« Bartleby in power | Main | k-punk on pessimism of the intellect »

February 22, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


What about the reverse logic? If a liberal supports Bush (pick a policy), they are deemed a facist by the blind Bush-hating left? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? The answer lies somewhere in the middle...Andrew Sullivan and the Corner wrangled over this issue last week...


While I do agree with Greenwald, I just want to play the part of the contrarian. Here's a quote from National Review editor and LA Times columnist, Jonah Goldberg cited last week by Sullivan:

"Bush has done real violence to the principle of limited government with all of his talk about how the government has to move when someone is hurting and his aim to leave no child behind. Some of his programs are, I think, easily defended on the merits. But that doesn't change the fact that as general philosophical issue [sic], Bush has conceded that the government is there to help in a way Reagan never would have. Sure, Reagan made exceptions to his general anti-government position. Sometimes they were pragmatic, sometimes they were legitimate exceptions (conservatives aren't uniformly opposed to all government interventions), and sometimes his deviations were hypocritical, at least in the eyes of some. But such hypocrisy was the tribute conservatives must sometimes pay to politics. Bush has conceded much of the fundamental ground to liberals when it comes to the role of government. Now the argument about governmental problem solving is technical -- 'will it work?' -- rather than principled, 'is it the government's job?'" - Jonah Goldberg, National Review.



I always took the dimensions of loyalty and solidarity as that of personal and class. You have a sense of loyalty to another person, but solidarity with an organization.

The left gets screwed up when they continually air personal issues in public.

What the right does very well is to honor personal loyalty while maintaining class solidarity. Of course, having money helps. An example might be when someone gets shot in the face, apologizes publically to the shooter and awaits a few plum contracts / connections guaranteed to arrive quietly.


PE Bird--that's really helpful, the distinction between personal and class/organization. I suppose that insofar as in American law corporations count as 'legal persons' we could count loyalty to a corporation as form of personal loyalty. What's also interesting on the right is the way that personal loyalty trumps what one might see, naively, as class interest. In a different direction, the Democrats have surely eliminated even a bit of solidarity with the workers from their position. At any rate, your solution says why we can have disagreement and solidarity--solidarity is an aspect of a group and thus premised on a multiple.

Rodkong--I don't know of examples like you have in mind, probably because I can't think of a Bush policy that a 'liberal' might agree with. Actually, from where I sit, what is more likely is trashing the Democrats (under Clinton as well as now) for racing Republicans to the right. Also, for the most part, the fascist label doesn't tend to be thrown around quite as loosely as you suggest, at least in the conversations with which I am familiar.


Would the DLC, under Clinton's leadership, have been considered liberal? They professed to be liberal but supported anti-gay policies that were anything but 'liberal'. Bush's support for Israel, and certain aspects of his foreign policy, are areas where you might find agreement among liberals...as is indicated by publications such as The New Republic and the Atlantic.


....I wouldn't say that Republicans "raced to the right" after Clinton. The mess that was the 2000 election exposed the uncertainty of voters. I would argue that Republicans raced to the right after 9/11. The left raced to the left after 2000.


So fascinating to see the examples that really get Goldberg's goat: namely, when "someone is hurting" or a child is left behind.

For those are the hallmarks of activist government, one supposes, and allows National Review writers the illusion that in opposing measures in these areas, they are still "conservative" and in favor of "limited government."

Meanwhile, they support every military-related expenditure and every legal manuever designed to build up the "unitary executive," as well as wars in every corner of the globe, unceasingly.

This is what gets people like Goldberg upset: the "real violence" that Bush has done to the principle of limited government with rhetorical gestures toward liberal social policy -- as opposed to all the other types of violence (illusionary, I guess) he's carried out elsewhere.


The Clinton strategy in the 90s was moving the Democratic party to the Right.

Obviously here we are dealing with a bunch of different kinds of policies. So, are we talking about economics? military policy? social programs? As you know, there were supporters of the war against Iraq who understood themselves as liberal hawks.

Some analysts use categories of social conservativism and social liberalism; then there is neoconservativism and neoliberalism. Using these terms, one might say that the Democrats (DLC) under Clinton were neoliberal, prioritizing markets, finance, technology, globalization.

Much of the Republican party agreed with these economic policies(although there were splits between the parties on social and cultural matters, as in, for example, the infamous Culture Wars over political correctness). Disagreement was primarily over the structure of taxation, the degree of corporate welfare and the corporations that are deserving, and the responsibility of government for the economically disadvantaged.

For the record, and so that I am clear, I don't see anything "left" in the Democratic party at all. Nothing. The left that I think of myself as part of was way out here in the 80s and 90s as well. (And earlier--if one recognizes, as I do, the importance of communism and socialism).



I think another distinction is that on the right loyalty is hierarchical - that is there is stronger loyalty to your "superior" and that is reinforced by class solidarity.

In tnis relation - loyalty is reciprocal but not equivalent. In fact your measure of loyalty on the right is how well you manage the hierarchical relationship of loyalty.

On the left - there is an attempt to build an egalitarian sense of loyalty - it is equal between individuals - without consideration of class obligations. I think this is a naive sense of loyalty - reinforced by popular media BTW - that really isn't loyalty at all, but a kind of "friendly" sense of reliability and reciprocal actions. Very use-value oriented.

True loyalty takes into account the other's situation and obligations - even if those positions are not in alignment with your personal interests. The right (and power in general) not only has, but has to, figure this out, otherwise one cannot rule.


"Asked from a different direction, is the problem with liberal, progressive, or left politics their knee-jerk valuation of dissent and suspicion of loyality and conviction?"

There can only be disagreement on the left as long as self-criticism fits within the framework of the left-wing ideology. Case and point: the resignation of Larry Summers. The FAS was suspicious of Summers's conviction because he was a threat to their solidarity.The disunity that FAS has created in the wake of Summers's resignation will further weaken their eroding movement.


Government by blackmail, terror, and bribes: How the Bush Family Gained and Retain Power

Many people are asking the question, “Why are the Democrats not doing anything about this administration?” How can G.W. take the white house against the expressed will of the people, not once but twice? How can this current band of thieves get away with stealing so much from Americans, Iraqis, and ROW, wealth, liberty, health, security, economic security, and life? How can Bush and clan retain office in spite of everything from sex scandals to the shredding of the U.S. constitution? How can this one family and friends turn America into a fascist state where our own citizens are subject to search, seizure, arrest, and imprisonment with absolutely no due process?

We all know, of course, about the K Street carrots and appointments and/or contracts for loyalty. http://www.mediatransparency.org/storyprinterfriendly.php?storyID=92

Still, it seems must be something more. I say, if the carrots cannot explain all behavior, look for the stick(s). What stick(s) might this administration have to make most all politicians, Republican and Democrats alike more or less, fall into line (or at most to make a show of attempts at resistance)? Now, some say, hold on it takes time to impeach.” If, however, you look at the voting records of Republicans and many (not all) Democrats alike, you will see how little resistance there really is, not only to favoring MNCs over the American public, or even waging a preemptive war (something that could achieved through the K street carrots alone), but the deconstruction of your civil rights, concentration of power in the white house, undermining all mechanisms of honest and free elections, and rendering the U.S. to a fascists state.
If we are to understand the coup de ta; how it happened and how it is sustained, we must consider the source; that is take an historical look at the Bush Family and associates. I do not want to reinvent the wheel here, so please quickly review the Bush Family history of sexual exploitation and blackmail. Read, “The Franklin Cover-up Scandal: The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse” http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

Now, this would seem just a bit too bizarre if it were not for the historical evidence of the existence of the child sex rings in Nebraska and DC, and the links of this ring to the Bush Sr. and Friends, blackmail, and a list of politicians and diplomats referenced in court and ordered destroyed.

But then this would not be the first historical event in the Bush Family to be bizarrely evil, cruel, and sadistic. When one really looks into the Bush family and clan, seems bizarre evil is common place with this family.

If you have noticed the similarities between Nazi Germany and the Bush Family, “New World Order”; there is good reason. http://heartsoulandhumor.blogspot.com/2004/12/bush-hitler-comparisons-are-uncanny.html
Many of you are aware of some sort of link b/w the Bush family and the German Nazi Party before and during WWII. It is much deeper than you think. The before Prescott, before WWII, before Hitler, Sam Bush and Herbert Walker were involved in Eugenics the theory that founds Nazi ideology. Furthermore, without the financial, propaganda, transportation, and arms assistance of the Bush family and friends, Hitler would never have risen to power. It is not a simple matter of the Bush family profiting from international business and Nazi concentration camp slave labor; it is a matter of the Bush family founding the Nazi Party in Germany and here at home. So, this is not the first time the Bush Family has tried to take over the world, to establish a “New World Order”, rather indeed this has been the agenda of the Bush Family for Generations.

As a direct result of the very intentional efforts of the Bush Family and Nazi Friends, the U.S. Government has been increasingly dominated by blackmail, beginning with the Regan/Bush white house. The Republican sexual scandals are not an accident. If you practice same sex relations, have sex with children or prostitutes, any sort of moral inversion; you are a prime candidate for control and promotion by the Bush Family and Friends, thus a prime candidate for office. Of course, given the submissive behavior of the Democrats it seems many of them may have a skeleton or two in their closets as well.

Of, course if bribes and blackmail do not work; there is always murder, and The Bush Family has a long and prolific history of assassinations and mass murderer. Nazi Death camps, raping and killing of nuns, death squads, political assassinations, sex scandal assassinations,
When the Bush clan finds “contracts” (bribes) and blackmail insufficient, they resort to terror.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo