Interesting post over there (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1960289).

Why I'm Not a Progressive

(I was looking over the old Olive Garden threads of yore, and I came across this post that I wrote. It sums up my feelings today perfectly.)

I was challenged as to my "Progressive" credentials on another thread (I was also called an ASSHOLE and a TOOL, but who's counting), and it did make me think about it. But really, I don't identify myself as a Progressive. I'm a Leftist. So, what's the difference? Leftism was cool because it didn't require you to suffer stupidity in the name of general tolerance. The namby-pamby world of Progressives seems to be devoid of critique, because the moment you critique something, you are suddenly being "intolerant." This is nonsense, as every Leftist knows. Now, I'm not accusing progressives of being secretly complicit with conservatism (although this is the general Left critique of such positions), but it is clear that conservatives were easily able to co-opt the discourse of tolerance and turn it against real reform, such that the legitimate struggle for gay rights is now portrayed as "intolerant" of Christian fundamentalism, and other nonsenses of this type. This is the political and rhetorical cost of the utterly vapid discourse of tolerance touted by our "progressives."

Leftism was built on critique, identified itself with critique, and had the stamina to say yes, some shit is stupid, some shit should be criticized - maybe even everything must be critiqued, ruthlessly and without "tolerance" in advance. Read Adorno and Horkeimer, read Marcuse, hell, read Debbs. You'll never see the empty notion that "opinions" should be "respected" simply because they are opinions. Rather, you see ruthless, cutting, even vicious attacks on opinions, with the following question always at stake: where do such opinions come from? Where do tastes come from?

This is progressivism's greatest failure: the segregation of the "personal opinion" from the realm of political and economic power.

In progressivism, the "opinion" is attached to the essence of the person (it comes from some mystical Self), and then raised to the level of a sacred entity. Hence all the wailing and moaning about "attacking my opinion," which is immediately equated to attacking the person. Leftism had none of this. The opinion, for Leftism, was a social phenomenon that was instantiated in individuals. It didn't come from the Self. Rather, it came from the social realm of political and economic power and was picked up by (really, constituted) "selves" as a result of their placement in a dynamic social realm. For this reason, the critique of "personal opinions" is actually the critique of social power, always. The faux respect for "personal opinions," for Leftism, is complicity with social power, the failure to ask, rigorously, where opinions come from, and work on the power relations that form them.

This doesn't mean that the taste for Olive Garden is the only "opinion" to be critiqued. Leftism demands that the opposing "opinion" (which, interest of disclosure, I hold), must also be critiqued.

What are the social investments in "local economies" and "authentic cultures" that drive the dislike of chain restaurants? Are these actually reactionary and nostalgic tendencies?

And if you say that that's "reading into things too much," or that choice of restaurants is "off limits for critique," then you've already performed the problematic segregation: the illusion of the person segregated from the realm of political and economic power. One could, of course, go on. But the point here is simple: you will never catch me saying that opinions are beyond critique simply because they are opinions. That is the political and intellectual dead-end that progressivism leads us to, and it is all too common. Maybe I'm the one being nostalgic here, but I want some of that Leftism back. I want some of that Adorno nastiness and contempt to re-enter the political discourse. Because some things are deserving of contempt. Yes. I'm definitely NOT a progressive, and I'm damn glad for that.

This is a good post, although I'm shocked to see it on DU. Adorno and Horkheimer are buttheads though.

is down right meaty for DU these days.

Notice how the discussion does not take off into a full fledged debate on theory, terms, ideas, history and so on.
That speaks volumes for the liberals/progressives and the level of theoretical and ideological bankruptcy which is at the core of their hollow gospel.

Oh well back to Hillary and Obama now.

http://www.peiro.de/lo-band/TV_zen.jpg

Might as well get the "other side":



Dear John Edwards,

I supported you in 2004 and am still inclined to vote for you in my caucus, if you are still in the race by then. So it bothers me to see how you continue to slip.

One politically incorrect reason is that the poor do not follow politics and do not vote and, of course, do not contribute. And I cringe to think of how much good we could have done for the poor with the $360 million collected so far by all the candidates.

The reality is that most Americans do not hate the rich; they want to be rich. This is why this country never had and never will have a revolution. Many still believe in the "American Dream" that if you work hard you can climb from the mail room to the corner office. The immigrants - legal and illegal - that continue to come to this country do not want to fight for a fair distribution of wealth; they want to pursue the wealth.

Your attack on Clinton to "repent" her IWR vote appeared petty. She already expressed her stand and, as you can see, is doing quite well. Now there are reports that you complain about "stolen" ideas by Clinton and Obama. Again, this appears so petty and show weaknesses.

I have always believed in coming up with concrete ideas instead of complaining about bad ones, and this is true for personal, business and political areas.

You started up great - proposing a health care plan, But since then you have wandered to the sidelines. Frankly, I think that the "media" likes you and has given you a lot more space and really is trying to offer you a hand, to keep you afloat.

And, I think that the term "Two Americas" can be viewed as a divisive one: us and them. Yes, many on DU like to view our economic system as such, but I don't think that this is how most voters, who are satisfied with their current lives, share this.

Yes, many of us worry about our jobs, our health care, the schools, what kind of jobs will our children have.. is a college degree, besides education, really the way for economic stability?

You started up with a solid plan for health insurance (and I understand why you left employers there; most people who do have this kind of insurance like it, for once, you can start a new job and be insured, even with pre-existing conditions).

How about coming with new solid proposals? Investing in the infrastructure of our country: bridges, light rail, water channels - can provide thousands of stable jobs at all skill levels, jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Offering tax incentives for corporations that contribute generously to employees' 401K; perhaps even tying CEO's compensation to contribution to profit sharing, percentage wise.

And perhaps even a close look at the office of Veterans affairs. We've heard about their huge bonuses, but what about veterans? Do they have adequate medical care? Did they get back their jobs? What about their mortgages? Yes, I know, they volunteer, but they are our family and friends.

You have never been to Iraq and perhaps by now it is not practical. But how about meeting with veterans in the US and listen to them? Their opinions about both military and civilian concnerns?

You banked on support of labor and so far this approach has been disappointing. The reality is that we moved from being a manufacturing economy of the 30s thru the 60s to a service one, where 2/3 (some say 78%) of the economy is service driven. (Which is why both Bushes told us to go shopping.)

Many of us, who, like our parents thought that we would spend all of our working years in one benevolent corporation with good benefits and pensions ended up being downsized, changing many jobs, going though periods of unemployment and under employment, even self employed to get ends meet. There are a lot more small employers now than the big corporations of the early and mid parts of the previous century. Union does not speak for most of us any longer, DU notwithstanding. You talk about your father, but how many textile mills are there now? How many steel factories? How many auto workers still work for the "big three?"

Mr. Edwards, you, like every candidate, need to get your topic that will distinguish you from the other candidates. The war and health care are topics that all are using.

You need to find your own way. Yes, poverty is important, but not enough to win votes. Addressing the middle class can expand your reach. But not by attacking "the rich," not by divisive words. You obviously have met with many poor people. Perhaps it is time to meet with middle class Americans and to listen to what matters to them.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 32x3574799 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3574799)

Very revealing comment there:

"I have always believed in coming up with concrete ideas instead of complaining about bad ones, and this is true for personal, business and political areas."

Take the personal, run it through the business meat grinder, and then apply whatever the product of that process might be to politics.

Whoever wrote that one has a gift for unintetional parody thats for sure. I had to choke back the laughter reading that..are you sure this isn't some kind of joke or something?

Whoever wrote that one has a gift for unintetional parody thats for sure. I had to choke back the laughter reading that..are you sure this isn't some kind of joke or something?

To both Mike and your comments, this still passes as widom... as thinking about things in "practical, educated terms".

"The poor don't vote so you would be better off pandering to somebody else..."
.

Whoever wrote that one has a gift for unintetional parody thats for sure. I had to choke back the laughter reading that..are you sure this isn't some kind of joke or something?

To both Mike and your comments, this still passes as widom... as thinking about things in "practical, educated terms".

"The poor don't vote so you would be better off pandering to somebody else..."
.

No, no, what I mean is that the post could be condensed like this:

Dear John

Please excuse the irony of the address of this letter, it couldn't be helped. I would like to say that I have supported you in the past..I really would like to say that. I would also like to be able to support you in the future, please read on.

You are a strong advocate for the poor, and the disadvantaged. So am I am. This is a mistake.

You have correctly pointed out that the rich are taking advantage of the rest of this. I see this happening everyday and seethe at the injustice. On future campaign stops, please remind us how the rich are great people just like us and they are who we want to be.

On the trail, you have challenged other candidates such as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama on their views and statements. I feel they are wish-washy two-faced charlatans who need to be exposed as the frauds they are. Please come up with your own ideas, no one likes a bully.

Further, you have been very very critical of the ideas of these two candidates. I for one am glad *someone* has the chutzpah to speak the truth. Attacking them will only backfire because they are standup candidates with strong messages.


You have said many times there are Two Americas. I agree. But in your campaign speeches it is important to keep in mind that there is only one America.

You rail against corporate interests. I hate them too. Don't you think corporate tax breaks would be a great idea?

A college education is so important to the workforce today, and education is an issue you've spoken about many times. No one loves education more than I. More menial jobs are the answer.

I am also glad you have a healtcare proposal. It is long-awaited much needed. How will you protect employers from the unscrupulous leeches they are forced to employ?

I also know that you are a stronger backer of our armed forces. I too salute our servicemen and women. Do you think you can ever overcome your intense hatred of the military?

You are also very vocal about your commitment to organized labor. No bigger Union Man than I. I'm sure you agree that organized labor should be crushed.

I know that you emphasize that big corporations have too much power and influence. We must join together and fight them tooth and nail. Big corporations no longer exist, they have been replaced by small businesses.

Nothing is more imporant to the country than healtcare and the War In Iraq. Please stop talking about healthcare and the War In Iraq.

It is so important to have a mainstream political voice talking about poverty. Poor people are very near and dear to my own heart. Please forget the poor and reach out to the middle class and wealthy.

As you can see, you have my full support.