I’m Spartacus, And So’s My Wife

What views do pampered US pundits consider to be extremist these days?

According to this nifty little list posted at Time’s well-named Swampland blog by that blowhard Joe Klein, basically everyone in the world who’s not Anerican is an extremist.

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

–believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

Check.

–believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

Check.

–believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

Check.

–tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

–doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

–believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

–believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

–believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

–believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

–believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

–is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

–dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

–regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

Check, check, check though somehat simplistically put, check…..

Hey Joe, better get to that panic room quick…… you’re surrounded.

[h/t Avedon Carol]

UPDATE: Oh yes, there is one indicator that Klein forgot:

wantonly makes fat jokes

There, Joe, I fixed your post. No charge, man.

Sense or Sensibilities

Today is the centenary of WH Auden and in rereading some of his poems this morning, I came across this, which it seems to me bears directly on the Democrats’ dilemma – whether in a time of increasing religious fanaticism they should attempt to reach out to the religious or whether here and now is where they should draw a bright line, on this side reason and the enlightenment ideals that the writers of the US constitution stood for, on the other theocracy, oppression and regression.

Digby is hopeful reason will out – but I’m with Auden on this, and not so sure about that at all.

Law, Say The Gardeners, Is The Sun

Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.

Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers shrilly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.

Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.

Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I’ve told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.

Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.

Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.

And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.

If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,

No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyway:
Like love I say.

Like love we don’t know where or why,
Like love we can’t compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.

W.H. Auden

Whither the Democrats?


(Crossposted from Wis[s]e Words)

It’s hard to decide what to quote from this excellent Mike Davis article about what the left can expect from the Democrats after their November victory, but I think the following two paragraphs are best at showing the juxtaposition between expectations and reality:

The fate of New Orleans, of course, is one of the great moral watersheds in modern American history, but most Democrats shamelessly refused to make federal responses to Hurricane Katrina or the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the Gulf Coast central issues in the campaign. Although President Bush himself had declared in his Jackson Square speech that ‘we have a duty to confront this poverty [revealed by Katrina] with bold action’, the Democrats have shown no greater sense of ‘duty’ or capacity for ‘bold action’ than a notoriously hypocritical and incompetent White House. Their priorities were exemplified by the six-plank national platform in November that stressed deficits and troop buildups but failed to mention either Katrina or poverty.

[…]

But Nancy, Harry and Hillary do have one domestic crusade whose importance transcends other dogmas and constraints: the promotion of the ‘innovation agenda’ that the Democrats hope will dramatically solidify their support among hi-tech corporations and science-based firms across the country. If you wanted to find the missing urgency and passion that the Democrats should have focused on Katrina and urban poverty, it was evident last year in the rousing speeches that Pelosi and other leading Democrats delivered in tech hubs like Emeryville, Mountain View, Raleigh and Redmond.

It seems to me that what happened in November is that the grassroots groundswell of anger and frustration aimed at the Republicans has been co-opted by the Democratic Party’s Washington establishment. While the party’s base has always been strongely opposed to the Patriot Act, the War against Terror and the War on Iraq, it’s leadership has largely prefered to go along with Republican plans, either out of calculation or fear. According to the netroots (including myself) this attitude was the reason for the Democratic defeats in 2002 and 2004, with the gains in November last year as a vindication of the netroots’ vision. In reality however, the Democratic leadership hasn’t changed its stance on these issues; it’s still largely supportive of the War on Iraq and only willing to offer symbolic opposition rather than real opposition. From their point of view, their strategy of triangulation, of playing to the supposed centre worked. They didn’t need to radicalise
themselves in order to win Congress back form the Republicans, they just needed to wait and let the Republicans destroy themselves. In other words, the netroots have largely failed to move the party to the left, or even to get them to be more aggressive in opposition.

Instead, as Ilya suspected last Tuesday, the Democrats have courted those segments of business who’ve become unhappy with the Republican focus on war and the accompanying corruption. The war may have been kind to Halliburton and Exxon, but has it for companies like Microsoft? The credit for this split in elite opinion lies mostly with the Iraqi resistance who’ve managed to shatter the dream of a obedient Iraqi client state, but also with the anti-war movement, which for the moment has made it harder for politicians to be openly pro-war…

What we’ll probably see in the next few years then is a tug of war between the Bushites and the corporate elites that profit from them and the Democrats, with the former trying to keep the full war going while the latter will argue for a withdrawal with residual force. In both cases, expect more use of airpower to keep American casualties down at the expense of Iraqi civilians.

Read more about:
, , ,

Democrats Cosy Weekend With War Criminal – “He’s Still Got The Touch”, Says Pelosi

“Mr. Bush was so warmly received yesterday that he stayed in the room to shake hands for a half-hour after he was done answering questions”

All those blogger/Democrat cheerleaders who still believe despite all the indications to the contrary that Congressional Democrats will save the country and impeach Bush should maybe think again.

As the AP reports, all is copacetic between Bush and the Democrats: so much so that they even invited him to their weekend retreat at the Anheuser-Busch owned, luxurious Kings Mill Resort in Virginia:

Kingsmill Resort and Conference Center, owned and operated by Busch Properties Incorporated, one of the Anheuser-Busch Companies, is the perfect setting for all meeting types. Nestled in a planned residential community, few resorts or conference centers provide such a unique opportunity for a variety of groups. Kingsmill offers the perfect balance between business and pleasure.

Oh, how very cosy. (Note to the curious: Anheuser Busch, Donations to the Republican party 1999-2004: $2.9 million The Democrats are giving money indirectly to the Republicans. Well done those Dems! I bet there’s a few smaller donors won’t be too happy with that.)

Bush woos House Democrats at retreat
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Feb 3, 2:31 PM ET

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. –

President Bush squarely addressed the issue most on the mind of House Democrats, saying Saturday that deep divisions over the
Iraq war need not bring anyone’s patriotism into question.

“You know, I welcome debate in a time of war and I hope you know that,” Bush said in opening remarks at the guest speaker at a retreat that drew about 200 lawmakers to a Virginia resort.

He said disagreeing with him over the war — as many in the room do — does not mean “you don’t share the same sense of patriotism I do.”

“You can get that thought out of your mind, if that’s what some believe,” the president said. “These are tough times, but there’s no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I do.”

Bush told Democrats in private that he empathizes with their anguish on Iraq, saying the war is “sapping our soul,” according to two officials who attended the session. They spoke on condition of anonymity because it was a closed meeting.

Bush’s conciliatory words were similar to some of his previous statements. But the applause and acknowledgment that followed them offered some indication that this audience was happy to hear them so directly and in person.

“We were honored by your presence. We’re also encouraged by your remarks,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California said after Democrats met privately with the president. “I believe we have an opportunity to work together.”

[…]

“I look forward to working with you,” he said. “I know you’ve probably heard that and doubt whether it’s true. It’s true.”

The LA Times gives a little more background:

The White House and the Democratic caucus had carefully negotiated how many questions the president would face, ultimately agreeing that the Democrats could ask six — and only after reporters left the room.

Oh right, so the Democrats colluded yet again in enabling Bush to remain publicly unaccountable for his illegal actions. Well done Dems again!

In addition to the question about Iraq, which was asked by San Diego Rep. Susan A. Davis, lawmakers also asked about immigration, the budget and the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

In public, however, Bush, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders took pains to avoid appearing partisan.

In opening his speech, the president joked about having used the term “Democrat Party” in his recent State of the Union address — a phrase that some lawmakers interpreted as derogatory.

“Now, look, my diction isn’t all that good,” the president said. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

Democrats laughed appreciatively.

“Still has the touch,” Pelosi noted later.

Doesn’t sound to me like impeachment is on the Democrats’ agenda any time soon, if it ever was.

To Iran, and beyond!

Was That A Paradigm Shift, Or Is My Underwear Just Bunched Up?

Sometimes I loathe blogging and I hate blogs. At the moment I can’t stand all this waiting, it’s driving me absolutely, nailbitingly nuts. My refresh button is wearing out.

Although nemesis is approaching both the Blair and Bush governments in the form of prosecutions for corruption and for perjury respectively, it’s taking it’s own sweet bloody time about it.

I want poodle and chimp blood and I want it now!.

Maybe I’m projecting my own feelings about the endless grey tedium of January but the UK and US news media and punditerati seem to have gone oddly quiet of late. I don’t mean there’s no news, that’s patently absurd what with wars and massacres and plagues all over the place – but there’s a faint whiff of tense anxiety emanating from the political reporters and commentariat. I wonder why?

They do have cause to be tense: both the accelerating Cash for Honours and Plame investigations and subsequent prosecutions will result in large part from the persistence of bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic. Unpaid citizens have been doing the job that the pampered, self-perpetuating mediocracy should’ve been doing. The media’s passive collusion in propping up illegal government and facilitating the obstruction of justice is about to be exposed and it won’t be pretty; no wonder they’re nervous. (Or maybe they’re just desperately trying to catch up on the story. That’s why they’re quiet – they’re reading blogs.)

That doesn’t mean there are no bright, persistent reporters on the big papers, it means they are exceedingly rare pearls of rare price amongst the cosy insiderdom and casual venality that are the modern Cranfords of Westminster and Washington, those murky little worlds of interlocked party-politics, thinktanks, op-ed columns and off-the-record-socialising, where political reporters and pundits work, go to the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods, go to the same dinner-parties and social events and help each others children do the same in their turn.

That this state of affairs exists is due both to the way patronage, largesse and plain access has been managed by political parties on both sides of the Atlantic in modern times, most recently and blatantly by Blair and Bush. But it also testifies to the media’s willingness to be patronised and managed by politicians, providing there is sufficient personal advantage.

It’s been a long comfortable ride for the pundits so far, but the papers they write for are losing circulation and profits as fewer people turn, not to the papers or tv for news and political analysis, but to the internet and bloggers.

The trouble is that the small world of political blogging is, though supeficially wide-open, actually self-regulated and just as parochial, narrow-minded and self-interested as any other self-selected grouping.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly. (I think finding yourself on a Murdoch paper like the Times’ list of 10 bloggers most likely to sink Hillary Clinton signifies that you are indeed, Established.)

Athough superficially separate, the walls between the big liberal blogs. Democratic party politics and paid opinion, already paper-thin, are crumbling. What does this mean for smaller, less exalted left political blogs?

It means that their role as political samizdat is even more important than ever.

US Democratic bloggers argued recently in criticism of the US antiwar march on Saturday that the left is dead, ineffectual and out of date and that party politics, not protest is where the actions’s at. Other big blogs have bought into this too. Observer journalist Nick Cohen has argued the same thing, though from a different perspective ( that of someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and now must spend the rest of his life justifying it by attacking the war’s opponents).

It is not novel to say that socialism is dead. My argument is that its failure has brought a dark liberation to people who consider themselves to be on the liberal left. It has freed them to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America. I hate to repeat the overused quote that ‘when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything’, but there is no escaping it. Because it is very hard to imagine a radical leftwing alternative, or even mildly radical alternative, intellectuals in particular are ready to excuse the movements of the far right as long as they are anti-Western.

Of course the ‘left ‘, at least as Cohen defines it – in terms of the Labour and Democratic parties – is dead: modern party politics is now merely a televised battle of who can raise most to spend on advertising, and electoral platforms are informed by market research, not political principle. Left? What left?

Those allegedly lleftist parties that liberal media and the big blogs argue and raise money for are all in thrall to to the free market. It’s the baseline from which all their political argument springs and it may not be gainsaid. Only in that sense is Cohen’s point valid; the Labour party left, that wanted to change the world is dead and gone, as are the New Deal Democrats. What remains is a bunch of middle-class policy wonks who beleive they can both simultaneously enjoy the fruits of the free market and assuage their liberal guilt by tinkering around the edges so things are a just a little nicer for the poor folk overseas and the blacks and the gays at home and they don’t have to feel so bad that they live so well.

But there is a another left – that’s iinternational and internationalist, that doesn’t trust any existing party, that’s comprised of people who would not necessarily call themselves leftists but who loathe injustice and lies (local or global) who abhor hypocrisy, cruelty, corruption and greed, who see that the free market as a panacea for all social ills doesn’t work and who are not afraid to say so, loudly and often, through any means they can find. They’re not seduced by power because they know they are powerless.

Blogs have given them a voice.

They might forget it now but that’s how the big blogs started too; Kos is only as big as he is now because of all the diarists. That made him and his site dangerous. That he’s now lauded in the media as a Democratic power-broker is the political establishment using the old ‘inside the tent pissing out’ strategy. By neutralising Kos they neutralise the his readers and diarists too, goes the thinking.

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it and we’ll all get along fine.

But back to my original point, the current nervousness of the media. I may be entirely wrong about the reason why they’re so subdued. Maybe this is all an excuse for self-absorbed metablognoodling and they’re all just waiting for Bush to drop the Big One on Iran.

Now that really would be a paradigm shift
.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Yes, that might certainly make the subject of the co-option of liberal blogs somewhat irrelevant.