Jeff has dealt with the “economic sabotage” attacks of Democrat mouthpieces like Steve Benen or Paul Krugman earlier. Today we find a novel codification (pdf) of that particular Democrat ‘strategic’ sally, with an hyperbolic advance in its argument, declaimed in the headline “Beyond ‘Sabotage’ — The central issue about the growing political extremism of the Republican Party is that it’s undermining fundamental American standards of ethical political conduct and behavior. It’s time for Americans to say ‘That’s enough’. ”
*IT’S WAR! the Republicans shout,* these Democrat strategists shout. (Ah well, “strategy” does originate in the Greek for “generalship” in warfighting, so it’ll be tough to escape in any event.)
Indeed, Messers Kilgore, Vega and Green, that’s quite enough.
Enough — basta! I say — from you fellows as well, if not for our sakes as peaceful political intentionalists, but for your own sakes as hopeful proponents of your professed ideological stance! After all, even supposing you were capable of “defeating” your political opposition by means of this strategic attack on these pitiable strawmen — carrying the voters with you only that far — you’ll then find you are in need of a positive program upon which to build the interests of the nation you propose to lead. Stirring up anti-“politics-as-warfare”-fighters alone won’t get you there, will it? Or do I unfairly suspect you of seeking diversion from your current electoral misery? That’s not undermining to be sure, but covering the body with scavenged brush for concealment, hoping no-one will notice the battered corpse.
What, in other words, do you propose to do about the opposition of the American people to your plans to nationalize all health care? What to do about the opposition of the American people to your plans to impose a cap and trade system designed to tax energy consumption, and with it, diminish the health of the American economy? What to do about the frightful waste of taxpayers’ dollars in Keyensian recovery schemes that don’t promote recovery? And on what fundamental grounds will you make your new proposals?
Speak to us instead, I beseech you, of the ‘fundamental’ America standards of ethical political conduct, drawing your ties to those fundamental America politico-theoretical ideas, ideas embodied in documents such as the Declaration of Independence, Madison’s Notes in Constitutional Convention, the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and the Constitution. Speak to us of these fundamental standards in the works of the political philosophers who informed the founders of our nation, say, such men as Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes, et al.
Or else, explain to us how it is that yet other political philosophers’ thoughts, say the ideas of Hegel, Marx, Marcuse and Fanon — just to pick a handful from the blue blue sky — are fundamentally American, and hence tell us where you want to go and why we should follow. Or choose other sources as you see fit, but do get down to the brassest of brass tacks, and say: What is this fundament of politics you cite? Say too, why you have the better understanding of that fundament of politics — once having identified it — than do your opponents. Tell us plainly your aims, your objects, your ends.
Persuade us openly, hiding nothing. At least, for a change, make the attempt.
Since it is extremely doubtful that anyone on the “D” side of the isle and only half, at the most, on the “R” side of the isle have even read the aforementioned documents let alone any of the literature, I say, good luck with that.
I think you can draw a straight line between the propagation of the “economic sabotage” meme and the debate about the tax increases Team R wants to deny bumblefuck.
For the life of me though I can’t understand why Team bumblefuck wants people thinking in terms of “economic sabotage.” That can’t possibly be helpful for him in the long term.
Think Stalin era,”wreckers”, feets. This jug eared twat would have us all in gulags.
Good luck with that, sdferr. I don’t think the grand thinkers you call out have any inclination for trying to persuade the other side, nor even to persuade the great middle. As observed time and time again, their writing serves primarily as a means of working up their base, while simultaneously assuaging any guilt that might try to pop up in their subconscious as what remains of their moral foundation tries to assert itself.
It’s okay for Obama to rile up His various identity groups by vilifying middle America as the Enemy. It’s okay for Him to encourage His troops to “hit back twice as hard” against those who don’t adhere to the creed. Why is it okay? Because we’re saboteurs who’d bring America low before admitting that He is right.
It’s never been about persuasion; it’s always been about dispensation.
but the blue dirty socialist states are doing demonstrably worse than capitalist red states… once the Illinois and California dominoes start falling we’ll start to get a good picture of who it is what’s been perpetrating “economic sabotage” I think
government employee unions are numbers one through nine on the list
The pdf strikes me as a tactic that the left uses when ever they are doing something or about to do something that if publicly exposed would damage their cause. They get out in front and accuse their hated opponents of precisely what they have been and/or will do so as to when they are found out they can say either “everybody does it” or “they did it first”.
It’s classical projection geoffb,
They always accuse others of having the level of bad intentions that they possess…
So whaddaya sayin’ sdferr?
Are you tellin’ the progressives to MAN UP!, and admit to the motivations for their ends? ‘Cuz most of them don’t know from no Marx and Hegel, more like Stalin and Lenin.
Because the only ends they really seek are absolute power; and surprise! it’s corrupted them absoltuely in advance…
I mean, are you looking for them to admit to being totalitarian communists? That’d be too much like callin’ a spade, a spade.
I know, I know, I denounce myself for using a code word…
Just wandered (by means of back-clicking from the pdf) into the democratic strategist website, where there’s an ordinary link to the same article. But it comes with comments!
Like this one, demonstrating just how persuasive these authors are, for instance:
Or this one:
That’s the ticket! Way to stand up for boundaries of discourse built on civility, fellas.
sdferr,
Those children (that’s what they are, even if they’re 30-something) talk of “war” and “quit playing nice”, but they forget we’re the ones with the guns.
Punching someone in the nose who’s already had his nose broken twice (not that I’m thinking of anyone in particular, mind you) (heh), may not have the effect this person intends.
(heh)
– That’s two heh’s, one for each nose.
Extremism? It’s extremism to say “whoa, you are going too far”?
What exactly are these American standards of ethical political conduct he speaks of?
If partisanship is desirable, why do we have more than one party?
Didn’t Americans already say “‘That’s enough'” November 2nd?
I’m just asking questions…
Bob,
I believe that the ones in the comments that sdferr posted are projecting. However I think that the men who wrote this article are setting up a way to defend the Party because all their various machinations are being exposed to the light of day and they desperately need to be able to say, as little kids do, “he did it too”.
This article is not to convince us but is for their supporters to point to down the road as being “proof” of the bad intentions of the right and the reason they had to fight fire with fire.
They try to draw a parallel with events, ones they were successful in spinning, from 60 years ago.
This is an interesting point to use as the Verona papers have shown that McCarthy was correct in what he suspected. In the 1930s the USSR set up many “front” groups to penetrate the West. These groups would appear to be fairly normal organizations found in democratic political systems but would be controlled by Soviet agents who set the agendas of the groups and used them for recruitment.
Now this same system of masked organizations is being used by the far left here again and has just had a major exposure done by Kurtz. In part this piece is being put out to help deflect or even stop the further exposure that Congressional hearings would bring. They are saying that anyone attempting to hold hearings will be smeared as the new McCarthy.
Oops, Fed up the blockquote…
“The central issue about the growing political extremism of the Republican Party is that it’s undermining fundamental American standards of ethical political conduct and behavior. “
Speaking of Stanley, here’s a link to his address to the Restoration Weekend thinger. Kurtz lays out most of the arguments he made in Radical-in-Chief there.
link
Thanks for that link, sdferr. Found on that page, here‘s a link to video of Kurtz’s speech and Q and A session. Going to listen to it later tonight, myself.
More from newrouter’s link.
UNO over time morphed into another organization, one that like UNO is run by Greg Galluzzo. One that I had come into personal contact with years ago and had to do quite a bit of research to figure out just what was actually behind a small local group whose recruitment spiel so resembled ones I’d heard in the late 60’s from SDS. Gamaliel
The left needs an explanation for middle America’s refudiation of Obamist socialism. This was the best they could do on ‘short’ notice (like they never saw the mideterms coming.) The authors sure like to pretend that the 68 convention never happened.
Overall it reads like it was torn from a very old, very tired playbook.
I’m supposed to be working but I made the mistake of starting to watch that Kurtz speech. If you don’t have his book, you have to watch it.
One point that really struck me was the the term “non-reformist reform“. To me, it very nicely captures in one single idea what it is they’re doing. Take healthcare, for instance, none of really matters outside of some little non-reformist reform here or there that would destroy the insurance companies.
Related, during the Q and A, he is asked about what is coming next. This eventually leads to a mention of proxy access in the fin reg bill. He says it was inserted by maneuvering by Heather Booth, founder of the Midwest Academy and now also on the executive committee of Americans for Financial Reform.
Did a quick google search “proxy access Heather Booth” and came across this bit in the WSJ. Guess what? There’s old socialist and community organizer Heather Booth talking it up without any mention of who she is or her past affiliations to Obama.
I don’t understand why the failshit federal government of the United States of Fail thinks it should be responsible for saying what can be in lunch at school. Aren’t these the same losers what don’t even have a budget figured out for next year?
After the second break
Ithe hypothetical Rushpubliscum decided if it’s just going to keep getting broken, might as well not bother fixing it.The person who broke it the second time discovered that once someone’s already felt that pain, it doesn’t take the fight out of the sufferer anymore.
The central issue about the growing political extremism of the Republican Party is that it’s undermining fundamental American standards of ethical political conduct and behavior [!?!]
Daisy anyone?
Down in the Reading Room at the Midwest Academy, under “Holding a Meeting with an Elected Official: The Accountability Session” (pdf) we find:
Power is the deal. rtwt. It jibes nicely with Stanley’s descriptions of the tactics of UNO.
My work was just cut in half through the magic of someone being honest about their fuck-up! I might send that guy a bottle of Scotch and a picture of my junk.
What’s interesting about your find, sdferr, is that it’s not hidden. Just one of a few easily available links on their webpage.
Now just imagine if there were more than a couple dozen investigative reporters still walking the land.
Actually, maybe we should do some of this grunt work. Could probably find 2/3rds of it online, assign an ad hoc project manager, get people to run down random offline angles (Roddy could probably school us on some shit here), and then hand the organized info off to Jeff to write up into some hot copy.
Spit-balling.
Did a search on Organizing Manual “Organizing for Social Change” and along with the course offered at Midwest Academy is this one from the University of Maryland [pdf] with the required readings
Just looked down their Resources for Organizing list geoffb, finding many of the usual suspects, and a few mild surprises like Kevin Philips.
Get your own copy.
“Heathers”
People who’ve read up on this stuff, question: What should be looked into further? Either by way of immediate importance or bang for the buck.
The website of the Rev. Wright’s church used to be fairly open too, proudly sharing its documents and opinions, at least for a few months after Obama announced his candidacy. Then, al’asudden, voluble “what we believe” sorts of stuff that used to be there turned up missing, I remember. I’d bet (without checking) that much of it has returned quietly, now that the intense interest has drifted away. Where is the good ol’ Rev these days anyhow? Golfing away his retirement years, no doubt.
What’s the address, sdferr? Have you tried plugging it into the Wayback Machine?
Just guessing, but Kurtz seemed to find some of his best clues in in-group periodicals that none but the committed bother to read, things like In These Times for instance. Haven’t looked yet but I’d bet a bunch of that sort of thing is made available online, and the Resource list above covers that ground pretty thoroughly.
tucc
Flash intro page now. So I looked at the index page but it doesn’t show up. Even now though, they’re go to the index page off the flash intro so I don’t understand the problem.
Up until April 2003 you can see the old site from the archived tucc.org.
I plugged it in, got a page full of archived links, tried a few of them at random (circa 2006 & 7), all with the same result, a blank maroon page of empty mystery.
Just now gave National Organizers Alliance website a go, from the Midwest Academy list, at http://www.noacentral.org, clicked through to their downloadable house organ, ARK magazine, issue 27, which I’m about to peruse.
I rarely see such a cavalcade of stupid.
No one feels like playing with you at the moment, cynn. Maybe see if anything is one TV.
is on TV
Hey, Geoff, what do you think makes sense to look into?
Gamaliel has completely reorganized their website. Giving it a cool color look rather than the hot one they had.
Here is the archive of their international newsletter and the 2 web pages devoted to “Training Obama.”
….cavalcade of stupid.
– By which I assume you mean “any serious attempt to smoke out the seditionists, their anti-American agenda, and their sack full of propaganda and lie campaigns”.
– Might as well face it. Like all liars, eventually the Left is going to have to atone for it’s many cynns.
bh,
When in doubt, take Cynn’s advice and invert.
No, I meant a procession of goofballs.
– I doubt many of the “goofballs” give a rats ass about the ideological garbage they peddle.
– I’d guess the majority of them are small time opportunists that saw a chance to cash in on the Progressives movements moment in the sun.
– Certainly that’s the case with the chocolate Jesus. If it isn’t written out for him to Parrot off a teleprompter or a piece of paper he’s lost.
– He’s the punch line to the joke “What do you get when you let a community organizer try to run America”.
Goofballs aren’t necessarily stupid. Some of them make damn good money being goofballs. Others make damn good money pretending not to be goofballs.
So if cynn meant a procession of goofballs when she said “cavalcade of stupid,” we
mustmight, in the extremely unlikely event we really give a damn, ask: Did she miscommunicate her intent in the first comment, or is she lying in the second?It’s very hard to tell with cynn, McG.
I’m sorta just hoping to hear more of the nose breakin’ story, to tell the truth.
And, I’ve found nothing of interest in the random things I was looking through for our little side project.
Yet.
– I give a damn to this extent McG.
– All the people like cynn that took the bait are having to deal with a whole pile of life’s realities in one big gulp at once, which must be a hell of a mind jarring experience.
– Maybe, just maybe, some will overcome their wounded ego’s and start thinking for themselves, and that’s always a good thing.
– In the mean time, the Grinch would feel right at home in Bummblefucks Utopia.
I’m mostly of the mind that doing this kind of dot connecting on Obama makes people look a little paranoid and kooky – even though it very much appears to be true. We still have to defeat him both rhetorically and, ultimately, literally, in order to stop him in his efforts. Sure, the left’s seedy underbelly needs to be exposed and destroyed if possible, but I wouldn’t invest too much – except as an intellectual exercise – into thinking of this as a way to bring down Obama or even to reveal him for what he is to the people we benignly call swing voters when the proper term for them is apolitical chuckleheads.
– It won’t be exposure that kill’s the beast, it will be something far simpler and immediate, and unerring that will do the job.
– The Lefts whole most excellent Socialist adventure was gotten on the backs of the hard core true believers, plus a lot of opportunists, such as young adults that were in it for the free shit.
– As all the houses go back and the money drys up, most of the movements fickle constituents will just walk away.
– Opportunists just about never put their asses on the line for anything, especially when they sense the day’s of wine and roses and free lunches are over.
Demotivating apolitical people from Obama-love is for the most part a thing best left up to Obama himself, it appears to me: he’s doing a pretty good job of it thus far. With his head back and chin jut out, all he has to do is look down his nose to throw away another hundred thousand votes a day. He really is his own man that way.
– The Lefts whole most excellent Socialist adventure was gotten on the backs of the hard core true believers, plus a lot of opportunists, such as young adults that were in it for the free shit.
Not just young opportunists but also a lot of young Dimwitted Bolivarians and Mickey Maoists at urban comedy colleges who have the benefit of radical professors who enable their fail to make perfect sense. The fringe left isn’t teeming with intellectuals like it was in, say, the 1930’s, but instead is loaded with very impressionable and earnest, but genuinely stupid people.
I hear what you’re saying, Abe. There’s a balance.
Not really inclined towards these things myself. Yet, when it’s laid out well enough, you just have to follow that trail.
Ever hear the story about how the U of C needed to become more sensitive to the community and hire some people of color because kids were getting robbed on the way to the train and the U of C security started oppressing neighborhood folks?
Turns out I’ve seen a bit of this first hand for around 20 years now, just didn’t know it.
That’s interesting, bh. It’s weird how we’ve long noticed these things happening – I think of Thomas Wolfe’s Mau-mauing The Flak Catchers as my first vivid encounter with it in college – but it never really registered as to what was behind all of this. I’m ashamed to admit that I didn’t even know who Saul Alinsky was until a few years ago.
If you think of Obama’s lack of qualifications to become President, bring that back a couple decades and wonder how he began lecturing at the U of C.
My lowest level math class was taught by damn genius finishing dual doctorates. And no one cared about that class. The law school? The fucking law school?
I remember Maroon articles about reaching out to the community. I don’t remember anything about under-qualified morons becoming magically qualified to lecture grad students.
– I don’t think them stupid as much as raised to be reality adverse, which is supported by all their upside down thinking, but even moreso by the constant harping of the hard core left leaders on being the “reality based community”. They understand a large part of their following well.
– What they won’t be able to avoid, or fix, is when the inevitable failures and disappointments occur, the fickle will turn on a dime. With unemployment running at a probable true level of 16-18%, the college gaggle is irrelevant, and there’s no lie that will work, and there’s no rock big enough to hide that under.
That has always bugged me about him. The simplest body-language person (hell, even the average citizen) could tell you that shows the contempt he holds for his audience, or at least the loftiness he feels is his position. I hope more people realize what it means when he does that, instead of pretending he’s someone he isn’t.
BTW, someone here linked to a facebook interview with Bush 43, and that interview reminded me why I liked him. I did not like his excessive domestic spending, but the man believed in what he did. People who talk about him being a bad speaker need to listen to his delivery in that interview. He was solid.
Always leave ’em wanting more.