Never mind the the Blithering Ba Bas of the election “cycle.” This is a media-made term I used to loathe, but now find particularly apt, because one hears the same bullshit every two years. Insanity is cyclical if one believes that its definition is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. It’s the Nattering Nabobs of Progressivism who’ve shown their true colors this summer.
Here are two examples of articles aimed at jeering Occupy activists back to the Democrat party. These and countless articles like them also serve to justify hypocritical liberal support of a political party that voices its concern for the 99% and does nothing.
Occupy Should Ask Bill Maher, “Where’s Our Fucking Money?”
“Now that summer is upon us, it’s time for the Occupy Wall Street movement to think of a more effective form of protest than camping. To be considered a real movement, it has to start moving asses off the streets and into the voting booth. Occupy’s motto is, ‘The only solution is world revolution.’ Okay (smirk). But what about setting our sites a little lower? Like taking back Wisconsin?” –Bill Maher, Real Time, June 8, 2012
Come on, Bill. The voting booth? Really?
Mr. Maher recognizes “that America’s wealth is increasingly in the hands of a tiny kleptocratic priesthood of finance cowboys and the politicians they buy, protected by a free fire zone of rules they wrote themselves, feeding on the republic within like a transcontinental tapeworm the size of Route 66.”
Yet he seems to want us to give them another chance. What makes him think that anyone with any integrity or true understanding of plutocracy would spend an iota of their energy supporting politicians (I mean Democrats here) who are already bought and paid for?
I think it was Ghandi who said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” So we’re at the ridicule stage now, eh? I think I see some progress.
I agree that the Guitarmy was a little far fetched, too woo-woo for my taste and I’ll be writing about Occupy’s predilection for the spiritual in another article, however, a peaceful demonstration to spread word of a new way of thinking is far more effective than droning “democracy” into those we feel don’t understand it.
I didn’t attend any of the Guitarmy events, but I hope they dedicated a few choruses of Tom Dooley to Mr. Maher. I prefer to think that a more apt anthem for Occupy should be Buffy St. Marie’s Universal Soldier. I favor the version sung by Donovan:
Mr. Maher understands the lyrics to Universal Soldier. He often rants about those too ignorant to think beyond their own religion or national origin. That is why it is sad that he didn’t consider the real impact of donating a million bucks to Occupy rather than Barack Obama. He didn’t have the courage to stand up for what seem to be his real convictions. But Nattering Nabobs don’t have real convictions, not really. Like Obama, they’ll yammer inspirationally enough to lull you into shutting up and going back to work and coming home to HBO.
I found the next article that snipes at Occupy at the LA Progressive, a graveyard of desperate liberalism from which zombie Democrats arise to claim they’re still alive despite the kool-aid. It’s clear that their brains are soup because they seem to recall that they had the courage to oppose a war and that was good. You can mention LBJ and they will tear at themselves like hungry rats, but mention Obama’s drone war and they become as docile as Bub.
To be fair the next article was first published in BeyondChron another site devoted to Demoplutocracy.
Shut The Fuck Up and Join the Democrat Party
On September 11, Randy Shaw published “Should Progressives Stop Criticizing Obama?” In it he advances a theory that he attributes to an article by Tom Hayden that Obama’s achievements “are dismissed or denied by many on the white liberal-left,” reflects a troubling reality: unlike their forebears from the 1930’s through the 1960’s, many white progressives ignore the priorities of working class communities of color yet still claim to speak for a progressive “movement.”
Shaw hedges: “I do not believe Hayden is urging progressives to remain forever silent as the President betrays the progressive movement.”
Then Shaw makes his point:
In the 1930’s through the 1960’s, progressives routinely backed Democratic Presidents and nominees who had strong labor and minority support. Progressives enthusiastically backed FDR in each of his races despite questioning many of his actions, and similarly backed a very moderate John Kennedy in his race against Richard Nixon.
Then he comes to a conclusion shared by many media liberals: “For progressives, that common goal must be re-electing President Obama, which means stopping criticism of the President until after he is re-elected.”
I’m not going to address Mr. Shaw’s race-baiting or his patronistic style this time around. I don’t consider myself a progressive because I don’t even know what that means. I simply want to ask, When the fuck are you supposed to criticize the president? After he’s elected when, as a lame duck, he can do whatever he wants to do?
Indeed Shaw’s plea derives from the capitulation of so-called progressive since the 1930s. They supported FDR in the 30s despite the fact that he turned a blind eye to Jim Crow in the South to garner votes from Southern Democrats. For the same reason, they supported Bill Clinton as he dismantled welfare. They are repeating the disaster now (think welfare, think security, think militarization, think wasted trillions, think bailouts with no criminal prosecutions, etc.), for the same reason, to garner the votes of Southern Democrats.
Perhaps it’s time to take our lead from progressives who did not capitulate in the 1930s.
The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor.–Eugene V. Debs
I do not claim to speak for a movement but I will support any movement that seeks to break the shackles of plutocracy. Hell, I’ll support a movement that simply seeks to abolish the Electoral College, but even that is too radical for ex-radicals.