Cassius knew that Antony would use Julius Caesar's bloody toga to turn the crowd against him (to "let loose the dogs of war")... that same crowd which he had recently summoned against Caesar. So what? Knowledge is not always power. The toga was a dog whistle, victimizing not just yon Cassius but the "Roman people". The toga was the true flag of Empire, born officially at that moment and consuming not just Cassius but Antony too, a moment later. The only real beneficiary was Octavian - Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of Rome.

***

Ben Butler of Massachusetts was a cynical blowhard but that didn't mean he was insincere. He was a legendary gasbag and probably the most incompetent of the Civil War's political generals, but he was also the first to refuse to return runaway slaves and also served to pioneer the creation of the Civil Rights Act, a century before it was actually passed. In this way, he was the equivalent of Representative Alan Grayson - both the best of the Radical Republicans and a man born aloft mainly by his own digestive gases.

In 1871, Butler waved the "bloody shirt" in the U.S. Congress. The shirt belonged to Allen P. Huggins, the Reconstruction Superintendent of Schools for Monroe County, Mississippi. Huggins had been whipped by the Ku Klux Klan. The waving of the shirt (which most likely was figurative as the actual shirt doesn't seem to have made it up North) cemented wavering support for a Republican Party that was already revealing its unprecedented preoccupation with graft, theft, and self-aggrandizement.

To the perpetually offended gentlemen of the South, it was the very symbol of demagogy. Still, Butler was actually and justifiably outraged, even as the only real losers were the supporters of Reconstruction. Five years later, the grateful Republicans would jettison Reconstruction and Butler, without a thought.

***

Which brings us to the blue dress... The events which brought the blue dress to light are recent and unseemly enough to avoid. Instead, a question might be substituted: what could possibly be offered to call back to the colors the outraged, humiliated, and thoroughly betrayed cohorts of the Liberal Left?

Of course those colors belonged to W.J. Clinton, the architect of "Welfare Reform", triangulation, financial deregulation, and globalization, while personally demonstrating the traits of being the most cynical, amoral, opportunist, and corrupt sumabitch to serve as President since the Second World War... though some might argue the merits of either of the two Presidents since. And what could restore his quickly faded luster, to be argued over the fine canvas of intern seduction and the true gradations of perjury?

Why, it was a vast right-wing conspiracy, of course. And that conspiracy was all too real, just as Butler's Klan was real...

Still, who won and who lost in that defense?

***

Which brings us, finally, to the teabag.

Yes, they are racists. Yes, they are the absolutely insane expression of the most retrograde strata in American politics. Yes, they may be crypto-fascists. And, yes... they are the cover for the worst con job since Clinton: healthcare reform for the benefit of the insurance companies, financial reform for the benefit of the banks, energy reform for the benefit of the oil companies, entitlement reform for the benefit of the rich, and a fresh coat of paint for Empire.

Again, no wonder people believe in conspiracy theories. The whole thing looks entirely staged. But, it ain't. It's real. And everybody loses... but ya still gotta march into the ritual drama... for the umpteenth time.

You don't want Sarah Palin to be President, do you?

or are they the ones searching for something bloody to wave? Or will we only, finally, know that after-the-fact?

but have you read (about) this?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132661270314770.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_5

I'm not sure if there is a bloody shirt in there or not..

It always plays out as sincerity v. cynicism among the liberal left. The obviously cynical politicians are ravaged, and the sincere ones embraced. As if either are going to lead anyone anywhere. Politics become about perceived intentions, and choices made on assumptions of character. Class and power? Forget about it!

The shirt cuts both ways. For the Democrats its OMG, baggers, guns, violence, Palin ...all real and all contrived, both at the same time. Quick, defend our phony-baloney freedom.

For the baggers, its OMG, demagogy, lies, accusations of racism ("we're no more racist than the country, god damn it"), accusations of violence ("no more violence than on I95 on the weekend"). Quick, defend our phony-baloney freedom.

It is a lesson in democracy, the internal reflection of their "foreign policy"... And, nobody wins. The Democrats mobilize to defend against neo-liberalism by supporting neo-liberalism. The Republicans defend against neo-liberalism by supporting reaction... which always turns out to be neo-liberalism (Reagan, Bush, Bush again).

The drums begin beating assembly on the town square: "Quick. The enemy is advancing. To the colors. Resist the invasion of the foreign tyrants. You don't want to return to monarchy, do you? Vive, l'Empereur."

Meanwhile, across the river: "The usurper rallies. They insult all that we hold dear. We accept no foreign monarchs (only local ones). To arms..."

All the while, more decay, thinner ranks, and the differences becomes less and less distinguishable.

What a scam...

Definitely this

I've heard both stories although I haven't seen either book. It is a commonly articulated theme about the Civil War (same as Douglas' testament to John Brown): that the triumph of reaction caused a new level of unity and popular resistance which eventually guaranteed the overthrow of that reaction.

What struck you as interesting?

but it seems of late there has been a renewed or maybe reinvigorated interest in this idea of reaction as adversity and the study of the figures who rise to meet it.

Its almost a phenomenon unto itself in some ways

... increasingly shared by "radicals", disgruntled liberals, and even some Socialists. It is not quite "things get better when they get worse", but it is close. In many ways its appearance announces an end to the prevailing linear view of history, i.e. "society keeps evolving with more and more reforms until...", or "nation after nation succeeds in liberating itself, until...". Crude determinism seems to have died with the end of the end of ideology. Nowadays we get: "Nothing will change until things get bad enough, AND THEN the people will rise up and..." You can add your own fill-in-the-blank. Too often, it is "...rise up and throw money out of politics", or some such.

'Course, none of it is true (or it is true only retrospectively). If things get "worse", they can simply be worse, in anticipation of even further deterioration to come. History doesn't work so cleanly.

Ha... do I sound like a historical materialist?

That if the teabaggers didn't exist the Dems would have had to invent something else to herd everyone back in. Even some people who I thought were really going to stick to a line of dissent really rallied around anti-teabag stuff this week. There was kind of an air of "Oh, at least we aren't like *them*". It's kind of hard to put into words. It was amazing to see people rally around the elected leaders again like circling the wagons.

Turn on the television, and the mainstream media is saturating me with photos of racist signs and telling me tales of disgusting racist actions.

I'm sure that revolting stuff exists within the "movement." Like every white racist who had checked out of the world woke up and joined the tea party anti-government movement because (to them) in 2008, the government became "black."

But then I talk to people in my own community who are, if not card-carrying members (is there even a formal organization?) are at least sympathetic to the teabaggers. They're not racist at all. They are completely sick of both establishment political parties and a government that they believe exists own to give itself power and serve the interest of a bunch of rich fat cat businessmen and politicians.

Now, these people also don't want the government ask anything of them - so they hate also social programs, all taxes, and tend to have attitudes about poverty and the poor that make me sick to my stomach. They sometimes seem to be driven primarily by rank selfishness and complete lack of caring for fellow human beings.

BUT... even this is not always true.

Yes, I know some teabaggers who are like that. But a lot of people I know who sound like teabaggers are also deeply religious. And whatever you think about that, they are very active in social service. For example, my best friend's brother is a pretty hardcore evangelical, and he volunteers in prisons and works with ex-convicts helping them get jobs and integrate into the community. He donates a portion of his weekly income to anti-poverty programs in North Idaho (where he lives) and volunteers at local the local homeless shelter.

He seems happy to be concerned about others in his community, but detests the idea of a "government" taking his money and deciding what to do with it.

....I dunno where I was going with all that. Except to say this: it sort of bothers me that the teabaggers seem to be doing what the left should be doing.

There are many examples of this type of diversion being ginned up when it did not really exist. It actually does exist, though.... So we get three versions of it:

1) The actual split in the populace.

2) The split as reflected institutionally, in particular by the two political parties, and in light of their crazy "system": federal government, states, senate, courts, etc...

3) The split as it is used by the politicians of the two wings, who are also split but NOT along the same fault lines as the populace.

Ask the Democrats about the Democrats and there is agreement that they are corrupt and unrepresentative. The Republicans agree but in reference to Republicans. Still, they march to the colors against each other. They are cornered into fighting, not their enemies, but the enemies of those who, in different circumstances, would also be their enemies.

In truth, bourgeois democracy was born like this... but, what a long run they've enjoyed with this racket. At the beginning of World War I, there was actually genuine consciousness of this in many countries. Still, they marched off to war under the slogan, "Better our bourgeois than the other guy's bourgeois..."

Ain't no hope without breakin' this particular fatal embrace...

they have to cast things in to even be able to make sense of their own jumbled up world view/belief system.

The whole "adversity" angle is bizarre, it reminds me of this poster that has a Vince Lombardi quote at the gym.

"Its not a lack of strength, or a lack of endurance, but a lack of will.."

Its like these jokers know something's brewing but don't know what to do about it. The joke about survivalists sort of sums it up. The one thing they always run out of is money.

As we've been talking about recently the fetishism of "resistance" is really a sort of mental capitualation. I heard an "activist" in DC gushing "you must have known all of those guys in the 60s: hayden, ayers, silvas.."

Yeah, thats a feather in your cap..

Things are already so bad for so many working class people, that waiting for it to get worse means complete devastation. People advancing that line are really saying "it has to get worse for us intellectuals and then the people can't help but notice". It's way beyond worse.

Everybody, find a way to talk working class people, form committees around worker justice issues, fuck party politics, it's us v. them.

I'm also conflicted by the teabaggers but perhaps in a different way. They will keep many who are totally disgusted with the Democrats from abandoning them entirely. The real Democratic Party "base" is not people at DU, as you and I both know. It is the African-American community (which votes 90+% for the "D"s), the various Latin communities (65 to 75%), Union households (65 to 70%), and so on. The assorted teabaggers will be used to frighten that base... and not without cause, either.

As for those sympathetic to the teabaggers, they gotta stop. The one greatest power of working class people resides in their unity. Without that, we've got nothing. It is not enough to be working class. That is an accident of birth. One must be class-conscious. Consciousness rests first and foremost in the recognition of one's bond with all others who work... which means you ain't allowed to advocate your advance at the expense of others. Racism is only one facet.

Sure, that's the message that is broadcast, but people are not stupid. Frustration is easy to understand... but it ain't enough to make up the chasm. Neither are good intentions or good works. Gotta fight for unity and solidarity as a whole. Nobody is exempt - not you and not me and not people who are drawn to teabaggers. It's a simple rule with no exemptions.

Do 'em a favor and tell them to give it up. The good news is that this shit does dissipate, and under the right conditions, faster than you can talk about it.

I probably sound like a real hard ass on this, but it has really been the bottom line for a couple of centuries... the only real way to have even a chance at the fight-back.

On the other issue, its not likely that our "Left" can simultaneously organize the opposition and support the government. That is probably the worst aspect of the election of Obama. It was unilateral disarmament.

Grab one or two people and talk class consciousness. Get inline and together, then drag in a couple more; keep talking and honing the analysis; pull in more people. Keep talking - try to always make sense. :) It is doable - not something your average liberal/progressive wants to do, but all we got...