The "professional left": a bunch of "firebaggers"

[cali]

What's the purpose of that designation? It's intended to denigrate and marginalize people who criticize the establishment/administration from the left. It's purpose is to ridicule. It suggests that people on the left are mindless fantasy bots who buy their ideas wholesale and don't deserve a seat at the table.

According to this "thinking", those to the left of the administration are nothing more than the left wing equivalent of the tea party: They're "firebaggers".

Like other such misbegotten concepts, a tiny germ of truth can be found: There are a handful of folks on the left who oppose everything that this administration does or says but they're not representative of the vast majority of people who criticize the administration from the left.

[CakeGrrl]

1. One more time: "Professional = PAID"

as some of you like to imply about other posters on DU.

They were talking about PAID MEDIA PUNDITS AND BLOG AUTHORS, not Joe Average poster on DU.

Unless you have a paid public forum to discuss your politics, they weren't referring to you.

"Firebaggers?" As far as I can tell, those are posters. The conflation of the terms is clear, and people should not be ignorant of the distinction.

[cali]

2. that's irrelevant to the points in the op though

those terms are used interchangeably by those trying to marginalize people on the left.

[CakeGrrl]

21. I disagree. "PL" is a much smaller, specific demo

of public figures - though some of them may be "Firebaggers".

I saw a thread proclaiming one's pride in identifying oneself as a "Firebagger", rec'ed by a number of others. How is it marginalization if people here are embracing the label?

[cali]

48. really? you can't figure that out on your own? that's sad.

let me give you a clue. I'll put it simply just for you.

Your question:

How is it marginalization if people here are embracing the label?

The answer:

In the same way that any group being marginalized (or under the attempt of marginalization) tries to turn around such an attempt by adopting the term in an attempt to neutralize the power of the term. This is simple stuff, CGirl.

[backscatter712]

3. The usual attempts to turn the Democratic party into the Neoliberal party.

Same right-wing authoritarianism, along with the same licking of Wall Street boots, but less bible-thumping. Doesn't that make you want to sign right up?

[MrSlayer]

4. Yeah but the teabaggers are beloved and respected in the Republican Party.

They get shit they want passed. The leadership is scared to death of them. They never get mocked and ridiculed, their ludicrous ideas are taken seriously.

We, on the other hand, who would be mainstream Democrats as few as twenty years ago are treated like extremist lunatics. We're despised by the corporate leadership and are being shut out of the party completely. There's no place in this party for an FDR or a Henry Wallace or even a fucking Richard Nixon.

Yeah, it's that bad.

[Skidmore]

5. Oh, lordy.

[antigop]

53. "we are despised by the corporate leadership"...and we are called "haters" or "bashers" for posting

the truth.

[on point]

6. Anytime someone attacks a critic w / ad hominems u know the criticism is valid!

[Skidmore]

7. I always understood "firebaggers" to refer

to the denizens of Firedoglake, a group of people of questionable political credentials, in my opinion. Not a fan.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Firebagger was tossed those of us who were pushing for a public option

when Obamacare was unfolded

[jazzimov]

68. Nope! Wrong. It happened when Jane Hamsher

argued against the generic drug definitions that were proposed. Even though the proposed definitions and requirements were better than what she was advocating.

It had NOTHING to do with the Public Option.

[arely staircase]

74. was that about the time she allied herself with whats-his-face?

drown the baby in the bathtub Norquist?

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Yup. There's an alliance between the hard right teabaggers and the denizens of Firedoglake...

...hence the term firebaggers.

They both share the same goal: bring down the Obama Administration.

[Fumesucker]

56. Nope, Firebagger was self referential, the term was coined by an FDLer

Here's the first ever use of the term on Dec 24, 2009.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/24/treasury-okays-unlimited-slush-fund-for-fannie-freddie/#comment-2043408

[jazzimov]

69. Wrong! The term was common here on DU long before that

and if you read the statement, it says "call me PUMA. Call me Firebagger". PUMA was a term that had already been coined by a pro-Hillary group. Firebagger was a detrimental term coined by DUers. Why would the poster even use this term right after the term "PUMA"?
Your link only proves your fallible memory.

[Fumesucker]

70. At least I provided a link

[noiretextatique]

85. that's paranoid idiocy

to the nth degree. unless you agree that mainstream democrats and republicons are also in cahoots to maintain the status quo.

[LWolf]

19. Have you noticed

that people who may not be the "denizens" of fdl, who may not ever have even visited their site, get called "firebaggers" when they take a position that some don't like?

I find it problematic to be a "fan" of any political group or political personality. When a poliltician or group says or does something I agree with, I agree. When they say or do something I don't like, I oppose. Agreeing with fdl or HRC or Barack Obama on some things doesn't make me a "fan" or a "firebagger." Disagreeing with any of them on others doesn't mean I'm a "hater." Being an outspoken leftist doesn't make me "professional."

Personally, I find those kinds of attacks to be no better than the average freeper that DUers love to hate. When some less aware republicans tell me that they love and trust Beck, because he tells the truth and has their back so that they don't have to inform themselves, or when they tell me that Obama is a socialist, that gays want us to be able to marry animals, or that Obama is coming after all of our guns, or that they hate the liberal media, etc., etc., I am deeply embarrassed for them. When some DUers mirror them, I am thoroughly humiliated and glad that I have a nice anonymous user name.

I think DU has always had the same internal conflict between partisan party politics and left/liberal politics. There's going to be conflict when DU labels itself "left-wing" (before DU3) or "liberal" (now) and mandates support of Democrats. The Democratic Party is clearly not left-wing, and is not very liberal, either. So DU has 3 distinct groups: the partisans that will always put party before issues, that will vociferously defend all criticism; the leftists who are not at all partisan and don't allow partisan concerns to moderate their positions; and the liberal/left partisans that will, softly or loudly, criticize until campaign season, at which point they shut up and get in line.

The partisans in the first group are those likely to hate fdl, and to call anyone who expresses agreement with something found on fdl to be "firebaggers." They are haters of all dissent, and dissent has to be put down, no holds barred, no intellectual integrity required.

None of that has to do with you, though; you just pointed out what a term refers to, leading me to spend some time thinking and typing a long-standing frustration of mine.

[cascadiance]

27. Yep... It would have been like saying that only "firebaggers" objected to Bill Clinton's cheating..

... because they were somehow "aligned" with those on the right that were attacking and impeaching Clinton for doing so.

I can feel that what Bill Clinton did as a husband and a father in having those "adventures" being wrong and at the same time feel overall he was still a decent president, and not deserving of the crap that the right was using this issue to try and go after him and bring him down. This issue was between him and Hillary and Chelsea to work out. It certainly isn't something, when public, that I would like to vote for in a candidate, but when I looked at his presidency with that in context, what he did was certainly far better than what we would have had with Bush or Dole in power instead.

There were also some legislative things that Clinton did that I also didn't like either (like signing NAFTA and the Telecomm bill in to law), and would critique him for the reasons that maybe Ross Perot would on the former issue, not the way Republicans would have attacked him on issues like that for partisan reasons.

I know that for some in the Republican Party, they are attacking Obama on things like what the NSA is doing on a partisan basis (and probably would support Bush in the same situations earlier). But just because their critique coincides with mine that what NSA is doing is WRONG, does not make me an Obama "hater" that maybe a motivation for them. Nor does my taking a similar view that Lou Dobbs did over Hillary Clinton's problematic stance on H-1B Visas make me a "Hillary hater" or perhaps take the same partisan stances that Dobbs takes on many other issues as well.

I'm sure I probably would strongly disagree with Snowden's other more libertarian views on other issues, but I feel he is right on on the need to make sure that our domestic spying doesn't throw out the 4th amendment of our constitution and all of our civil liberties, etc. with it.

Those of us Democrats that try to sweep up everyone they disagree with because they take a more partisan view of winning elections for democrats and not on issues, in my book aren't much better than many Republicans that put party before country as well during the Bush years. We can do better than that. We NEED to do better than that!

[LWolf]

33. Agreed.

We need to do better than that.

[DonCoquixote]

34. mostly agree, but

There is another faction, those that pretend to be those you mentioned, but have their own agenda. Libertarians tend to fit this, where they will go ahead and criticize on war policy, but, as Glenn Greenwald did, defend something like Citizens United. When Medea Benjamin praised Ron Paul, she forgot or ignored this this man was also one of the great foes of abortion. The thing is, when we help the libertarians, we can never forget that if they were in power, we would be in harms way as much as the GOP, because they want to simply give the rich what they want. The libertarians will use whatever we give them against us,which is why when people say "you are just doing an ad hominem" I say, "I do not need the libertarians to support what I believe, and I do not want to give them ammo to hurt us."

[LWolf]

42. That's the whole point.

It is possible, and acceptable, to agree with some things while opposing others. One doesn't have to give blanket support or condemnation.

One can agree with a position a libertarian has taken without being a libertarian, without supporting the libertarian party or betraying the Democratic party.

I'm a leftist libertarian, for that matter. At least according to the political compass, which is the best representation of various political factions that I can find.

And still a Democrat. As a matter of fact, most DUers fall into that left/libertarian quadrant, even though the Democrats they support don't.

[DonCoquixote]

73. Let's define libertarian

One of the problems we have is that the media has beenn very good at eroding the meanings of words, such as centrist, or libertarian:

http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

I believe your version of Libertarian is closer to Chomsky than Ron Paul or even Glenn Greenwald, and that is good. However, when folsk like Paul and yes, GG call themselves Libertarians, it becomes hard to address the beliefs that they have successfully sold as Libertarian without using the word. It is like using the term Jihad to refer to those terrorist who use their interpretation of Islam as a base for killing. You may mean Ben Ladin and similar folk, but then your Muslim friend will point out that there are many more uses for the word Jihad that have nothing to do with anything political. So, you stop using Jihad, but then you are left trying to find words to fit the job, mneanwhile, the enemy, who has the MSM media helping, does not even have to worry about the meaning of words, because they can bash them as they go.

In other words, we on the left need to get the tools back to frame the debate, because if we cannot even have reliable use of a language, we are done for.

[LWolf]

80. It's that proud "uniquely American" thing we're always hearing about.

It doesn't matter what "libertarian" really means, if the U.S. majority or tptb in the U.S. decide to frame it differently. It's the same for the terms "capitalism," "socialism," and even "the left." Even here on DU, when the term "libertarian" is used, is usually refers to Ron Paul, to the Libertarian Party, to the "uniquely American" framing.

You are right. We need to get the tools back to frame the debate.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. On Point! It's the "unholy alliance" between Grover Norquist & Jane Hamsher.

Two evil despots, AFAIC. The distinction between teabaggers & the FDL "denizens" is a dubious one, at best.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Of course you also said 'Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world' so

your perspective is obviously very different from most on DU. Some of whom are Latin Americans of course.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023172626#post29

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. And I stand by it.

[Scuba]

8. I find myself far, far left, supporting the most radical of ideas ...

... Strengthening Social Security

... Medicare for All

... Livable wage

... Legalizing weed

... Progressive taxation

... Reduced defense spending

... Not spying on our citizens


No real Democrats support such extreme positions, of course, just us "firebaggers".

[msongs]

12. but wait, there's more.........

...end the war on drugs completely

...deprivatize the military by paying the troops a living wage so they can do the work themselves and quit dying while
providing security for $100 an hour corporate profiteers

...deprivatize all incarceration facilities

...establish a nominal transaction fee on wall street speculations that crash the economy

---treat corporations with HQ's overseas as overseas corporations

---take the corporate money out of politics

---kill the legal concept that give personhood status to corporations

[daleanime]

15. And I call that.....

a good start!

[wilsonbooks]

17. Stop the privatazation of our schools.

[leftstreet]

16. Hammer and Sickle Hugger !!

[Scuba]

20. Bottom line, it's just like last time around ...

[LWolf]

39. The dirty fucking hippies were right,

and somehow, while I appreciated that video, it also stirred up a hell of a lot of latent rage.

[Starry Messenger]

35. He has love for everyone.

[Doctor_J]

40. You can be a Marxist and a Paulite simultaneously

as if those groups are somehow the same.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I am right there with you. nt

[antigop]

55. I would add "support labor" to that list. nt

[Scuba]

59. Good call, thanks.

[antigop]

61. You're welcome. nt

[forestpath]

66. [phone]

[Enrique]

9. vomit slurpers is my favorite

not sure what it means, but it has a nice ring to it.

[Doctor_J]

30. And rat fuckers

rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck

I think that means we want living wage and HC for all, and many of us don't want SS cut.

[backscatter712]

50. I don't know, "ratfucker" is a good epithet to use on those dragging us rightward. n/t

[colsohlibgal]

10. As Slurs Go This Is Mild

But it does offend me and it is meant to denigrate we who aren't thrilled with republican lite which seems to be less lite yearly.

I don't see what's wrong for wanting everyone to have the same shot in life and not wanting this plutocracy run by the RNC and DNC.

We want real democrats, real lefties in office, not con artists like Chris Dodd who got rich from being Wall Street's tool and bending rules - a real wolf is sheep's clothing. He talked a pretty good game like Obama can. but when the rubber meets the road straight right they go way too often.

[JaneyVee]

11. People like simplistic labels.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Hey, it's DU, and that's what it's here for.

If you want actual discussion, you have to go elsewhere and talk to real people IRL.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. I'm sure you've noticed that...

with all the talk around here, the surest way to stop a conversation is to mention you're running for office or a member of a group actually trying to do something.

(Unless it's Occupy-- then you're a hero, unlike those clowns volunteering for silly things like Doctors Without Borders)

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I've only been here for a year or so, so I've missed a lot that has gone before. Is a DUer running for office?

As for the conversation, I haven't found that to be common at all. Those that I've been involved in have gone one of three ways: We basically agree, work out some finer points and it's over. We disagree on the premise or perception and end it agreeing to disagree. Or the most common in my experience, we are getting to the heart of the issue and someone else jumps in, throws out some insults and/or a non-sequitur and effectively kills it.

The factionalism is what makes the show, IMO. There's a particular group here that obviously practices an organized "mean kids" tactic of alerting on everything certain members post, no matter how insignificant, knowing that a jury will hide anything about 25% of the time. We've all seen truly awful things let slide, while the most innocuous post gets hidden, and it all centers around who wrote it. rather than what was written. (I could give many examples, but that would guarantee this would be hidden)

Anyway, perhaps you could expound on what you are thinking. The site does heavily favor Occupy and I don't see that as a bad thing, but I also believe that Doctors without borders falls into that category as well, so I'm somewhat confused.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. Several are, or have been, running for office...

and others are actually working for some good causes.

My point was that when someone mentions running for office, one or two "good on ya" replies and that's pretty much the end of it. Do you ever see anything like, say, campaign funding or organizing, for DUers running? Admittedly, a lot run for very local offices (like I am) and it could get out of hand if many are out there running, but it's not even close to being noticed, much less getting out of hand. (on edit--) and there could be legal problems for DU organizing for local member campaigns, although I can't imagine what they are.

I mention Doctors Without Borders simply because it's one organization hardly anyone has any issue with. Some of the others I contribute to are the ACLU, Friends Committee on National Legislation, American Friends Service Committee, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. How often are any of these, or any other similar organizations who send out regular releases, quoted around here? BTW, has Occupy accomplished anything on the order of what these organizations have?

I haven't counted, but the most commonly quoted sources around here seem to be the Guardian, HuffPo, and Alternet, with a smattering of MSNBC and a few rightwing sources as points to argue with. Rarely the Atlantic, New Yorker, NY Times, or other reasonably reliable mainstream source. (No doubt someone will chime in that mainstream is automatically unreliable.)

On the bottom line, talk is cheap, and internet talk is cheapest of all.

(And I admit my part in it.)

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. Ah ha, got you. You're definitely right about that, it's really a waste of time trying

to get support here, other than possibly posting to get replies and therefore some position in a Google search on a particular issue. This place is all about the brawl.

I am assured that it wasn't always like that and you would obviously know better than I, but today the reality is that if you're looking to accomplish something politically, you're better off elsewhere.

Daily Kos is far better for action. They take their mission (electing more and better Democrats) seriously there (disclaimer: I've been an active activist there for many years, sub 100K UID).

As for what Occupy has accomplished; like Occupy itself, it's accomplishments are unorthodox and not easily defined. There are several spin-offs that are doing great things, most of which are ignored here because of the ubiquitous "mean kids" that seem to be here 24/7 shouting down and alerting anything that doesn't fit their authoritarian agenda, such as their debt relief campaign that is barely mentioned here and the newest debit card service. They are behind tons of on-site local activities that are ongoing all across the nation, again, with almost no notice whatsoever because it isn't furthering anyone's agenda. But the biggest thing they have done is to bring the issues of societal stratification and economic injustice into the conversation, and that's no small thing.

[creon]

32. agree

You are correct

[quinnox]

22. it's just a silly term that sycophants/apologists and those who hate liberals/progressives use

it shouldn't be paid any attention to, it would be like taking what Ann Coulter spouts seriously when she does her idiotic name-calling schtick.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. I always thought this sort of insult is...

toward a bunch of hopeless idealists with no influence whatsoever by a bunch of hopeless realists with no influence whatsoever.

[nomorenomore08]

31. Good way to put it. We're all pretty ineffectual, sadly, in the end.

But ain't it fun to argue back and forth?

[Doctor_J]

37. Pretty close

Despite DU's notoriety as "the largest Dem discussion site", our influence compared to PHARMA or Big Oil is

[kestrel91316]

25. Don't faint, but I agree with you.

[nomorenomore08]

28. Buzzwords with little to no practical meaning. They can mean whatever you want them to mean, apply

to whoever you please. The same way the right wing uses (abuses) the term "liberal."

[Maedhros]

45. Or Democrats use "Far Left" [n/t]

[nomorenomore08]

46. Exactly. I don't consider myself "far left" - more of a Social Democrat type - but by American

standards I probably seem like a left-wing extremist. Hell, if the Clintons are "far left" according to some idiots, then what does that make you and me?

[Doctor_J]

71. far left in America = center-right in the civilized world

though I am sure the Koch brothers don't intend to stop at our borders

[nomorenomore08]

72. We may have made progress on some social issues - LGBT rights being a big one - in recent

decades, but on others - e.g. reproductive rights - we've gone backwards. And economically speaking, things are skewed so ridiculously far to the right that, as I said, right-wingers can claim with a straight face that centrist to center-right Dems (like our President) are "Marxists" just for allowing Social Security and food stamps to exist.

[creon]

29. a mere political insult

It is a political commonplace that political opponents will hurl imprecations at each other.

Develop a thick skin and understand that this is a common practice.

At least your opponents recognize your presence.

[Starry Messenger]

36. It's basically red-baiting.

Except kind of in reverse where they attempt to hang the label of "enemy" on you by ascribing your motives to similar ones to the far right. Which is fucking stupid, but there it is.

[quinnox]

41. lol, yea, I think you described it well

"fucking stupid" I have noticed those who tend to throw this term around ain't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

[last1standing]

38. As with so many things, the purpose is to silence us.

By claiming we are on the fringe of the political sphere, they are able to then suggest that we are merely crazies whose ideas do not need to be addressed.

That said, it's easy to tell who this administration, and its proxies, are frightened of by looking at who they attack and belittle.

[Skittles]

43. are you listening to the swooners again?

they are NOT CREDIBLE - ignore them

[YoungDemCA]

44. Smear tactic, nothing more nothing less

nt

[JNelson6563]

47. More division, just like the PTB want.

Frankly the division going on all over on ever single front tells me we sill soon reach critical mass.

Another helpful method in dividing people is a constant flow of negativity. 100 great things can happen but you can be sure there are those who will be sharing as much bad news as can be found.

We are over-run with agent provocateurs; in the media and on the internet (and FOR SURE on DU).

How sad.

Julie

On edit: I did not mean the title of my post to apply to your OP Cali so I hope you don't take it that way, it was in reference to the issue you mention.

[WillyT]

52. Damn... You Can Get PAID To Be A Leftist ??? - Who Knew ???

& Rec !!!

[bluestate10]

54. Being called Third Way Democrats, Republican Lite, Blue Dogs isn't insulting?

Maybe the far Left should stop insulting and trying to shut people that don't share all of their views. Respect has to be given to be given back.

[LWolf]

58. I assume not,

at least, not for those who call themselves bluedogs or third way. The Blue Dogs have a FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Blue-Dog-Democrats/160211630734694

There's even a DUer who uses "bluedog" as his screen name.

The Third Way? They don't think their name is insulting.

http://www.thirdway.org/about_us

Republican lite? That's a weak insult when it's widely acknowledged that many of today's Democrats are the Republicans of my youth.

These days, anyone who doesn't keep moving farther and farther to the right is called the "far" left, when a "far left" doesn't really exist in the U.S..

[leftstreet]

60. Third Wayers seem proud of the distinction n/t

[backscatter712]

65. Corporatist and authoritarian right-wingers do not deserve respect here.

Do we get an ounce of respect from the right-wing ratfuckers? No.

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Funny you should ask. I guess the same purpose as "Turd Way Corporatists", or "Authoritarian" or...

"Swooners", etc. Take a look at your thread, even the people who follow you around with candy & roses can't help themselves. It's funny, while you decry namecalling, they're doing exactly that, and judging by your TP, you're certainly no saint either. Namecalling and labeling works both ways, ya know?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans

[emulatorloo]

62. Oh you "fucking nut bar", you!

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. With that many hidden posts, I think someone else should've broached the topic in the o.p.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Says a master labeler and name caller

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023172626#post29

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. Yeah, but I didn't start on o.p. about it. See the difference?

[jazzimov]

67. Actually, Firebagger = anyone who posts from

FireDogLake.

I have tried not to use the term itself, but I have seen several quotes and or links to FireDogLake recently.

Although FDL used to be a pretty good site, the owner Jane Hamsher pretty much lost her mind during the ACA negotiations. I will provide details to anyone who asks.

Since then, the site has been vehemently anti-Obama but more importantly less and less credible - as long as the info projected is anti-Obama. The vehemence and vitriol has rivaled that of Tea Baggers.

Hence the nickname: Fire - Baggers.

[AppleBottom]

76. OBEY!

We are watching you, independent thought is not tolerated.

[Waiting For Everyman]

77. It's a lame attempt at being dismissive.

But free thinkers don't dismiss so easily.

[adirondacker]

78. and I might add condescending.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Same as when they called us "Reds", "Commies", "Pinkos", and "Peaceniks".

Same kind of thinking by the same kind of "moderates", "practical", "realistic" Dems who gave us the likes of the Clintons and Obama.