On racism, fear-mongering, cowering and courage

Ta Nehisi Coates has the best summary, context and critique I've seen of the shameful faux "outing" of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod by the steaming pile of feces aka "conservative media nexus", her mistreatment at the hands of, initially, both the NAACP and the Administration and what the revelations about this cowering before the likes of Andrew Breitbart and FOX News signify.  Read the entire thing here - and there's also generally very good discussion in Ta=Nehisi's comments section (one of the best discussion forums on the internet.)  I'd suggest that commenters on this join that discussion, because I really don't have anything to add to TNC's perspective. 

Comments

[pablo]

Will there ever come a moment when Liberal America will cease to collaborate with what the Right wing has become?
Sanctimony isn't a balm for an abuse of power.

Libs may quibble and caterwaul throughout the blogosphere but Sherrod is out.
The instant (over)reaction is more telling than the horror of what has happened. It is emblematic of the failure of Liberalism to stem the rightward tide...
Instead Libs will re-invigorate themselves by calling the extension of unemployment benefits in a stripped out Jobs Bill as an "historic" achievement.
The point of being the party in power is to use it to effect the promised reforms of the campaign...and more status-quo collection of milquetoasts couldn't be found befuddled anywhere...

[pablo]

BTW: had it not been for the World Cup I would not have signed for three satellite dish services: Los Angeles, Ensenada, and Ajijic (although I must confess my wife enjoys immensely the chinese programming).

As a newbie to the Democratic Party Pravda, MSNBC, I have noticed that articles posted here by Dan O, Rob, and especially Reg track closely with the narratives espoused by Maddow on MSNBC... almost as if the service provided here on BH is a repeater for those who may have missed the original broadcast.

Suddenly racism from the other corporate party becomes de-rigour on BH.. and then this poor woman fired by Obama for speaking her mind some years ago...

Does the apparatchiks duty to sycophancy supplant the individual critical thinking which this blogs founder gives us on a regular basis?
Must party loyalty relegate reason to that of a cyber parrot?

Contributors to this blog are invited to look to their right and see the excellent books and music which brings a certain sentiment. Not only do I doubt that none save the host have read these works or are familiar with the music of Luciana Souza, I now accuse them of an profound anti-intellectualism which is founded on making their own material comfort sacrosanct to a world of ideas.
Visit Sao Paulo then write to me about american liberalism!

[reg]

Oh go screw yourself, Pablo. You're a self-righteous twit.

[Dan O]

Good God Pablo, what a sanctimonious little twerp you are.

Your post doesn't deserve a response, but it's late and I can't sleep, so what the hell; I'll entertain myself this way.

Just a few random points as they occur to me.

I don't have a TV (let alone 3 with satellite hookups), thus I *almost never* see Maddow. I have no idea what she's had on her show, so you're going to have to cross me off your list.

You and your three satellites and the houses that you must have in order to keep them dry in Taipei and wherever else you jet off to, remind me of an experience I had in college. I visited the office of a sociology professor who prominently displayed an enormous poster of Karl Marx on his wall. This wasn't all that notable until I saw him a few weeks later, leaving the faculty parking lot in a very expensive sports car convertible. It struck me as the very definition of false consciousness. Either that or Marx was just an affectation for him (along with the healthy salary he made as a professor on the back of the taxes of Empire. Hypocrite). It all sounds so familiar. I seem to recall that you're a professor; is that right?

The gross disconnect between repeatedly drawing attention, peacock-style, to your jet-setting life-style, and the "socialist" angle you take in criticizing liberalism, is self-refuting self-contradiction, not to mention being utterly, utterly gauche.

You write, "Not only do I doubt that none save the host have read these works... "

Self-regard of that sort usually makes me gag--I really have no control over it--but this is like getting a raw turkey rammed down my gullet. My god, fella. You love yourself hard. Are you really speculating that three people who are strangers to you haven't read the books you think they should read, and thus are anti-intellectual? Do you even know what the word "anti-intellectual" means? (hint: it is not someone who disagrees with your opinions).

Let me take the gloves off (if I may employ a cliche in the service of fighting a cliche). Underneath that veneer of civility and bemused detachment--you know, the one where you protest when your suit lapels get slightly rumpled in an argument, but where you reserve the right to launch haymakers at your opponents who are expected to take such shots with grace--lies a pretty insufferably egotistical person; a thug whose pinky finger never touches the tea cup; a crass materialist who exempts himself from his own critique.

But hey, these are just guesses. I hope you don't take offense, your self-regard must be charming to someone.

[Dan O]

"Instead Libs will re-invigorate themselves by calling the extension of unemployment benefits in a stripped out Jobs Bill as an "historic" achievement."

This, however, does deserve a response. *No one* thinks the UE benefits extension is historic. Just the opposite, in fact, we think it is routine--it's what you do in an economic crisis. What's historic is the Republican's cynical opposition to it.

That statement alone leads me to believe you have almost zero understanding of this part of the American left.

[reg]

It's funny, Dan. I didn't even make it to the last rancid lines of Pablo's comment until I read your rejoinder. (And I can assure you I didn't stop reading P to make a dismissive gesture because it was too "intellectual.")

It's interesting because this post of mine was, in fact, simply a "repeater" - not of Rachel Maddow, but of Ta-Nehisi Coates - who has an excellent blog at the Atlantic that covers "everything" from hip-hop to the Civil War. He has one of the most consistently stimulating running conversations with his readers - often on race in the USofA - and the most uniquely intelligent comments section I've come across. I suggested that anyone following this check in there and comment - that's what I did over a series of excellent discussions of various aspects of the horror visited on Shirley Sherrod - by the mainstream media, by the administration and, of course, by the smear-meister Brietbart and his friends at FOX . Pablo - at least in this mode - wouldn't last through two posts there without his being taken apart as ann utter phony. There's lots of critical insight - alongside run-of-the-mill "chiming in" and random carping - coming from various directions, including a handful of rational conservatives, but little tolerance for this particular brand of sanctimonious faux-"left" bullshit. It's little more than trolling - imbued with a not-so-faint scent of superiority.

I haven't come across a player so in love with a single note - and so committed to "exposing" the sins of liberalism - since Woody.

[pablo]

Looks as if I hit a raw nerve..

The charge made is that the topics chosen for discussion track closely with Maddow.
Both of you seem to have hit the proverbial roof.. and have taken pains to refute the thesis: Dan O doesn't watch TV and otherwise doesn't have a Dish to view MSNBC; while Reg feigns other sources.

MSNBC, the Liberal Pravda doesn't instruct, it reflects.. comes the nodding choir of the faithful. Additionally, we attend another church- The Church of The Atlantic- where apostates wouldn't last two posts on the blog.

Reg, the reaction by the Lib punditry to the dispicable actions of the Right is emblematic as to where power lies.

Dan O, you have let your projections about my personhood run wild until these images have become real. Jetsetting Marxists with hot cars living the vino rojo...

[Dan O]

Tiresome.

Don't come in here and call intelligent contributors (reg and Rob at least), sycophantic anti-intellectuals and expect to be treated with kid gloves. You could make your point without being obnoxious, but you choose not to. I'm all for intellignet dissent, but beating that single "liberals suck" tom-tom doesn't cut it as argument, or as dissent.

I'll take you seriously when your dissent doesn't consist of advocating that American voters hand the country back to the Republicans so we can get rogered into accepting your version of the left. How is it that the right never figures into your critique?

I'll also take you seriously when you have an actual course of action to suggest. National strike? Sure, let's try it. Find progressive candidates to run and get national fund raising behind them? OK, I'm down. Anything, dude. But "liberals suck" is not anything but a joke.

"Dan O, you have let your projections about my personhood run wild until these images have become real." No. I said they were guesses, but you *have* trumpted about the three locations you reside in more than once.

P.S. I'm harldy a staunch defender of all things liberal, there is a hell of a lot to criticize, and its form in the Democratric party in particular is pretty compromised, but your paper thin caricatures are just annoyingly unhelpful and inaccurate.

[pablo]

It's four... no trumpets or fanfare..

"I'll also take you seriously when you have an actual course of action to suggest. National strike? Sure, let's try it. Find progressive candidates to run and get national fund raising behind them? OK, I'm down. Anything, dude. But "liberals suck" is not anything but a joke"

The joke would be amusing save for the sorry results affecting ordinary people
There are no indicies of success which can be attributed to Liberalism post-Vietnam.
Both parties serve the Right. Ordinary people are not progressing, they are regressing.
Persons such as reg tout social democracy but there is nothing in the philosophical makeup of the Democratic party which will allow any for any social democratic change.
Further DanO my critique also includes that at the end of the day most dems would prefer Republicans to Progressives in office: Cheney over Nader.
Herein is where a left critique of Democrats automatically engenders so much outrage.

Finally, so much emotional evocation without careful reading seperates the trained from the educated:
"Contributors to this blog are invited to look to their right and see the excellent books and music which brings a certain sentiment. Not only do I doubt that none save the host have read these works or are familiar with the music of Luciana Souza, I now accuse them of an profound anti-intellectualism which is founded on making their own material comfort sacrosanct to a world of ideas."

I have read ad nauseum the basis of liberal support founded its preference to the far right. Here is an invitation to a sentiment which expands the narrow pathway trod by those who find their patriotism confined to the banal lesser of the two evils. Pragmatism over truth may be justified in maintaining the status-quo but this liberal pragmatism has resulted in a profound rightward drift of the american polity to the point of Progressives appearing as euro-Conservatives bent on empire. The sickness is the approbation shown towards those who reject the negativism of definition in comparison to neo-fascists.

Might I suggest Persona Non Grata as a good primer: A wealthy socialist maintains a diplomatic post in Cuba; a communist poet donates an original painting of O'Higgins to replace a replica which hangs in a navy training vessel about to embark on a world tour.
This would most certainly broaden (and beautify) yours or anyone elses horizon.
It is listed to the right courtesy of Randy Paul.

[Rob Grocholski]

Pablo
You're so concerned about the state of American politics.
Yet, you keep beating the drums of 'liberalism is doomed' or 'compromised' or whatever.
Tell me: which precincts are you organizing? C'mon now. The coffee shops around Santa Cruz or Madison, Wisconsin aren't enough.
If you want, I can get you a voter list...
Wanna ply your anti-neoliberalism-St. Amy Goodman-Noam Chomsky rap on some folks in Fresno? I can hook you up. Or let's set up you up in St. Charles, MO?
Hell, you wanna try straight-up purple, I'll get you a walking kit for Orlando.
Socialism or death, right?
Tell me when you're ready to go.

[pablo]

Rob:

Not a moment too soon... the ink of my last post hasn't yet dried..

I'll invite you read more carefully: Liberalism is dead. You are worshipping a corpse.
Now it seems that you (three?) too are defending liberalism soley on the basis that it is not the far Right.
I get it, but that is not enough.

[Dan O]

"Finally, so much emotional evocation without careful reading seperates the trained from the educated:"

Give me a large break. You accused reg, especially, of being a sycophant, and you accused the three of us (rob, reg, and me) of being anti-intellectual for not having read the books to the right. The charge against reg is a real joke because he's among the most insightful of commentators I've come across anywhere.

Do you want to play "Duelling Patronizing Put Downs Based On The Books You've Read And The Music You Listen To?"

I can play that stupid game all day. Have you read Geminal? How about Journey to the End of the Night? Shelley's Song to the Men of England? How about Wilfred Owens' Dulce Et Decorum Est? How about The Great War and Modern Memory? What about the Open Society and Its Enemies? Oh, you missed one of those? Maybe all of them? What am I to conclude, that you're an ignoramus? Of course not. This whole line of yours is stupid.

Last point abotuliberalism. We can debate the merits of any post-Vietnam achievments (by the way, thanks for a specifc charge for once, that's helpful), but a short history lesson is in order.

Post-VietNam means, Republican Ford, Democrat Carter, Republican Reagan, Republican Bush, Democrat Clinton (with the hugely important caveat that he was part of the DLC machine, people who were NOT liberals), Bush, and now ~two years of Obama.

This is what I mean. There is a rift in the Democratic party between the pro-business, Republican-light, run-to-the-right DLC, and the more economically interventionist traditional democrats, and progressives. This split has been in place since at least 1992. There is also a spectrum of social policy opnion (like abortion and gay marriage) in the Democratic party, but these are precisely the sorts of subtelties that you gloss over so glibly when you universally trash liberalism as the great satanic sell out.

If you substitued DLC for liberalism I'd be much more on your side.

[pablo]

Dan O is having trouble with my poor command of english:

"You accused reg, especially, of being a sycophant, and you accused the three of us (rob, reg, and me) of being anti-intellectual for not having read the books to the right"

That statement is false. My words were:

" I now accuse them of an profound anti-intellectualism which is founded on making their own material comfort sacrosanct to a world of ideas."

Let me amplify:

The party in power ran on the promise of liberal change and now in key areas of policy and governance is indistinguishable from the Bush regime.
Liberals- including much of what I have read here and on Dissonance- have expressed rancor over Bush polcies but have reserved scorn for the present administration who maintains these same policies and agenda.

Apologia for Liberalism and Democrats on the sole basis of Republicans are worse is the penultimate in anti-intellectualism. Further to charge that witholding of support for the Party for the reason that in serves to hand power to the Right is churlish and dismissive.
Bright guys like you enable the Right by failing to leverage your power as (er-) Progressives. This unmanly feat is accomplished by swallowing (not raw turkey) the rhetoric of having no place else to go. In short you demand nothing and get it.

The crimes of the Bush administration are fast becoming the crimes of the Obama administration. People around the world literally live and die on the whims resulting from these policies. On a very real level it is harder for the american liberal to hide inside the sanctimony of opposition to the Right (let alone the air-conditioning of the swedish made auto) while holding power unless the rhetoric begins to be matched by a measurable departure.

For some it hardly matters

[pablo]

Again I must give my thanks to Randy Paul for the sentiments contained in his choice of books and music.
I am particularly drawn to Neruda Songs which somehow were recorded in english translation. For all who feel offended by the cold water contained in my words I share this from that work in the original:

"Mientras escribo estoy ausente
y cuando vuelvo ya he partido:
voy a ver si a las otras gentes
les pasa lo que a mí me pasa,
si son tantos como soy yo,
si se parecen a sí mismos
y cuando lo haya averiguado
voy a aprender tan bien las cosas
que para explicar mis problemas
les hablaré de geografía."

It is lamentable that schools have been commodified towards career at the sacrifice of education. Not living with passion is a life wasted in negligence...a life in opposition of one's perceived enemies
instead of affirmation of one's own. Banality is the satanic sell-out..

[Dan O]

This is pointless, but go back to your post of 7/21 at 9:47...

[Dan O]

Also, and I'm going to drop out of this thread after this, but I think you'll find a lot of criticism of Obama if you bothered to ask about it.

I'm severely disappointed on the broken Guantanamo promise, and I think he's done exactly the opposite of what he promised on civil liberties.

And the administration's finding that they can assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki is outrageous.

Each of these issues is exceptionally important to me, and I hope that Obama does the right thing, but I fully expect him not to. The civil rights issue is so important to me, that the prospect of not voting for him has crossed my mind more than once.

These are the things that we face. If you find a candidate that will never disappoint you, and always does the right thing by your lights, please let me know.

[pablo]

Yes, I said that it doubted you read the works that RP posted here... but my accusations of anti-intellectualism did not stem from a lack of your reading them; and you understood that.. Again:

"Contributors to this blog are invited to look to their right and see the excellent books and music which brings a certain sentiment. Not only do I doubt that none save the host have read these works or are familiar with the music of Luciana Souza,"

and after the comma:

" I now accuse them of an profound anti-intellectualism which is founded on making their own material comfort sacrosanct to a world of ideas."

Amplification provided in posts at 7:14 PM & 7:49 PM

Get it right.

[pablo]

Our posts crossed Dan O. Thanks for your prospective.

[pablo]

..er, that's 'perspective'...

[reg]

I guess my position on all of this boils down to not giving a shit what Pablo thinks. I've been through this same slog with too many fake "intellectuals" and "radicals" to care one whit, once they've given away their game. I happen to be busy with work these days, but aside from that I just don't see the point of wading through this crap.

I do want to thank Pablo for making me laugh a few days ago over on Marc's blog with just two words: "Louis Althusser."

[pablo]

I was re-reading Hal Pinter's Nobel Acceptance Speech this morning:

http://artforum.com/video/id=22479&mode=large&page_id=7

Reg's angry comments above must be the result of some profound transgression which I have (inadvertantly) caused.

For this I can only offer that I have never claimed the mantle of intellect. Nor have I felt constrained by convention: Rather (quoting another bete noir) I say what I think and then do as I say.

Today's laugh comes by my invocation of Louis Latham, a cunning linguist, who portends the demise of Democrats in the wake of the final defeat of Liberalism... or rather the death of the liberal language.

Recapture of the intellectual high ground though the use of 'twerp' and 'shit' is likely to garner a free round of pisco... but little else.
When you awaken tomorrow, do not think of me...it is a day off and anyway the treadmill awaits you on Monday.