RS McCain, American Spectator, “Heroes Forgotten, Lessons Unlearned”:
There was a time — not really so long ago — when a ringing endorsement from CPUSA would have been the kiss of death for any political movement in America. Twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the anti-communist sentiments of the Cold War seem as obsolete as the F-105 fighter-bomber (finally mothballed by the Air Force in 1984), while a vaguely Marxist mentality inspires headline-making protests from coast to coast. I say “vaguely Marxist” because most of the demonstrators seem incapable of articulating any coherent ideology or agenda beyond a hatred of the rich, hatred of corporations and banks, and hatred of whomever or whatever else they associate with the “1%” against whom they rant and chant: “We are the 99 percent!”
Since these protests began Sept. 17 in New York as Occupy Wall Street, their demonization of the “1%” has been echoed by major national news organizations that strive to ignore the numerous incidents of criminality amid the mob. Even the documented presence of heroin dealers, arsonists, rapists and murderers among the Occupiers is not enough to discredit the movement in the eyes of liberals like Rep. Maxine Waters. “That’s life and it happens, whether it’s with protesters or other efforts that go on in this country,” the California Democrat told CNSNews last week. “So I’m not deterred in my support for them because of these negative kinds of things.” Nor did the Occupy movement lose its liberal friends due to the raving anti-Semitism of protesters who spew hatred toward “Jewish billionaires.” No matter how many criminals and psychotics cluster in the camps of the Occupiers, liberals refuse to repudiate these protests, evidently taking their cue from President Obama’s assertion last month that the movement “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”
Expressions of frustrations didn’t get a sympathetic hearing at the White House when the American people feeling frustrated were Tea Partiers rallying across the country in opposition to the administration’s left-wing agenda. Not even the “shellacking” of last year’s mid-term elections could convince Democrats to abandon their class-warfare ideology. Capitol Hill is still deadlocked because Democrats insist that deficit reduction must mean more taxes for the rich and less money for defense, rather than removing a single cent from the out-of-control entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the nation. The liberal media, of course, would have us blame the budget stalemate on Republican intransigence, but distorted perceptions have become the media’s stock in trade.
The same news organizations that scapegoat conservatives for the failures of the not-so-super “supercommittee” are also busy trying to convince Americans that the Occupiers are a non-violent mainstream movement, no matter how extreme their rhetoric or violent their actions. Sunday’s Washington Post prominently featured an op-ed manifesto by the ideologues who claim credit for inspiring the Occupy movement, and the paper also offered Barbara Ehrenreich’s suggested reading list for the soi-disant “99 percent.” First on that list was A People’s History of the United States by former Communist Party comrade Howard Zinn. When the works of known Marxists are so highly recommended in the prestige press, as their way of showing solidarity with anti-capitalist street mobs, we might suspect many in the media have adopted the radical motto of French revolutionaries: Pas d’ennemis à gauche! “No enemies to the left” also evidently describes the posture of today’s Democratic Party, which has drifted so far leftward that the heirs of Marx and Engels might plausibly sue for copyright infringement.
Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver once warned, and one consequence of the Democrats’ embrace of left-wing ideas is that opposition to socialism has become “controversial,” as if economic freedom were an extremist concept or merely the narrow partisan agenda of Republicans. Simply telling the obvious truth about the Marxist orientation of the Occupy movement — a fact evident enough to the CPUSA — is sufficient to cause liberals to sound alarms about the danger of a return to “McCarthyism.” Liberal outrage, however, seems to depend entirely on who is witch-hunting whom. Advocates of free enterprise are now routinely besieged by the same Occupier mobs whose efforts are enthusiastically admired by the editors of the Washington Post.
[…]
While liberals were wringing their hands about the Occupier encampments being removed from parks in New York and other cities, memory called to my mind a monument in a park down home. That monument bears the name of a handsome Georgia boy voted “Most Talented” in his high school, a brave pilot who died fighting for freedom at age 25. Today children play in the park dedicated to his memory, and no one can doubt Douglas County gave her best in what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the totalitarian menace of communism. Can such a sacrifice ever be forgotten, while our nation’s children are taught to admire draft-dodgers and Marxist agitators?
Next month, protein wisdom will turn a decade old. And for the entirety of that decade I’ve tried to point out that the very structure of our epistemology, forged in language, has been corrupted — and that as a result, the left’s Long March through the institutions was continuing apace with little or no real and effective resistance from the proponents of classically liberal/constitutionally conservative or libertarian ideals: competing rhetoric, when the Left controls the media, is a rather flaccid strategy, particularly when it appears it is the entirety of the strategy.
The way forward has and always will be to defeat and then uproot the leftist assumptions that have insinuated themselves into our very epistemology. This requires, first and foremost, an understanding of how language works, how meaning must be anchored and determined, and a working knowledge of why these things are crucial — because such a meta-cognitive grasp allows for the spirited and intelligent defense of those ideals that protect individual autonomy and trouble the inevitability of the leftist move toward collectivism that they have set in motion by way of first corrupting, then institutionalizing, what are dangerous and incoherent ideas about language, ideas that, once they wend their way through the fabric of our thought as accepted truisms, provide the Left’s ideological trajectory with a sense of inexorability.
Which is why I’ve long described those on the right who fight the left superficially and locally — while allowing them own both the tools and the rules for cultural discourse — as being willing to “lose more slowly.”
It should be evident, from the Occupy Movement and the attempts by the Obama Administration to normalize class warfare rhetoric (and already, we see the “pragmatic Republicans” willing to adopt the terms of the debate and fight from a defensive posture), that students are being taught — and not even necessarily overtly — to internalize the assertions and assumptions of Marxism and socialism.
From the “democraticization” of meaning to the shameful and dangerous superficiality of “multiculturalism,” which is no more than a sham, a romanticized mechanism to insinuate and elevate group identity over individual autonomy, we as a country and a culture have allowed the feel-good emotionalism of the leftist pitch to convince us to adopt and institutionalize ideas that are fundamentally and structurally anathema to the thinking that willed this country into being.
Until we fight back on the structural level — and for years, many on the “right” have suggested to me that such a fight is “fundamentally unserious,” while worrying about horse-race politics and election results that give us more Rs than Ds is the only worthy pursuit of political opinion shapers — we are destined to lose.
And to those of us who have spent our time trying to illuminate the substructures that give leftism its institutional power — allowing 20% of the population to essentially overthrow a representative free-market capitalist republic from within and replace it with a bureaucratic soft socialist state that has embraced the economic model of corporatism and liberal fascism as a way for an entrenched ruling class to rob individuals of liberties and turn them into government clients while simultaneously shoring up their own power and influence — it is disheartening to recognize that so many on “our side,” for the chance of maybe winning another meaningless seat in some Congressional race, will bracket entirely the important structural lessons we need to learn in order to survive as a free people.
We already live in post-Constitutional country. The rule of law is arbitrary and politicized. The government is picking winners and losers. And our freedoms are being taken away daily by unelected bureaucrats and temporary politicians.
Worse still, an entire generation of protesters, having been reared on institutionalized leftism, agitate for that loss of liberty.
There are ways to reverse the momentum. But it isn’t by nominating Mitt Romney or listening to the likes of Karl Rove, I can assure you all of that.
When you’re ready to talk, let me know.
It started a long time ago, when the Enemy took the word “liberal” to describe themselves; it’s why Jeff is forced to use “classically liberal” to describe himself and the like-minded.
The Enemy are not “liberal”. They do not seek freedom or liberty, except for themselves and other members of the ruling cabal. The Enemy’s mewling platitudes about “equality”, “tolerance”, and “justice (social and economic flavors only)” come at the cost of the freedoms of choice, association, and speech of everyone they deem agents of “inequality”, “hatred”, and “/approved-group/phobia”.
The Enemy are not liberal. The Enemy are Statists. The Enemy are Totalitarians. The Enemy seek to rule. Not lead, not govern, not guide. Rule.
Henceforth, for me, those aligning with the Progressives and their statist partners (we all know who they are), are simply … The Enemy.
40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation – James Carville
From October 3, 2005, James Piereson, The Left University: How it was born; how it grew; how to overcome.
Last week on the radio, Glenn Beck related Yet Another Absurdity wherein someone was being censured or punished for saying something that someone else interpreted as racist or whatever.
One of the quotations from the news story was “but that’s how I interpreted it,” and immediately Glenn, Pat, and Stu protested in unison, “It doesn’t matter how you interpreted it!”
So there’s that.
But it isn’t by nominating Mitt Romney or listening to the likes of Karl Rove, I can assure you all of that.
all Romney has to do is pick a jizzy jazzy VP what says all the right things and the holdouts will melt like butter
if history is any guide anyway
The Enemy seek to rule. Not lead, not govern, not guide. Rule.
This doesn’t get emphasized enough. People describe the Left as crazy, misguided, foolish, radical, stupid, uneducated, ill-informed—and surely you can find Leftist sympathizers who meet all these criteria.
But until people understand that everything the Left does and says is designed to put them in complete control of every aspect of life, they’ll not see them as the existential threat they are.
“all Romney has to do is pick a jizzy jazzy VP what says all the right things and the holdouts will melt like butter”
And then when Romney loses anyway, you’ll heap abuse on the Jazzy VP until forever.
If history is any guide.
They’re not agitating for the loss of liberty, they’re agitating for the loss of your liberty.
There as sense in which tyrants give up their own liberty as well. With the commission of their crimes they end up always having to look over their shoulders. Guilty conscience is enslavement of oneself, is the way it goes.
There is a sense — apologies.
Thanks for the link, sdferr. Glanced through the first ‘graph and tagged it for later viewing. I’m liking Instapaper more and more.
LMC, that’s a given. They only want liberty for themselves and their ruling cabal. Until the liberty enjoyed by some other ruler threatens their stuff, then it’s time for a purge or something.
I think part of the problem is in how proggs define “liberty”. To the rank and file lib, liberty means freedom from want and need, and only government can give us such liberty.
only government can give us such liberty…
…by taking stuff away from someone else.
[…] have been permitted to “own both the tools and the rules for cultural discourse,” as Jeff Goldstein explains:It should be evident, from the Occupy Movement and the attempts by the Obama Administration to […]
[…] Goldstein has been doing so for nearly a decade [tip of the fedora to Stacy McCain]: Next month, protein wisdom will turn a […]
The left political destruction of the Constitution of the United States has to be credited as the most monumental political folly in the history of the Western world. What greater absurdity in political action can we call up to oppose that crowning? Tell me.
former leftist explains the path to victory
Link
this is what democracy looks like
Link
So, this Radosh fella thinks the primaries are a waste of time and we should just let him pick our candidate huh?
New Hampshire hardest hit…
“anyone but Mitt” works better if you have a credible candidate what is not named Mitt
Ron Radosh is a very cool guy and has solid cred as an old lefty who left the fold and paid the price. I voted for Mitt in the primary last time around. He’s leaving me cold this time, which is weird for a guy with a nickname like Mittens.
I’m pretty sure I’m gonna sit out the primary cause I’ll vote for whoever they pick I just need to vote against this piece of shit in the white house
all the Rs are pretty second-rate this time around
newt-rick-herman-rick-michele-ron
True, happy. That said, the prez is the most second rate prez we’ve had since Kennedy and I barely remember him since I was just a little tot when he was killed.
yes I have to vote against him it is my purpose it is my destiny
which one is ron?
I keep thinking it’ll come to me
oh u mean Radosh? I get it kinda
ok no
Ron Paul. The one they let out of his attic room for the debate entertainment.
oh… right…
I forgot about him … one of my bffs from Texas is now solidly in camp Paul and for a rationale when I asked they just said “he’s the only one that’s saying the right things”
There is no reasoning with the Paulites. They’re all “because he’s right! And, shut up!”
yes we didn’t argue at all
but you know if Ron Paul decides to run as a 3rd party candidate this game is over before it starts I think
Nah. Guy’s too young for one to realistically hope the stress of the job will kill him.
that’s a good point but we might could get to test the proposition next year
either that or we’ll all be jumping on the Gingrich train to victory
I can totally see that happening
Romney looks all nervous and sweaty on the teevee. He has circles under his eyes, too. It’s possible that he might break down and lose it if one of the others manages to seoop past him to the nomination.
If Crazy Uncle Ron decides to go third party, someone will need to give him a stern talking to.
“Gingrich train to victory”
i stay away from baracky train things. instead let’s get on the mittens dog carrier w/roof top view.
*swoop* that is
he’s a weird guy with some way bad daddy issues I think
” voted for Mitt in the primary last time around. He’s leaving me cold this time”
What’s different this time?
Obamacare.
happyfeet, California people don’t usually get to participate in the primary anyway. It’s a done deal by the time we get to vote.
Personally, I don’t want another president working out his daddy issues in office. We’ve had three in a row now. I think that is quite enough.
that’s true now that I think about it I never did a presidential primary here before
Also on the Romney Veep pick. It may seem counterintuitive, but he won’t be picking a “movement” conservative. He’ll pick an establishment guy with “acceptable” conservative credentials.
he has to get a minority or a woman for sure cause he’s The Whitest Man In America
Hypothetically speaking, of course. If Romney were such a done deal, they wouldn’t be trying to sell him so hard, would they?
the reason he seems like such a done deal is cause the other contestants are clutching lovely parting gifts
“he’s The Whitest Man In America”
yes we need cornel west as chief spear chucker and then al&jesse. ’cause they be ‘hood
I think we need a much better Congress and Boehnerdick needs to understand that he’s had his day and it was a less than stellar one
fuck the presidency for the nonce – Obama’s amply demonstrated that in these latter days of America it’s but the province of cunts and codswollops
we need to focus on building a consensus about the spendings and the size of government I think
and let Mitt Fucking Daddy Issues Romney pretend to relevance if he likes
Maybe Romney will pick Ron Paul.
The Revolution will be
televiseddramatized in gay porn.they can’t keep us from pitching a tent in our pants!
the stirring cry of los occupados will rally this nation yet I think
i like the batons twerillers
Link
hit ’em again harder,harder
“If Romney were such a done deal, they wouldn’t be trying to sell him so hard, would they?”
Ann Coulter says they are terrified to run against Romney. Me, I say they are terrified to run against anyone else. They’re taking it easy on Romney now, but if he gets the nomination, they will destroy him. And with real shit too, not vague dinner offers or painted over rocks.
Romney is McCain 2012, with the same chance of being elected.
“The president of the University of California system said he was ‘appalled’ at images of protesters being doused with pepper spray and plans an assessment of law enforcement procedures on all 10 campuses”
I hope when they get around to storming the Deans office and piling up furniture for the bonfire, the cops tell them to call someone else.
so what’s up with coulter?
Ward Connerly would never stand for these kinds of shenanigans.
so what’s up with coulter?
Other than being an alcoholic and a fag-hag…nothing.
on fox news:
2 white chicks talking to a black guy about the the white baby-trans america. ailes go for the tranny vote.
Someone else thinks Romney is un-electable.
What’s up with Coulter is that she honestly believes that the number one issue facing the nation is getting the economy humming again, and that the best way to do that is to elect a blue-state Republican with cross-over appeal; one whom, she assures us, is personally more conservative than his blue-state electorate, and will govern accordingly when he has a more conservative legislative body like Congress to work with.
Well said, Ernst. What’s up with Coulter, indeed? She, evidence to the contrary, believes Romney’s mythological tale of his being a job creator due to his tenure at Bain Captial. That he righted the ship of the Good State Massachusetts, with fresh taxes and healthcare for all. We know this worked because he was reelected in a landslide, and then went on to win the nomination of the Republican Party in 2008, only to miss winning the Presidency bythatmuch. Wait? What?
Yes, Ann. Wake up.
I happen to like Ann so I’m willing to chalk this up to a difference in opinion about the best way to move forward—for the time being. The argument that, for the future good of the country, Barak Obama’s reelection must be thwarted at all costs, including acceding control of the Republican party to the establishmentarians for the next four to eight years, is a defensible one. I find it defensive and reactionary, myself, but I don’t think that means it’s neccessarily made in bad faith.
I like her, too.
Still, beware the Bill Maher’s dick touchers.
I find it a risable argument, although I will agree that those who make it make it in good faith. Naive faith, perhaps, but I don’t think they mean harm by it. That said, I don’t see a President Folding Chair as an improvement over Barack Obama who will surely be even more of a disaster if reelected.
I used to like Ann, also, but she has become a charicature of herself in the past few years.
Ann makes good bathroom books, which is really the #1 most important thing in her job description, probably.
Right? Who writes a book defending Joe McCarthy other than to be a provacatuer? Then, Michelle Malkin wrote a book defending internment camps. I guess when Pam Geller writes a book defending the Nazis then we’ll really, truly know we are living in Bizarro world.
If by “defending” it is meant cutting through the fog of new historicism to dispel the lies that have been peddled for truth[yness] in all our media and schools for these many years, then the “Geller” book has already been written, and the discussions of it here are found under the Category: “Provocateurism,” and yes it is provocative to and of the left.
I knew I spelled “provacateur” wrong. Yes, we were talking about this the other night in regard to David Horowitz/Glenn Beck, and of course, our host, stripping the veneer off “truthiness” and in the process, upsetting a lot of apple carts.
*provocateur* Sheesh.
Looking at our current president, I’m thinking McCarthy needs support, not defending.
,
notmuch less defending…Who indeed?
As for Malkin, ask yourself this, what would have happened if 9/11 had been followed up by a Beslan type incident, or even, why is it there’s an outbreak of sudden lone jihadi syndrome, the government seeks to reassure us that the lone gunman isn’t a jihadi—and when that become untenable, that the jihadi did indeed act alone?
why is it when there’s an outbreak…