Why Progressives are different than Conservatives and how the media misses this point
By John Amato Thursday Mar 26, 2009 6:00pmGlenn Greenwald wrote a very fine piece earlier this week about a major difference between liberals and conservatives outside of policy.
Whenever I would speak at events over the last couple of years and criticize the Bush administration’s expansions of government power, extreme secrecy and other forms of corruption, one of the most frequent questions I would be asked was whether "the Left" -- meaning liberals and progressives -- would continue to embrace these principles with a Democrat in the White House, or whether they would instead replicate the behavior of the Right and uncritically support whatever the Democratic President decided. Though I could only speculate, I always answered -- because I believed -- that the events of the last eight years had so powerfully demonstrated and ingrained the dangers of uncritical support for political leaders that most liberals would be critical of and oppositional to a Democratic President when that President undertook actions in tension with progressive views.
Two months into Obama’s presidency, one can clearly conclude that this is true. Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the “conservative movement” and many progressives...read on
Glenn provides plenty of examples of right-wing Bush worship that is hard to refute. In Obama's short time in office, many progressives (including this blog) have written about many of the differences we have had with the Obama administration up to this point, and to me that's not surprising. That's kind of the point, and that's something that we can do quite well. Keeping our eye on what I feel should be the agenda moving forward is not something C&L takes likely and neither does the rest of the left-wing blogosphere, but what I find fascinating is that if we do break from the Obama administration, the media act like it's a major source of news.
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous –- and some just flat-out angry -– that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices
And this one: Liberals Angry at Obama for Rick Warren Pick
And this one: Liberals Angry Obama Isn't Moving Further Left
I've found that if a blogger writes a negative post about something President Obama has done they almost immediately get an invite to go on TV or be quoted in print. We saw that quickly with his Cabinet choices. How shocking it must be to them that we would ever question the will of our leader.
It appears that the media has been so beaten down by the right wing kool-aid drinking whiners who have targeted the "librul press" for about three decades that they now instinctively believe we would repeat the same behavior that conservatives engaged in and who were slavishly enthralled with the Bush administration and all their decisions. If a terrorist attack occurs, start profiling middle easterners and round up all the brown people and send them where they came from, with or without their kids. Torture is good because they are now Luntzified and named "enemy combatants." Wiretapping our transmissions is wonderful because although Bush promoted "freedom for all" as his foreign policy center piece, giving up some of ours is for the greater good.
Don't like a law enacted by Congress, then the president can issue hundreds of signing statements to ignore them and that's fine too. Want some legal cover for excessive power, just fill the OLC with your flunkies to give their stamp of approval.
Need to fill job vacancies in government? Hire as many Regent/Pat Robertson University religious ideologues as you can without qualifications.
Need people to go overseas to rebuild a country that we invaded, staff them up with loyalty-oath babies. The major requirement is that you have never voted Democratic.
Lose 9 billion dollars in that country and who cares? What's a billion here and a billion there? They were nice new bills, by the way.
If the economy tanks with conservatives in charge, well, you know. Stuff happens.
This has been the mentality of the right since 2000 because they need their man in charge. Purity rings are preferable more than responsible criticism. After Paul Krugman disagreed with Tim Geithner's banking plan, Chuck Todd told us that he's always hated Obama. Now, I met Paul when he came into LA for a speaking engagement and we chatted about Obama during the general election. We talked about the differences of opinion Paul had with Obama's health-care plan. If I were a Villager I would have thought Krugman would have been depressed that Obama was the Democratic nominee, but Paul thought that Obama could accomplish great things and was very optimistic. Wow, who knew.
So here's a memo to the press: We ain't the right. We think for ourselves, but know that this country is better off with adults in charge instead of Jesus-worshipping, traitor-calling, fearmongering conservatives, but will still be a vital voice of what we feel should be done. Oh, by the way: I kinda like Jesus.
Login or Register to post comments.
That's what conservatives are. They leave little crumbs behind so that they'll know where they were, and how to get back to safety.
Liberals are looking forward for a better, quicker and cheaper way to Grandma's house.
When their Emperor wore no clothes, they complimented him on his tasteful outfit. We're like, "Dude, where are your fucking pant's?"
When CBS planned to show a Ronald Reagan movie, conservatives called CBS in droves threatening to boycott CBS. CBS then pulled the movie.
I'm talking about an insignificant movie and not national legislation.
Liberals won't boycott anything to get national legislation passed.
Prove me wrong. Go to http://write-congress.democratz.org
Tell Mitch McConnell, get us the legislation mentioned in the prewritten fax, or your friends will get boycotted.
The left just loves to tear down and find reasons to oppose their party leaders. If you want to be an outspoken independent thinker, leave the Democratic Party. If you are a masochist, keep wishing for the perfect as you oppose the good. If you disagree with the Obama administration, you don't air our disunity in public because the press and Republicans will spin it for their own purposes. Instead, work in private for change or wait til the next primary season. Otherwise, you are certain blow this for us and the planet once again -- which is likely to be our very last shot at power that really matters. But clearly, you folks are too dense to think about the consequences. The P word for you is not principles -- its pathetic.
Maybe you'd better address your rant to Obama rather than his critics. Get real -- HE's the one who needs to change his ways, not those criticizing him for continuing the GW Bush administration agenda. If progressive voices are silenced as you'd like them silenced, it's VERY true that Obama's election would have been our "last shot". That failed.
We may not like it. And we may not like to hear it. But that's just the way it is here on the left. I consider myself a center left person.
But too the gopers, I'm a far left liberal. Which I never considered myself as being.
Maybe it's I'm more patient. And willing to let things play out for awhile before I make my conclusions. but that's just me. ok, go ahead. blast away.
Frist!
!*^#&*@%%!$!#!@*$()!^#@$@%@^!!!!
I still don't consider myself a far left person.
So? What does that make them? Hannity, Flush and Beeck and the like?
nevermind
I am liberal moderate. Fiscally I am more of a true conservative than any of those bible thumpers, while socially I am very liberal. I am a war hawk who believes in intelligent wars and wars fought for the right reasons. But somehow, I am a communist to the loony right.
That's only because the loony right has managed to shove the Overton window so far to the right, after 30 years of continuous effort. It's now our duty to shove it back to where it used to be, when America was a more SANE place to live. It will take awhile, but it's definitely worth it. We do this by not being afraid or intimidated to speak liberal ideas. Especially not NOW, when all you need to do is point to the obvious EVIDENCE that the conservative ideas DIDN'T/DON'T work.
You can say what you want about Obama, but for the last 60 days he's been using the bully pulpit to make un-apologetic speeches about how government IS NOT 'the problem,' and that government has a constructive role to play in a functional society. When I heard him say "there are some things only a Nation can do" in a speech the other day, I finally felt LIBERATED from the shadow of Reagan's self-destructive, anti-government rhetoric for the first time since 1980. This is a potential tipping point. Tipping towards sanity, again, but only if we do our part and push.
I, like you, am a fiscally conservative, socially liberal war hawk. When I enter a conservative forum, it quickly becomes apparent that a LOT of these folks have lost their bloody minds. The right have been so goaded and conned that they now resemble something akin to a cult. I sure as hell don't say this because people disagree with me, but rather as an attempt to rationalize the extreme anger, hostility and insanity that bubbles on these sites (Fox is an easy example). It is truly, truly scary.
Case in point, did you read Chuck Norris' comments? Yikes!
Peace.
Rick Beagle
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/event.php
be sure to see the guests of the event and the board and staff of the "institute"
FPI claims to be a "non-partisan" organization. Yeah, right.
Credit where credit is due, which is precisely why I offer so little.
I laughed at the fact that here on Ft Huachuca one of the few wingers I know tried to tweek me on President Obamas vet health care plan that apparently makes us pay for our own health care. Personally I never paid that story much attention, but I let him know that if the plan is bad, my side will call him on it. His response was that hopefully my people will come over to the way of thinking of his people, I did'nt say much to that but I was thinking about how pathetic his peoples way of thinking had been thus far. I mean what was his response to the horror of the vet hospital on the east cost (sorry, I cant for the life of me remember that places name)?
n/t
please stop using the phrase "drinking the kool-aid." I hated it when the right wing used it and I think it adds nothing to your argument. Otherwise, carry on, old chap.
hundreds of confused, un-informed Americans in the jungle drinking POISON because their "religious leader" lied through his teeth about a better life that he couldn't deliver.
Sounds PERFECTLY ANALAGOUS to the NEO-cons and george w. bush LIEING to the American Public for eight years while stealing everything that wasn't tied down... and Republicans going right along with the MADDNESS supporting an immoral foreigh war and driving the whole WORLD into RECESSION at the same time.
There's another major difference between progressive pundits and their right wing counterparts. Although both sides display a subjective bias based upon their philosophical beliefs, progressives tend to base their arguments on facts rather than lies and half truths.
wingnuts worship authority. What was clear after eight years of Bushco is that it doesn't matter how incompetent or corrupt that authority is; they still love it. They might be surprised that our freethinking includes criticizing their leader, but that won't change them.
Wingnuts and progressives run on different operating systems. We can barely understand each other. Here's an interesting read about wingnut psychology: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Read it and wonder...
some people desparately want/need division of the people/groups/demographics of this country. some people on the right are addicted to deception and dislike for people that are NOT like themselves. some of this anti-progressive and democrat chatter is establish a lost (R) identity.
i've noticed this also. again it's this whole media propaganda of obama being god like. the right are trying to say we are saying he's god like/perfect. they want to stir up their own following with see even liberals NOW don't agree with obama. it's okay you did NOT vote for him. this keeps the division going. they're fearful that it will be PERCEIVED that obama has been successful. i personally don't if he will be perceived
as successful or NOT but the right will do their best to say he's all wrong.
Can we dispel this myth that Obama is a liberal? Seriously. Noam Chomsky pointed out that like Bill Clinton, Obama is basically a moderate, possibly slightly right-leading moderate. His policy is not liberal in any significant degree, and never has been.
The problem is, the mainstream media has demonized what is and isn't liberal to the point that anything not extreme right is considered liberal.
There has never been a liberal president in the white house in any of our lifetimes. And probably never will be.
If Obama were as far to the left as Bush was to the right, then they would be no different. Obama is hardly right leaning- Of course he's further to the right than Noam Chomksy, who is hardcore left wing. The only people who can save this country are the moderates. Which is why I am glad Obama is a moderate- If the tinfoil hat extreme fringes on the left and the right hate Obama, then they need to get over it.
All *moderates* stand for is a continuation of policies put in place by corporations and the extreme right. If *moderates* had been in control in the 30s, we never would've gotten S.S. or the TVA, and prohibition would still be in effect. The LAST thing this country needs right now is a *moderate* as President.
We are liberals, and should be proud of it.
But I cringe every time I see or hear us refered to as 'Progressives'. Progressives seems a politically correct term some liberals use because they don't want to offend people with the word liberal-As they apparently buy into the conservative propaganda that somehow 'liberal' is a bad word.
Recurring calls into progressive talk radio shows from conservatives often mockingly refer to Obama as "your Messiah." In all my volunteer phonebank calling, in all my benefit attending, in all my conversations with my fellow Obama supporters, I have never ever heard any one of my like minded citizens refer to Obama as the "Messiah." That label comes from the Right, in yet another example of their patented projection, for it is their heroes--their Bush and their Palin--who approach political office as a destiny anointed by God. Biden understands this phenomenon, which is why he mocked it at the Gridiron Club last weekend.
Seeing how many of them asserted GW Bush was guided by the hand of Jesus, or was in fact Jesus himself..
Liberal versus Conservative is a false choice. We're constantly steered into this false dichotomy by the corporate media. There is fiscal conservationism and social conservationism. Somewhat separate from this is Democrat versus Republican. Then, there is the labels of "liberal left" and "centralists".
I think the real choice, if we want to limit ourselves to two sides of an argument is the corporate owned politician side, versus the non-corporate owned politician side. Under those circumstances, being a fiscal conservative is the tact I take, because the alternative is corporate welfare.
Take health care for example. In Europe and Japan, health care costs are 11% of GDP and they cover everyone, while our costs are 16% of GDP and leave about 16% uncovered. The fiscally conservative approach is to adapt the approach taken by our European and Japanese allies. Needless to say, the false dichotomy in health care is whether Obama should run up the national debt by borrowing to cover the uninsured, while maintaining the corporate welfare within our current health care system, whereas the Republican believes that the poor should remain uncovered. Neither side wants to run their approach to a cost analysis to national health care. But a fiscal conservative would. National health care is the fiscally conservative choice. It however, does run counter to other conservative ideologies, namely that one should be able to avail themselves of services from the private sector, else that one should screw themselves.
The military speaks for itself. While I recently heard a comment that Kim Jong-il of North Korea is "paranoid", what nation is whipped into spending 50¢ of every dollar spent on defense? Of course, it's the U.S. and the biggest cheerleaders of the paranoia are those who call themselves "Republicans". The winner is, of course, defense corporations. A fiscal conservative would conclude that this country would have to be at odds with every other nation on earth to justify such spending.
The list could go on and on, free trade, "war on drugs", restraint of competition by limited importing of prescription drugs, and so forth. The government has always resolved in favor of corporate welfare.
Take the current financial situation. The problem was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation undoing the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from merging with insurance companies and investment corporations, which allowed the creation of the "too big to fail" financial institution. Then Gramm and others passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which allowed the "too big to fail" corporation to gamble. Now, the taxpayers are on the hook for trillions for this corporate gambling. (Meanwhile, the taxpayer is told not to engage in any recreational gambling with online casinos in Antigua.)
Now, the Obama administration wants to regulate. I think we need to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and eliminate the corporation that is "too big to fail". If we rely on regulation only, we could end up a situation like Bush's EPA, where EPA was regulated by Exxon's lawyer. Our government is a little too corrupt, and is likely to allow the fox to regulate the chicken coop. We need to break up these corporations, and undo the Phil Gramm effect, to insure that regulation, or no regulation, we don't experience this situation again. But, it seems Obama has Wall Street people, Gheitner and Summers, trying to band-aid the problem with their über-regulator.
The real dichotomy is between corporate welfare and non-corporate welfare. A pie chart of the recent bailout would show where the money is going. The best argument against this is a "fiscally conservative" argument. I'd love to see a nice pie chart.
The corporate owned media are going to continually try to pit the ordinary people against each other. Should someone collect unemployment benefits, should someone get mortgage relief, should people get government health care and so forth. They want to take our eye off the fact that Wall Street is ripping us all off.
The idea that some brains are hard-wired to be less tolerant of ambiguity and more attracted to authority, and that brains that can't handle ambiguity are more likely to be attracted to the conservative philosophy, and it's rejection of ambiguity and nuance isn't new.
Afraid you might be taken for a baby-eating atheïst? Religion is a personal choice it shouldn't be something you need to smear in people's face to prove a point.
You were right in your criticism that they are Jesus-worshiping. In a way that they are total retarded fanatics who worship a name rather than philosophic principles. And that they can be so easely deluded that they will do the opposite of their religion's moral views (slaughter innocents when thou shall not kill, push Iraqi children into poverty and prostituion etc) in order to vainely defend their perceived religion.
But why add, btw I love Jesus? Because otherwise your criticism of their fanatism should somehow be less valid?
I'm glad I live in the part of the world were unhealthy religion is losing it's power over the masses. I'm glad everything we do wrong cannot be excused anymore by some invisible supreme joker.
But lately, the more dogmatic and authoritarian parts of the Democratic party do seem a bit drunk with power.
I wish it was so obvious as Greenwald writes. Sometimes I think C&L are fooled into using the divide and conquer tactics of keeping "conservatives" and "liberals" apart and not communicating. Too bad C&L writers like David Newert doesn't seem to have a very liberal mind. Partisanship and a dogamtic world view aren't liberal.
A liberal has a responsibility to take in new knowledge nomatter how good or bad in his/her view, -good or bad is irrelevant. Liberalism is the product of the Enlightenment and should by definition be an open mind working in a scientific way.
I guess those who act drunk with power and are now acting like the bully aren't liberal just because they wanna be a part of the "cool gang", the progressive movement.
And I think it's worth noting that most Europeans would probably claim that both Republicans and Democrats are mostly conservative. That's how far the USA has been skewed to the right for a long time.
Anyway, I dislike all these terms and classifications. The world is always 100% analog. I know liberalism, but I think maybe it's easier to call it "open minds" vs. "closed minds".
I can't speak for "liberals" or "progressives" though I suspect many of us agree on another point.
When the conservatives put forth a policy that I think is misguided, unrealistic, or just plain stupid, I don't HOPE it fails. I may believe it is a bad decision, but I'd rather have it work out and be wrong than blow up in our faces and be proven correct. I WISH trickle-down economics would have worked an proven me wrong. I would have been ecstatic if the Iraqi people greeted us as liberators, embraced democracy, agreed to live in harmony with each other and her neighbors, and relegated any thoughts of war and terrorism to the dust-bin. No one would be happier than me if lower taxes decreased the deficit and the national debt and created new jobs. Why would I be against that?
My ultimate hope is that we figure out how to improve the human condition, and if the conservatives came up with a plan that works, I'd not only hope for it's success, I'd jump on the bandwagon.
The reason Rush Limbaugh and his ilk "hope Obama fails" is because they can't live with the thought that the liberals might be right and that they are wrong, even if it means that our country goes to hell in the process.
What everyone seems to overlook is that we are trying to label politicians and us "political junkies" with meaningless definitions or labels, given the plight of the US.
During the eight years of the Bush administration, my alarm and contempt for its illegal, warmongering, torturing, imperialistic, corporatistic agenda grew and grew until I was absolutely radicalized. All I could see was that Bush's damage to America and destruction of our Constitutional form of government HAD to be righted. The Bush years had to be neutralized. The war-criminals had to be prosecuted. Competence, regulations, and efficiency had to be re-instituted. And, given America's rejection of Bush in the polls before the elections, I couldn't imagine that America would elect anyone who did not have the same goals -- to make America Constitutional, strong and proud again.
I couldn't for a moment believe that a Democratic candidate for the presidency would want less than a full turning of our government toward Constitutionality and away from warmongering. So, in voting, I ignored Obama's telecom immunity vote, though it had made me very angry after his promises to vote against it and even fillibuster the bill. I also ignored a speech I heard him make several years ago that was softly supportive of GW's warmongering under the cloak of a "war against terrorism". By that time, we already knew that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and did not have any capability of harming the US even if he hated us (along with the majority of those who live in the midEast). Obama could NOT have failed to know what the rest of us knew, that the unprovoked invasion of sovereign countries is illegal and a war-crime.
To me, all other issues were secondary to returning America to our Constitutional government. Unless Obama did that, there was no way for America to move forward carrying this fraudulent system on its back.
So, look what we got. We didn't get what was urgently needed at this time in history. We got a Democratic president who isn't interested in what actually needs to be done to restore our Constitutional government or carry out his Constitutional responsibilities. Just a much more polished version of GW with a greater willingness to tackle some domestic issues that GW wasn't interested in.
Between the time of the election cycle and the inauguration, America's financial collapse finally bit us on the ass. It was an event unexpected by the more ignorant of us (those whose livelihoods and well-being aren't directly tied to an awareness of America's economy). Not Obama's doing at all, but his approach to solving the egregious misbehavior of greedy Wall Street operatives has certainly been weak-kneed.
All this is to say that ANYONE who tries to frame the focus by casting progressives and conservatives at odds WITH EACH OTHER has missed the core conflict.
At the core of most Americans' consciousness there is the knowledge that the GW Bush administration royally screwed us and the world. And the hope, the expectation was that Obama would set those things right. That's why we gave him our votes. Being liberal or conservative had little to do with the expectations of the majority -- they were based on a desire to see the Bush damage repaired.
I think Obama has missed something critically important in his calculations of political realities. I really believe that political identification probably had less to do with Obama's election and the subsequent criticisms of Obama by progressives than politics has had at any other time in history.
Because of GW Bush.
The Bush administration's agenda was a cancer whose effects HAD to be excised if we were to survive and not be infected with it again at a later time in history.
Unless Obama and maybe rightwingers grasp this principle, progressives or liberals will baffle those who are Obama or Bush apologists -- and that's how many of us who criticize Obama view those who defend him no matter what. Our allegiance does not lie with a leader, charismatic or a buffoon, but with governing principles.
The difference between progressives and conservatived is progressives evolve, and conservatives devolve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap_YixOosgI
Liberals have always been at the vanguard of progressive thought, and have always been willing to at least entertain, if not try, new ideas, whereas conservatives have always clung to the status quo...I suspect mostly out of fear...fear of change, fear of the new and fear of doing something differently.
Success in all things, nation building included, is always the result of liberal policies & progressive thinking.
As far as the dolts which make up the press corp...that's just it--they are dolts, in the truest sense of that word, and progressive thinkers/liberal policy makers intimidate the hell out of them.
Wonderful article, John. Well said.
I am frequently upset with some of Obama's actions or statements. Then I realize that this is a healthy thing; I am glad I don't "drink the koolaid" for anything a Democrat says or does .... I'm not like a Republican.
Oh, and I'd note at the end:
"Jesus was a Liberal BTW."
Bacon, Tomato and Watercress?
Wouldn't he had kept kosher?
not discussing Obama's announcement of invading Afghanistan/Al Qaida/Bush deja vu.
Finding the excuse (enemy) and good as bush with HClinton crust all over it.
Yahoo-ah! We're at war again! The SAME lies! Anybody chumped?
Also heard mandatory National Service is being rushed through. Fucking liars same crap just a different mask.
because I know you're all dying to know what slappy magoo thinks.
No one in the media is incredulous that some on the left might disagree with some of Obama's decisions. But they ARE counting on it. Because if they can spin the notion that the Democrats and the netroots and the progressives are all falling apart, it might distract everyone else from the notion that the REPUBLICANS and the NEOCONSERVATIVES and the EVANGELICALS are REALLY falling apart!
They don't have a definitive leader outside of "I'm not really the leader but do yourself a favor and worship me" Limbaugh. They don't have a definitive agenda beyond "If Obama's for I'M agin it!" They're publicly sniping at each other. Every week someone from McCain's camp takes a swipe at Palin, or someone from Palin's camp takes a swipe at McCain. Cheney's been asked to go Cheney himself from some of the current party elders, lest he remind people how much they as a party buh-low! The only smart thing I've heard from a Republican lately, surprisingly is George W "I Owe Barack my silence" Bush! And when Dubya is more reasonable than the party elders, than the party is screwed for many a moon!
But who in the media wants to talk about that really? Our bosses don't want to hear about that! Certainly the CEOs of the corporations that advertise on our shows and networks don't want to hear about their locker room butt buddies bickering in public. Ooooh, look! There's a leftie blogger who's mad at Obama! Distraction! Get him! Get him first before he's all used up!
....sit by and say nothing while Obama continues with the same RW policies we've had for the last 28 years? The slogan was *CHANGE You Can Believe In,* not *More Of The Same.*
Login or Register to post comments.