which may explain why Obama is so frequently attacked and savaged on the World Socialist Website. The strong denunciations of Obama found there might prove to be an eye-opener for Coulter should he ever risk taking an unblinkered look and listen beyond the insular world of his beloved conservative echo-chamber. The loss of dearly held illusions is difficult but necessary. Everyone should attempt it at least once in a while. This would deny the writer his phony platform from which to kick around the President. It would also beg the question, if he's not attacking Obama for being a socialist, why is he attacking him?
The President is no leftist, which shouldn't be surprising since he never claimed to be one. None other than [the conservative scholar and writer], Kevin Baker has recently confirmed this in a piece written for Harper's magazine, July 2009. In it he criticizes the President not for being too radical, but for not being radical enough to suit the times. Stunningly, as Coulter and others of his ilk castigate the President for being much too radically egalitarian in his policies, Baker, [the great eminence grise of the Republican Party], indicts the President with the charge of "timid incrementalism." He writes, "The question is not what can be done but what must be done."
Finally, John R. MacArthur gives the lie to the "crypto-socialist" charge that Coulter et al. are selling. Writing in The Providence Journal, he calls the claim absurd. Obama, in his estimation is no raving left-leaning liberal. Like Baker, he sees the President as a creature of the center of American politics, ultimately unwilling to challenge the accepted ecomonic wisdom laid out by conventional "experts." Thus, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin and others who played significant roles in the policies (or lack thereof) which led to the economic collapse, take center stage in creating the policies needed to get us out of the ditch. Socialists? I don't think so.
The harsh truth that Coulter just cannot seem to face is that if Obama is, as he believes, a socialist (he's not), then the election proves that the American electorate desired a bit more socialism in their lives. If he changes tack and raises the specter of the President as a kind of "stealth socialist," he runs a serious risk of being consigned to the conspiracy fringe that quaked and quivered unnecessarily over Obama's imaginary "stealth Muslim" status.
Which brings us at last to the real antecedents of Obama's predilection for egalitarianism and compassion. To explain it, readers need look no further than the main thrust of the progressive values of both the left and right, with perhaps a bit of religion thrown into the mix. Obama has never signed up to be a member of the American Socialist Party, but he has been a practicing committed Christian for many years. Perhaps what we see reflected in his policy agenda (conventional as it is) are the values he gains merely from being a Democrat and a moral man.
Granted, it may not be nearly as sexy and conspiratorial as the craziness offered up by Coulter, but chances are it's the truth.
Coulter's column in its entirety is at the site below
http://www.news-journal.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/06/27/06272009_forum_coulter.html
d.
Update: An earlier version of this post had identified Kevin Baker as "None other than the conservative scholar and writer" and "the great eminence grise of the Republican party," but I was confusing him with another writer, Kevin Phillips. Baker is a novelist and "a contributing editor to Harper’s magazine as well as a columnist with American Heritage magazine, and a regular contributor to The New York Times and The New York Times Book Review." from wikipedia.org My apologies to the readers of this blog.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Lost In The Wilderness
In our wildest imaginings following the 2000 election and during the subsequent 8 years, could anyone have predicted the massively horrible, yet oddly entertaining death spiral of today's GOP? As we gawk in amazement at the bizarre ongoing Republican sojourn in the wilderness, certain questions spring readily to mind. Where is the famed noise machine by which republicans maintained a reign of terror which kept the democratic leadership cowering and/or running for cover for years? Whither the swaggering, cowboy ethic that proved so impenetrable to reality, logic, and the exigencies of politics at the dawn of the new century? I guess liberal prescience found vindication when the misery factor (war, hurricanes, torture, phone taps, economic Armageddon...) finally overwhelmed the smoke and mirrors of Karl Rove's message machine, bringing an awakening that has proved to be very rude indeed.
As Barack Obama and his coalition of democrats, independents, liberals, and a few disaffected republicans attempt to clean up the foul mess left in George W. Bush's wake, it can be said that none have done more to bring about this sea change than rigid, shortsighted conservatives themselves. With such unbridled power at their disposal, could anyone have doubted the inevitability of the GOP landing us in dire straits? Regarding Bush, the past, as they say, is prologue, and he had pretty much failed at every endeavor he'd undertaken before becoming president. It's amazing how the abject fear attending the thought of another four years under a criminally inept executive can focus the mind of the electorate. If the GOP is experiencing a spot of bother as they seek their erstwhile mojo, perhaps it's merely a function of truth's well known bias against blatant phoniness.
The mandarins of the right are on to something, one feels, when they wring their hands and mutter and mewl about their failure to take seriously the implications of demography. The young shifted in droves to the democrats in the last election, and the reason is that Obama fired the political imaginations and hopes of an entire generation in 2007. In the heady aftermath of electoral victory, they seem sufficiently engaged to remain a force to be reckoned with for decades. Name almost any demographic group, and Obama bested the republicans with said group in 2008: women, Hispanics, African Americans, college educated and working class whites. Indeed, the only group staying home for the GOP are Southern social conservatives, the same group that Richard Nixon advised that the party "nurture" in his so-called "Southern Strategy." Now republicans must sleep in the shrunken bed they have made. It is good to keep the base happy, but everyone knows that you can't win national elections with the base alone. The GOP's dilemma lies in the fact that if they moderate their crazy rhetoric at this stage in order to reach out to independents, they run the risk of losing the base. They have been hoisted on their own petard.
Going forward, I see one danger. Our system is one that relies on a healthy if occasionally contentious conversation between the party in power, and the loyal opposition. Because conservatives have painted themselves into a very bad corner, the administration may get the idea that it can do what it pleases. Regardless of who is at the controls, that's not a good scenario. Liberals have watched in dismay as the administration has made decisions which run counter to our values. Obama seems to have made purely political calculations on questions of torture which leave out a vigorous pursuit of accountability. He has sought to suppress photographs which would give a clearer picture of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" engaged in by our intelligence agencies. He can do these things in large part because of the ineptitude that has stricken the loyal opposition. Democracy requires grown ups on both sides of the aisle to keep everyone honest. While I can admit to the guilty pleasure of watching the GOP stumble in the dark attempting to find political true north, at some point it is in everyone's best interest that they right their veering course.
I just don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.
d.
As Barack Obama and his coalition of democrats, independents, liberals, and a few disaffected republicans attempt to clean up the foul mess left in George W. Bush's wake, it can be said that none have done more to bring about this sea change than rigid, shortsighted conservatives themselves. With such unbridled power at their disposal, could anyone have doubted the inevitability of the GOP landing us in dire straits? Regarding Bush, the past, as they say, is prologue, and he had pretty much failed at every endeavor he'd undertaken before becoming president. It's amazing how the abject fear attending the thought of another four years under a criminally inept executive can focus the mind of the electorate. If the GOP is experiencing a spot of bother as they seek their erstwhile mojo, perhaps it's merely a function of truth's well known bias against blatant phoniness.
The mandarins of the right are on to something, one feels, when they wring their hands and mutter and mewl about their failure to take seriously the implications of demography. The young shifted in droves to the democrats in the last election, and the reason is that Obama fired the political imaginations and hopes of an entire generation in 2007. In the heady aftermath of electoral victory, they seem sufficiently engaged to remain a force to be reckoned with for decades. Name almost any demographic group, and Obama bested the republicans with said group in 2008: women, Hispanics, African Americans, college educated and working class whites. Indeed, the only group staying home for the GOP are Southern social conservatives, the same group that Richard Nixon advised that the party "nurture" in his so-called "Southern Strategy." Now republicans must sleep in the shrunken bed they have made. It is good to keep the base happy, but everyone knows that you can't win national elections with the base alone. The GOP's dilemma lies in the fact that if they moderate their crazy rhetoric at this stage in order to reach out to independents, they run the risk of losing the base. They have been hoisted on their own petard.
Going forward, I see one danger. Our system is one that relies on a healthy if occasionally contentious conversation between the party in power, and the loyal opposition. Because conservatives have painted themselves into a very bad corner, the administration may get the idea that it can do what it pleases. Regardless of who is at the controls, that's not a good scenario. Liberals have watched in dismay as the administration has made decisions which run counter to our values. Obama seems to have made purely political calculations on questions of torture which leave out a vigorous pursuit of accountability. He has sought to suppress photographs which would give a clearer picture of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" engaged in by our intelligence agencies. He can do these things in large part because of the ineptitude that has stricken the loyal opposition. Democracy requires grown ups on both sides of the aisle to keep everyone honest. While I can admit to the guilty pleasure of watching the GOP stumble in the dark attempting to find political true north, at some point it is in everyone's best interest that they right their veering course.
I just don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.
d.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Now It Begins
“I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”~Stephen Colbert
My hope for this new venture, or 'adventure' in blogging is that it will become a place where liberal-minded folk in the East Texas area can come to for views that are consistently well thought out, well written, and above all, passionately liberal. Thus, this blog announces itself as being unapologetically liberal. Not "progressive," but liberal. The conservative noise machine has done a terrific job of trashing that word over the past decade, and if we can make a small contribution towards the rehabilitation of liberalism's prestige and cache, then our efforts will not have been in vain.
For some time I have been a proponent and advocate of my fellow liberals growing a spine. It can be argued that the lack of said anatomical feature has contributed mightily to the horrid state of affairs in which we now find ourselves. The previous administration has laid waste to the true values of the country, such that we are currently having to endure the bizarre and morbid spectacle of a former Vice President of the United States extolling the virtues of torture! How might things have gone if somewhere along the road one or two brave liberals had raised the warning flag and taken a stand upholding the American prohibition against torture?
Clearly, there are consequences to craven inaction as well as to the reckless actions of those few who would undermine all that we hold dear as a people. It shouldn't take hurricanes, misbegotten wars and nefarious domestic skulduggery such as the unwarranted, politically motivated firings of nine U.S. Attorneys to awaken a population to the moral turpitude of its leaders. But alas, this is where we have arrived. If it is to be turned around, it will take a clarion liberal call that rings from the highest levels of American government to the humblest venues of town and country.
To that end, we launch ETLR as a dim outpost of liberalism here in the piney woods of East Texas. Our targets will be all of those instances of conservatism run amok that are everywhere evident in the surrounding region. As a native son, I am well aware of the rigid authoritarian stance of the ultra-conservative. I've seen it all my life. I intend to take aim at that mentality whenever and wherever it comes across my path. The mentality of ultra-conservatism has infiltrated East Texas at every level; socially, culturally, and politically and needs to be challenged accordingly.
We will ferret out this corrosive mindset whenever it boldly rears its ugly head in the public square and administer the appropriate smackdown. No sacred cows will be spared. Any organization or institution providing a public forum in the community which seeks to foist a conservative POV on the rest of us may find itself in our crosshairs: newspaper letters & editorials, television, radio and internet content, billboards, church marquees...We expect to find no shortage of things to write about.
Anyone, liberal or conservative, who can reasonably articulate an idea can join the conversation. Hatemongering, emoting, partisan bloviators, however, are not welcome. As liberals, we will not shy away from a lively exchange of ideas. But we will show respect to, and demand it from those who wish to be included on the blog.
Finally, it bears saying that our liberal opinions are certainly of no more inherent moment or worth than anyone else's. But when you are an isolated island of liberals adrift in a vast sea of conservative culture and opinion, you appreciate the few kindred spirits you find on the journey. As fiesty liberals, that is to say, liberals who have found the strength of our convictions, we want to do our small part in the struggle for the American soul. If you are liberal in your politics, your religious views, and your values, welcome to ETLR, an oasis of liberal thought in this arid conservative desert that we call home.
For us this represents a first attempt at utilizing the medium. We hope you'll bear with us as we learn and as the blog evolves. Thanks.
d.
My hope for this new venture, or 'adventure' in blogging is that it will become a place where liberal-minded folk in the East Texas area can come to for views that are consistently well thought out, well written, and above all, passionately liberal. Thus, this blog announces itself as being unapologetically liberal. Not "progressive," but liberal. The conservative noise machine has done a terrific job of trashing that word over the past decade, and if we can make a small contribution towards the rehabilitation of liberalism's prestige and cache, then our efforts will not have been in vain.
For some time I have been a proponent and advocate of my fellow liberals growing a spine. It can be argued that the lack of said anatomical feature has contributed mightily to the horrid state of affairs in which we now find ourselves. The previous administration has laid waste to the true values of the country, such that we are currently having to endure the bizarre and morbid spectacle of a former Vice President of the United States extolling the virtues of torture! How might things have gone if somewhere along the road one or two brave liberals had raised the warning flag and taken a stand upholding the American prohibition against torture?
Clearly, there are consequences to craven inaction as well as to the reckless actions of those few who would undermine all that we hold dear as a people. It shouldn't take hurricanes, misbegotten wars and nefarious domestic skulduggery such as the unwarranted, politically motivated firings of nine U.S. Attorneys to awaken a population to the moral turpitude of its leaders. But alas, this is where we have arrived. If it is to be turned around, it will take a clarion liberal call that rings from the highest levels of American government to the humblest venues of town and country.
To that end, we launch ETLR as a dim outpost of liberalism here in the piney woods of East Texas. Our targets will be all of those instances of conservatism run amok that are everywhere evident in the surrounding region. As a native son, I am well aware of the rigid authoritarian stance of the ultra-conservative. I've seen it all my life. I intend to take aim at that mentality whenever and wherever it comes across my path. The mentality of ultra-conservatism has infiltrated East Texas at every level; socially, culturally, and politically and needs to be challenged accordingly.
We will ferret out this corrosive mindset whenever it boldly rears its ugly head in the public square and administer the appropriate smackdown. No sacred cows will be spared. Any organization or institution providing a public forum in the community which seeks to foist a conservative POV on the rest of us may find itself in our crosshairs: newspaper letters & editorials, television, radio and internet content, billboards, church marquees...We expect to find no shortage of things to write about.
Anyone, liberal or conservative, who can reasonably articulate an idea can join the conversation. Hatemongering, emoting, partisan bloviators, however, are not welcome. As liberals, we will not shy away from a lively exchange of ideas. But we will show respect to, and demand it from those who wish to be included on the blog.
Finally, it bears saying that our liberal opinions are certainly of no more inherent moment or worth than anyone else's. But when you are an isolated island of liberals adrift in a vast sea of conservative culture and opinion, you appreciate the few kindred spirits you find on the journey. As fiesty liberals, that is to say, liberals who have found the strength of our convictions, we want to do our small part in the struggle for the American soul. If you are liberal in your politics, your religious views, and your values, welcome to ETLR, an oasis of liberal thought in this arid conservative desert that we call home.
For us this represents a first attempt at utilizing the medium. We hope you'll bear with us as we learn and as the blog evolves. Thanks.
d.
The Threat of Islam / The Power of Prayer
Jonna says:
A recent contribution to the Saturday Forum really set me off.
A local pastor had his say about "the threat of Islam," joining the hordes who claim violence is inherent in Islam, and of course presenting Christianity as the peaceful alternative. To do so, you must turn a blind eye to the history of Christianity which includes every bit as much violence as Islam. The Christian's defense I've heard so often - "we got better" - just doesn't fly with me. It took many, many years of discord and virulent discourse for the Church to "get better," and it's still got a way to go, obviously. There's still much hatred spewed from fundamentalist pulpits in 2009. There's now every indication that Islam going through the same process of "getting better", too. There are many liberal voices in the Muslim community these days, urging everything from peaceful co-existence to women's rights. Why aren't we listening to and broadcasting those voices? Why aren't columns written to praise and encourage those who want to see Islam go through its own reformation?
The Reverend stated "the goal of Islam is to see every nation become Islamic" without once acknoweldging that it is also the goal of Christianity to see every nation a Christian nation - the "every knee shall bow" mentality that sends missionaries out to every nation on the planet, no matter what kind of havoc the "conversion" wreaks on the variety of cultures and societies that have existed peacefully for hundreds of years. Most Christians I've talked to about this are 100% behind Christian missionary work because they believe they're serving the right God and saving the souls of those they reach. Guess what, Muslims believe the same thing.
The Reverend also took to task a few Islamic doctrines that he says Christians have a hard time dealing with, among them the doctrine of waqf, which he explains as "territory that was Islamic is forever Islamic, even if non-Muslims temporarily regained it. This is why the Islamic world will not leave Israel alone in peace. Centuries ago Muslims controlled Israel. That changed in 1948 when Israel become a sovereign state." I find the problem stated very clearly in his statement, except it's not just a Muslim problem. If you follow his line of thinking, Judaism has the same waqf mentality, since Israel is asserting its right to the land every bit as much as Palestine is. And I guess this "Christian nation" shares it as well since we overwhelmingly support Israel in its "defense" against those who would attempt to "regain" control of it. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.
Another doctrine the Reverend has a problem with what he calls the Muslim's "love of death" which he attributes to the promise of virgins in the afterlife. Of course, he fails to see what is staring him in the face. Isn't this so-called "love of death" much like a good Christian's lack of fear of death, which is of course also based on a promise of rewards in the afterlife.
Most interesting, however, is the way the Reverend starts and ends his column, stating unequivocally that "War is a great evil. Only wicked and perverse people love war," quickly followed by the curious reversal of "I do not disapprove of war," and ending the column with "I personally opposed both wars because I don't believe that there is a reasonable hope of success in either of them...Having served in the Armed Services myself, I support appropriate military engagement in a just war." Wow, double-speak at its worst, wouldn't you say? Must be a struggle to preach the love of Christ with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
And then this past week, the same Reverend wrote about the National Day of Prayer, extolling the virtue and power of prayer in difficult times. He wrote "God can and will preserve our nation from another diabolical attack or disease such as 9/11 and the swine flu, which causes so much perpetual pain, death, grief, bitterness, hurt, and anger. We must continue to pray as a nation earnestly and intently. Pray for unity, which tragedy can bring. That unity would remain and increase. Our nation must turn God-ward and stay focused on him, realizing he's the one and only hope to guide us through crisis and the time of calm. As a nation we must practice prayer and reach out to God as a daily decision in our lives. These are issues that really matter."
The previous column was screaming in my head as I read the latter. Unity? I believe his words of unity and turning God-ward are code telling fellow Christians to stand against those he condemned in his earlier column. If I were a believer in this God the Reverend prays to, I think I would worry more that God might punish this country for its un-Christian response to 9/11, taking our "shock and awe" war into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a war the Reverend has somehow decided to support as a just war. I would think God would be a mite upset about so many Americans heaping hatred and prejudice on much of the Islamic community everywhere. I know I would find it hard to believe that God would listen to the prayers of a Reverend who goes out of his way to promote that kind of prejudice and glorification of war in his local newspaper.
We should be encouraging all religions to continue to evolve, embracing compassion, understanding of each other, and acceptance of other religious beliefs, not building resentment and separation. You would think a Reverend would know that better than anyone else.
You can find the Reverend's columns at:
http://www.news-journal.com/search/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/04/25/04252009_forum_spady.html
and
http://www.news-journal.com/search/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/05/07/05072009_prayer_day.html
We're blogging!
This is just an introduction to our new blog, where we hope to respond to some of the ultra-conservative claptrap that permeates East Texas, and give our fellow liberal friends a chance to let loose, too!! With D no longer contributing to the LNJ-SatForum page, we had to create another outlet!! And J plans to put in a word or two here and there, too!! So add us to your list of blogsites and check in periodically, and respond with an Amen!! or You're so wrong there, brother!!
More soon!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)