Page 1 of 1 pages
It is a shame that In These Times publishes articles by Democratic Party apologists like Susan Douglas. When she writes, “there are plenty of voters disappointed by or indifferent to President Obama,” she illustrates the fundamental problem. The word “disappointed” is a code word that Obamabots and Democratic Party apologists use to try to sugar-coat the issue. I am no more “disappointed” by Obama’s assault on progressive values than I would be by a President who did the same egregious things but had an “R” rather than a “D” after his name.
When Obama assassinates American citizens or signs into law a bill authorizing the indefinite detention of Americans, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama blocks the EPA from implementing a smog regulation, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama launched drone attacks that kill civilians in the Middle East, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged?
The list goes on and on. The idea of being “disappointed” or “indifferent” is what you say when you are making excuses or finding a justification for looking the other way. Obama, the biggest recipient of Wall Street donations in Presidential campaign history, is the enemy, not the friend, of the left. Furthermore, Obama’s ability to suck the lifeblood out of leftist movements—as illustrated by the Heany and Rojas study a year ago that showed that Obama’s election killed the antiwar movement because of partisan loyalty trumping progressive values—illustrates the point that there would be a massive opposition in the streets to the President if he had an “R” after his name and were doing half the horrific things that Obama is doing. The very arguments that Douglas advances here for supporting Democrats is exhibit A of this kind of problem.
The beauty of OWS is that has thus far shown no willingness to be co-opted by the Democrats, who are essentially one of the two parties of the corporate ruling class. The ability of the Democrats to, as we say on the left, server as the graveyard of social movements, is illustrated by the way that its apologists (like Susan Douglas) will use words like “disappointed” or “indifferent” to justify continued support for one of the two corporate parties (or perhaps we should say, one of the two wings of the single corporate party) that govern this country. Perhaps Ms. Douglas shold ask herself what it is that Bill Daley did before he was Obama’s chief of staff, or what it is that Broderick Douglas was doing at Wall Street before he became a chief adviser in Obama’s re-election campaign.
What In These Times needs is more insightful, independent critiques of the existing political and economic status quo, not someone who defends it. No, I am not “disappointed” or “indifferent” to that status quo. I, for one, am outraged..
Posted by Mike V on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Some of the obstructionist Republicans were wearing 1000 buttons, to remind us that it has been three years since the Senate, with a Democrat majority, has passed a budget. Why have they not done that, do you suppose?
Posted by John McBride on Jan 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Since we are talking about congress…some interesting numbers worth examining. In December 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4%. The Democrats took control of the house and senate the following month. By the end of 2007, it stood at 5%. By December 2008, it stood at 7.3%. Obama took office the following month. By December 2009, it stood at 9.9%. By the November 2010 election, it was at 9.8%. GOP took over the House in January 2011. In December, 2011, it was 8.5%..............
Just sayin’
Posted by Paul M Winters on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM
What makes Ms. Douglas smarter than Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney? Romney is a successful businessman and former governor of Massachusetts. Gingrich is the author of multiple books and a former Speaker of the House when Congress last managed to balance a budget. Both men succeeded in highly competitive fields. In the view of Ms. Douglas, these real world accomplishments mean nothing. Real intelligence is measured by taking the correct pose.
So, for example, Republicans are for “dirty jobs.” Disregard the fact that 99% of the jobs in the world are “dirty” and will be for at least the next 100 years. To be smart, one need only repeat the phrase “I’m for making investments that will create millions of new clean jobs of the future.” This is fantasy and objective people know it. But it doesn’t matter if something works. All that matters is the pose.
No Republican is for “wrecking the economy” or “trashing the environment” etc. They simply have different ideas on what is required to fix the unemployment and debt problems plaguing the nation. These ideas include reducing onerous regulations, reforming entitlement programs, and responsible resource development. Characterizing these ideas as “destroying the safety net”, and “unleashing Wall Street” is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and does nothing to advance the discourse.
Keep in mind there are, at least, a hundred million adult Americans who do not subscribe to the liberal world view. They love this country. So please take off the ideological blinders. The students at UM could use a hole in the echo chamber.
Posted by Mark Lundahl on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Calling the opposition GOP “stupid”. Now that’s original! Don’t Warmers have other epithets to hurl at us heretics. Fortunately, unlike Dark Age inquisitors, they still lack the power to burn us at the stake.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but being called stupid for not believing Warmer dogma is so 20th Century!
Posted by Gus Malanga on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Mark,
I concur with your sentiment. While the cornerstone of our democracy is built upon debate, and I hope this is always so, where it becomes corrosive is when we begin to question the MOTIVES of the other side. We should always debate our view, and questions “methods”...but when we begin to believe too strongly in our own rhetoric, and begin to question if the other side wants the same ultimate outcome (whats best for this nation and its people)..this is where things get ugly.
Always question the method…..give benefit of doubt that the motive, however, is sincere.
Posted by Paul M Winters on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Mr. Winters: It’s funny, but I was about to comment positively on your comment when you commented on mine. You are so right.
In addition to your examples we have the fact that both Al Gore and John Kerry had much lower IQs than George W. Bush. We know because all three took the military IQ tests. Bush was in the mid 130s and both Gore and Kerry tested mid 120s. Guess who the left called stupid?
Unfortunately our universities are now filled with self-appointed “scholars” like Ms. Douglas, and a now famous ex-community organizer. They don’t really teach our kids because they’re too busy writing autobiographies and similar self-regarding “research” and holding seminars with their favorite similar minded grad students. But we pay tuition anyway because our kids need a college degree.
Posted by Gus Malanga on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM
@Gus-you are so right..but then again, silly us, we should know that a Democrat President or Candidate is always going to be deemed brilliant..and dont get me started on “community organizers”.....when we look at the mess of the inner cities..and in particular the education system in these areas…who controls the school boards, the city councils, the congressional districts in these “communities”? It certainly isnt the GOP. There is almost zero conservative influence in the decision making in inner city school & community districts. And when we dare to ask the tough questions that progressives should be asking, our comes the “racism” card. Its the only card that can be played, because otherwise the residents of those areas may begin to ask those same progressives why their policies are failing them.
Posted by Paul M Winters on Jan 26, 2012 at 1:33 AM
meanness and dissimulation are a centerpiece of entertainment; it’s how you get and sustain attention these days. If it works for the “Real Housewives” of wherever, why not for Susan J. Douglas?
Posted by Robert Pott on Jan 26, 2012 at 3:24 AM
You write that “activists and progressive PACs need to target people’s hot-button issues much more aggressively, especially given the titanic amount of money that will get poured into Republican coffers courtesy of the Citizens United decision.”
In point of fact, the vast bulk of money pouring into the coffers of the candidates comes from wealthy individuals—the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson (who has floated Gingrich’s campaign), etc—not corporations: Citizens United, therefore, has had a trivial practical effect on campaign spending, whatever its merits as constitutional law.
No doubt, Citizens United is a useful symbol for mobilizing the Left. But, if one is really interested in curbing the effect of wealth on elections, one should devote one’s energies to more meaningful targets.
Posted by Rick Hills on Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 AM
“Dirty jobs”? Thanks, I had missed that.
I caution my students to be very suspicious when someone frames the argument so that there is no one sane or virtuous on one side. The Greens say “we are for clean air and water.” But who is arguing for DIRTY air or water? Do not Republicans breathe and drink with the rest of us?
No, what the Greens REALLY are saying is “we are for clean air and water NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS.” That’s an entirely different argument, because while clean air and water are important, so are other things, such as liberty. HOW clean is clean enough? And at what price?
Posted by John McBride on Jan 26, 2012 at 6:54 AM
I will read Dickinson’s article ASAP. Thanks for the heads-up.
Look at all the Republicans commentors squealing like stuck pigs. It’s priceless. The right has been bankrupting America, lying, misdirecting, heaping insults and vitriol against Democrats and obstructing progressive action for decades (can you say Fox News?), and when someone returns a little fire, they become soooo indignant and fearful for our democracy.
Still, compared to the currently elected Republicans, these commentors sound like statesmen. That’s how messed up the GOP is these days.
Posted by Steve Scholl on Jan 26, 2012 at 9:12 AM
The author says that Obama might finally be getting it. That’s framing the debate. Obama, and his Party, are NOT the answer to the Republican Party and it’s darkness. That is because that Part is a part of that darkness.
Otherwise, That was a fine article. I agree that Rolling Stone has been useful. I’m not a regular reader, but what progressive wasn’t bowled over by Naomi Klein’s piece about the Beijing Olympics? (China’s All-Seeing Eye)
Posted by Arby on Jan 30, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Just tried to find Dickinson’s article “The GOP’s Crackpot Agenda.” I had no luck. I don’t have all night to keep trying. Rolling Stone website is nasty. I’m unhappy enough with (progressive) websites that don’t kick us 99%ers out into the cold just because.
Posted by Arby on Jan 30, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Seriously? This is the same old Democratic scare tactics. Obama is a Republican! He has not done anything lasting regarding employment or the banks—- I won’t vote for and legitimize him.
Posted by Robert Mahaney on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
It is a shame that In These Times publishes articles by Democratic Party apologists like Susan Douglas. When she writes, “there are plenty of voters disappointed by or indifferent to President Obama,” she illustrates the fundamental problem. The word “disappointed” is a code word that Obamabots and Democratic Party apologists use to try to sugar-coat the issue. I am no more “disappointed” by Obama’s assault on progressive values than I would be by a President who did the same egregious things but had an “R” rather than a “D” after his name.
When Obama assassinates American citizens or signs into law a bill authorizing the indefinite detention of Americans, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama blocks the EPA from implementing a smog regulation, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama launched drone attacks that kill civilians in the Middle East, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged?
The list goes on and on. The idea of being “disappointed” or “indifferent” is what you say when you are making excuses or finding a justification for looking the other way. Obama, the biggest recipient of Wall Street donations in Presidential campaign history, is the enemy, not the friend, of the left. Furthermore, Obama’s ability to suck the lifeblood out of leftist movements—as illustrated by the Heany and Rojas study a year ago that showed that Obama’s election killed the antiwar movement because of partisan loyalty trumping progressive values—illustrates the point that there would be a massive opposition in the streets to the President if he had an “R” after his name and were doing half the horrific things that Obama is doing. The very arguments that Douglas advances here for supporting Democrats is exhibit A of this kind of problem.
The beauty of OWS is that has thus far shown no willingness to be co-opted by the Democrats, who are essentially one of the two parties of the corporate ruling class. The ability of the Democrats to, as we say on the left, server as the graveyard of social movements, is illustrated by the way that its apologists (like Susan Douglas) will use words like “disappointed” or “indifferent” to justify continued support for one of the two corporate parties (or perhaps we should say, one of the two wings of the single corporate party) that govern this country. Perhaps Ms. Douglas shold ask herself what it is that Bill Daley did before he was Obama’s chief of staff, or what it is that Broderick Douglas was doing at Wall Street before he became a chief adviser in Obama’s re-election campaign.
What In These Times needs is more insightful, independent critiques of the existing political and economic status quo, not someone who defends it. No, I am not “disappointed” or “indifferent” to that status quo. I, for one, am outraged..
Some of the obstructionist Republicans were wearing 1000 buttons, to remind us that it has been three years since the Senate, with a Democrat majority, has passed a budget. Why have they not done that, do you suppose?
Since we are talking about congress…some interesting numbers worth examining. In December 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4%. The Democrats took control of the house and senate the following month. By the end of 2007, it stood at 5%. By December 2008, it stood at 7.3%. Obama took office the following month. By December 2009, it stood at 9.9%. By the November 2010 election, it was at 9.8%. GOP took over the House in January 2011. In December, 2011, it was 8.5%..............
Just sayin’
What makes Ms. Douglas smarter than Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney? Romney is a successful businessman and former governor of Massachusetts. Gingrich is the author of multiple books and a former Speaker of the House when Congress last managed to balance a budget. Both men succeeded in highly competitive fields. In the view of Ms. Douglas, these real world accomplishments mean nothing. Real intelligence is measured by taking the correct pose.
So, for example, Republicans are for “dirty jobs.” Disregard the fact that 99% of the jobs in the world are “dirty” and will be for at least the next 100 years. To be smart, one need only repeat the phrase “I’m for making investments that will create millions of new clean jobs of the future.” This is fantasy and objective people know it. But it doesn’t matter if something works. All that matters is the pose.
No Republican is for “wrecking the economy” or “trashing the environment” etc. They simply have different ideas on what is required to fix the unemployment and debt problems plaguing the nation. These ideas include reducing onerous regulations, reforming entitlement programs, and responsible resource development. Characterizing these ideas as “destroying the safety net”, and “unleashing Wall Street” is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and does nothing to advance the discourse.
Keep in mind there are, at least, a hundred million adult Americans who do not subscribe to the liberal world view. They love this country. So please take off the ideological blinders. The students at UM could use a hole in the echo chamber.
Calling the opposition GOP “stupid”. Now that’s original! Don’t Warmers have other epithets to hurl at us heretics. Fortunately, unlike Dark Age inquisitors, they still lack the power to burn us at the stake.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but being called stupid for not believing Warmer dogma is so 20th Century!
Mark,
I concur with your sentiment. While the cornerstone of our democracy is built upon debate, and I hope this is always so, where it becomes corrosive is when we begin to question the MOTIVES of the other side. We should always debate our view, and questions “methods”...but when we begin to believe too strongly in our own rhetoric, and begin to question if the other side wants the same ultimate outcome (whats best for this nation and its people)..this is where things get ugly.
Always question the method…..give benefit of doubt that the motive, however, is sincere.
Mr. Winters: It’s funny, but I was about to comment positively on your comment when you commented on mine. You are so right.
In addition to your examples we have the fact that both Al Gore and John Kerry had much lower IQs than George W. Bush. We know because all three took the military IQ tests. Bush was in the mid 130s and both Gore and Kerry tested mid 120s. Guess who the left called stupid?
Unfortunately our universities are now filled with self-appointed “scholars” like Ms. Douglas, and a now famous ex-community organizer. They don’t really teach our kids because they’re too busy writing autobiographies and similar self-regarding “research” and holding seminars with their favorite similar minded grad students. But we pay tuition anyway because our kids need a college degree.
@Gus-you are so right..but then again, silly us, we should know that a Democrat President or Candidate is always going to be deemed brilliant..and dont get me started on “community organizers”.....when we look at the mess of the inner cities..and in particular the education system in these areas…who controls the school boards, the city councils, the congressional districts in these “communities”? It certainly isnt the GOP. There is almost zero conservative influence in the decision making in inner city school & community districts. And when we dare to ask the tough questions that progressives should be asking, our comes the “racism” card. Its the only card that can be played, because otherwise the residents of those areas may begin to ask those same progressives why their policies are failing them.
meanness and dissimulation are a centerpiece of entertainment; it’s how you get and sustain attention these days. If it works for the “Real Housewives” of wherever, why not for Susan J. Douglas?
You write that “activists and progressive PACs need to target people’s hot-button issues much more aggressively, especially given the titanic amount of money that will get poured into Republican coffers courtesy of the Citizens United decision.”
In point of fact, the vast bulk of money pouring into the coffers of the candidates comes from wealthy individuals—the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson (who has floated Gingrich’s campaign), etc—not corporations: Citizens United, therefore, has had a trivial practical effect on campaign spending, whatever its merits as constitutional law.
No doubt, Citizens United is a useful symbol for mobilizing the Left. But, if one is really interested in curbing the effect of wealth on elections, one should devote one’s energies to more meaningful targets.
“Dirty jobs”? Thanks, I had missed that.
I caution my students to be very suspicious when someone frames the argument so that there is no one sane or virtuous on one side. The Greens say “we are for clean air and water.” But who is arguing for DIRTY air or water? Do not Republicans breathe and drink with the rest of us?
No, what the Greens REALLY are saying is “we are for clean air and water NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS.” That’s an entirely different argument, because while clean air and water are important, so are other things, such as liberty. HOW clean is clean enough? And at what price?
I will read Dickinson’s article ASAP. Thanks for the heads-up.
Look at all the Republicans commentors squealing like stuck pigs. It’s priceless. The right has been bankrupting America, lying, misdirecting, heaping insults and vitriol against Democrats and obstructing progressive action for decades (can you say Fox News?), and when someone returns a little fire, they become soooo indignant and fearful for our democracy.
Still, compared to the currently elected Republicans, these commentors sound like statesmen. That’s how messed up the GOP is these days.
The author says that Obama might finally be getting it. That’s framing the debate. Obama, and his Party, are NOT the answer to the Republican Party and it’s darkness. That is because that Part is a part of that darkness.
Otherwise, That was a fine article. I agree that Rolling Stone has been useful. I’m not a regular reader, but what progressive wasn’t bowled over by Naomi Klein’s piece about the Beijing Olympics? (China’s All-Seeing Eye)
Just tried to find Dickinson’s article “The GOP’s Crackpot Agenda.” I had no luck. I don’t have all night to keep trying. Rolling Stone website is nasty. I’m unhappy enough with (progressive) websites that don’t kick us 99%ers out into the cold just because.
Seriously? This is the same old Democratic scare tactics. Obama is a Republican! He has not done anything lasting regarding employment or the banks—- I won’t vote for and legitimize him.
Posting Security