MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
|
|
The strange silencing of liberal America
By A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 6:03pm |Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US.
URL:
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2011/07/pilger-foundation-obama-film
- 997 reads
Comments
Wow. Pretty impressive for a guy to render reading his entire piece a waste of time by the time you're finished with the subhead - "Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US."? Seriously? Where was all of this "liberal opinion" during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush presidencies? Who made up this "liberal opinion" until Obama tenderly smothered it with his downy rhetorical pillow?
Because, as a liberal, I've been watching the narrative and the loudest voices in our public discourse moving further and further to the right. For the last forty years! Last time I checked, Obama wasn't even president for thirty-eight of those.
God, I'm sick of these simpleminded attempts to blame all of our ills on the current president, when the true blame lies chiefly with Republicans, but also with the media and to a large degree with Democrats who have held office during our rightward lurch and either did nothing to stop it or actively enabled it.
by brewmn on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:23am
"Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US.
" "God, I'm sick of these simpleminded attempts to blame all of our ills on the current president, ..."
You may call it whinning by Pilger, as Beetlejuice does below, and maybe it is, but Pilger obviously has a direct personal interest in how he and his work are treated and, since his work is in the international political arena, he had every reason to make public what had transpired which was probably motivated by political pressure.
As to where the liberal opinion was during the Bush years, in the place where I was blogging and reading the opinion of other liberals during those years, their opinion of most was to put Bush and his closest associates in jail for their many crimes. Can you name an alleged crime that the liberals believed Bush to be guilty of, with the exception of trying to make torture an accepted and open policy of the United States, [I am doubtful that torture has stopped] that has not been continued or expanded by Obama, or else the investigation has been stopped or otherwise dealt with in such a way so as to let the guilty go free and be untouched by any detriment to their careers? Haven't most of the people that liberals considered to be criminals either gone into comfortable retirement or moved up the ladder?
"Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US. Pilger.
"God, I'm sick of these simpleminded attempts to blame all of our ills on the current president, ...". brewmn
Not quite all our ills, but certainly many of those ills towards which the President has a powerful hand to play but he instead folded. If Obama has seduced, co-opted, or silenced much of the liberal opinion in this country then it certainly has had a powerful affect, though "great" has a connotation I would not use to describe it.
"Because, as a liberal, I've been watching the narrative and the loudest voices in our public discourse moving further and further to the right." brewmn.
The loudest voices moving right? Yes. The liberal voices? No, the liberal voices still speaking, those that have not been seduced, that have not been co-opted, that have not been silenced, are the voices still speaking for liberal policies and so are therefore voicing opinions against much of what Obama does. It seems to be those voices that make you sick, apparently more so than do those on the right who actually blame everything on Obama and actually move policies to the right. You call yourself a liberal. Do you want liberals to become the majority only if they are the silent majority that will only speak up when they can cheer for the guy shoveling the shit because he is wearing the right uniform?
Your response represents to me a simple minded defense of Obama that makes Pilger's point through your expression of anger at anyone criticizing Obama, it just makes you sick, even if the criticism is for any of the same things he does that they blamed Bush for. You want those critical voices on the left to shut up. So many self-identified liberals support anything Obama or apologize for anything Obama, or simply ignore anything Obama that they previously despised about Bush. That is crap, plain and simple. Among the group that does these things are many that angrily condemn anyone of any stripe who continue to criticize actions of our government which they criticized when Bush carried them out, because now it is our guy Obama that is responsible for them and he is our guy, and he is so much better than the other guy.
Why would some people be angry at those holding a critical view of Obama that is consistent with the critical view they held of Bush, which critical view those angry people agreed with? Could it be that some of these defenders of O have been seduced, some co-opted, some silenced, and that some are just dumb asses, and that some of the latter attempt to be silencers of Obama criticizers through pleas to help our guy win even if he is advancing the goals of the other side or to silence them through simple minded ridicule.
Sorry that you are sick, brew but you seem to be allergic to things that should make your environment healthier.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:13pm
Apparently, you're too simpleminded to understand my point, which is that liberals have only had a "voice" in American politics at a couple of brief moments in our history, and that fact has nothing to do with Barack Obama.
I'll admit that I didn't read this column, because, as I stated, the writer is starting out from such a silly premise that I decided not to subject myself to another ahistorical, logic-and-fact challenged bout of liberal whingeing. A few clicks of a mouse and I can get my fill of such tripe anytime I'm in the mood.
And with your litany of liberal voices criticizing both G.W, Bush and Obama, you undercut the writer's point yourself. If he has so many liberal critics, how can Obama be said to be "seducing, co-opting and silencing" the left? Who are these liberal voices being "seduced, co-opted and silenced," exactly? And explain to me again how, if they were not being "seduced, co-opted and silenced" prior to January 2009, why has the rightward drift of our politics continued more or less unabated for thirty years?
If you want to have a discussion of how true, FDR-style Big Government liberalism makes itself relevant again today, I'll be happy to have that discussion. But only an ignoramus thinks that liberalism's problems ended when Obama got elected, and yet somehow began when took the oath of office.
by brewmn on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:58pm
"Apparently, you're too simpleminded to understand my point, which is that liberals have only had a "voice" in American politics at a couple of brief moments in our history, and that fact has nothing to do with Barack Obama."
Liberals have, and have always had, a "voice" in American politics. The strength of that voice has usually been low, as you say. The strength of that liberal "voice" today does have something to do with Obama.
"I'll admit that I didn't read this column, because, as I stated, the writer is starting out from such a silly premise that I decided not to subject myself to another ahistorical, logic-and-fact challenged bout of liberal whingeing. A few clicks of a mouse and I can get my fill of such tripe anytime I'm in the mood."
You state clearly that you are writing from a point of prideful deliberate ignorance when you describe the nature of the piece initialy in question. I have had my fill of that sort of tripe quite a few times from you.
"And with your litany of liberal voices criticizing both G.W, Bush and Obama, you undercut the writer's point yourself. If he has so many liberal critics, how can Obama be said to be "seducing, co-opting and silencing" the left? Who are these liberal voices being "seduced, co-opted and silenced," exactly?
Of the relatively large set of liberal voices that criticized Bush policies, a much smaller number within that set now criticize those same policies when carried out by Obama. That those voices must have been seduced, co-opted, or otherwise silenced is not a complicated idea to understand even if you disagree.
"And explain to me again how, if they were not being "seduced, co-opted and silenced" prior to January 2009, why has the rightward drift of our politics continued more or less unabated for thirty years?"
Of course liberal voices have always been attacked by the other side and usually with some or a great degree of success, and so our politics as a nation have drifted rightward for years, but that does not mean or in any way indicate that the liberal voices were silent, that they were not speaking out. I have been talking about those who were speaking out loud and strong during the Bush years but are now silent because to say the exact same things would be to criticize Obama rather than Bush, and those voices are now being attacked from the left in many cases by those who have been seduced, or co-opted. Those who have been silenced by their own cowardice or shame or confusion or embarrassment or bewilderment or for whatever reason, have been...silenced. The actions of Obama and his die-hard knee-jerk defenders have been part, if not almost the entirety, of the reason for their silence and the method of obtaining it.
"If you want to have a discussion of how true, FDR-style Big Government liberalism makes itself relevant again today, I'll be happy to have that discussion. "
I make a point and you respond by speaking to distortions or complete mischaracterizations of what I said. That quickly devolves into trying to... oh never mind. Go and happily have your conversation with someone who has more patience.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 4:01pm
I'll ask again: who, exactly, are these liberal voices who have been seduced, co-opted and silenced by the big, bad Obama?
by brewmn on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:35am
Interesting whining event.
If he were an investigative reporter type, then why didn't he look for the root issues? Way too much finger-pointing to sooth an injured and inflated ego, in my opinion. Perhaps his too aggressive approach was enough to turn off the interest in supporting a venue for him? Would be an interesting tale if he had followed thru.
by Beetlejuice on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:26am
Yes, sounds like he misses his George Bush glory days when he was a star and his shtick was hot. That the Lannan Foundation changed its mind about wanting to hear him is not good proof of an anti-liberal plot by the Obama administration. Though there indeed may be a case for that, this is not it. If one looks at the Lannan Foundation site for its upcoming events, there is an emphasis on cultural movers and thinkers like Tariq Ali, Michael Ondaatje and Ann Beattie. Not only that but they just had Glen Greenwald on their dais.
by lamont (not verified) on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:47pm
Also, in looking at the Lannon Foundation website further, lest anyone accuse them of being Obamabots, they have a link to an Amy Goodman interview of Cornel West on their home page.
by lamont (not verified) on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 3:04pm