On Progressive “Red-Baiting”

[maryf]

I really think this is an important conversation to have here, to help keep the conversations on target, and to keep down the ad hominems. If we can't discuss we are lost.

I do not post this to be incendiary, but as food for thought...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/progressive-%E2%80%9Cred-baiting%E2%80%9D

On Progressive “Red-Baiting”
Wed, 09/08/2010 - 10:07 — Tamara K. Nopper


by Tamara K. Nopper

Red-baiting is by no means the sole preserve of the Right. Leftists of various stripes sometimes resort to red-baiting to distinguish themselves from those whose politics are even less compatible with prevailing opinion. Red-baiting is also a weapon to “shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to...demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional.”

<snip>

Not all of the targets of this red-baiting of which I speak are associated with Marxist organizations or have specific organizational affiliations. Nor do most progressives publicly use pejoratives such as “Commie” or “Pinko.” Yet some will easily use terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radicals” or “revolutionaries” when trying to deflect questions posed by people unimpressed with their political positions but whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed as driven by white supremacy or conservatism. In the process, these progressives often avoid having to explain why they are committed to the positions they take by calling their critics “radicals” or “revolutionaries,” thus situating their positions as logical or natural as opposed to ideological. Such gestures are consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to hate such terms due to the aggressive campaigns by the mainstream press, most academics, and the state to demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional.

For example, consider the path and reaction to Barack Obama’s historic election. Many people, from a variety of backgrounds, who wanted him elected openly castigated people as “radicals” and “revolutionaries” for not supporting Obama or for not understanding how politics “is done.” Those critical of Obama for being too conservative were expected to keep quiet or were carelessly labeled these terms. These labels, which are really badges of honor rather than insults, were thrown around to isolate and treat as irrational those who made supporters of Obama uncomfortable.

“It is not uncommon to hear authors go out of their way to ridicule 'radicals' and 'revolutionaries' for taking issue with Obama.”

<snip>

Other examples of progressive red-baiting include 1) the difficulty of getting or keeping a job in progressive non-profits or in progressive academic programs if you take a critical stance on capitalism as opposed to “class inequality;” 2) the wholesale dismissal of armed struggle, direct action tactics, street protests, and marches by many pundits and scholars quick to remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance; 3) the re-narration of political and intellectual history in which certain oppositional figures and organizations are celebrated or remain icons but their confrontational stances against capitalism, the state, and the American project are left out or treated as ephemeral, naïve, or a bitter emotional response to discrimination or bad treatment in certain organizations; 4) the re-posing of revolutionary political organizations for mass consumption where they are sanitized as less threatening and thus more compatible with the American dream as well as the non-revolutionary white left; 5) the need to make sure that one’s audience and critics know that one is not too far left and the use of certain code words to do so; and 6) going out of the way to rescue some figures from the “accusation” of being a Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist. Regarding the last point, while it is unfair to Socialists that President Obama has been depicted as one and everyone appreciates being remembered “correctly,” such gestures often reveal a shared red-baiting among those who make accusations and those who respond, as seen in some of the recent defenses of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. on whether he was a Socialist or Communist.

more at link...

[Fumesucker]

1. K&R, thanks for posting..

[maryf]

2. Thanks for recommending!

I really do think we need to be aware of how folks, whose ideas may be valid, might be dismissed from conversations...

[RainDog]

3. thankfully, tho, it's okay to promote Charlie Crist for office

since he doesn't offend any sensibilities of those who pretend they're the opposition party.

[maryf]

5. I'm not sure your point, but I don't think anyone

would red bait Charlie Crist, though I wouldn't promote him myself...

[Raineyb]

7. Don't even get me started on that bit of hypocrisy. It frosts the hell out of me

to hear people propping him up while at the same time cursing the Green party every chance they get.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maryf]

15. Making my point through negative exemplar...

the conversation can be stifled, dissent marginalized by posts like yours...this is a microcosm, in some ways, of the dominant paradigm of maintaining the status quo in this country...

[RainDog]

22. I like DU. I'm grateful to DU for the services it offers

and I am allowed to speak my mind on certain issues - which I did.

obviously this is threatening to some people. don't know why.

[maryf]

23. I'm with you

not sure where that came from...sometimes it's obvious...could be the person doesn't like red!! ;)

[RainDog]

24. I like blue.

and blue and green look really good together, imo.

red reminds me of red state politics.

[maryf]

26. Ha!

I always wondered why the Republicans are red when red is the color of communism too...which was first?

[RainDog]

30. extremes from either side meet at some point

Stalin and Hitler had a lot in common.

Pol Pot and Pinochet, too.

[maryf]

20. this clarifies it for me...

thanks...

[LostinVA]

33. +1

[Starry Messenger]

4. k & r

[maryf]

6. Hey is your picture...

indicating Arne is a radical of some kind??? ;)

[Starry Messenger]

12. He's a radical asshole, that's for sure.

I think the avatar is more like Arne's thought bubble. I'm sure he'll move onto red-baiting anytime soon.

[maryf]

18. I wouldn't be surprised if he already has...

and, btw, your avatar is my favorite here...

[Starry Messenger]

25. Why thank you!

:D I just found the image the other day in my files and thought it was appropriate.

[maryf]

27. hey maybe you know

why is red the color for both commies and republicans??

[Starry Messenger]

28. dupe.

ack, I knew that was going to dupe, but I pressed post again anyway.

[Starry Messenger]

29. The republicans weren't red until the 2000 election.

The media used it to shade in the map for the Bush states.

In the United States there is no official association between political parties and specific colours. The two major political parties use the national colours — red, white, and blue — to show their patriotism. The only common situation in which it has been necessary to assign a single colour to a party has been in the production of political maps in graphical displays of election results. In such cases, there has historically been no consistent association of particular parties with particular colours. In the weeks following the 2000 election, however, there arose the terminology of red states and blue states, in which the conservative Republican Party was associated with red and the liberal Democratic Party with blue. Political observers subsequently latched on to this association, which resulted from the use of red for Republican victories and blue for Democratic victories on the display map of a television network. This association has certainly not been consistently applied in the past: during previous presidential elections, about half of the television networks used the opposite association. In 2004, the association was mostly kept. However, maps for presidential elections produced by the U.S. government use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans.
This association has potential to confuse foreign observers in that, as described above, red is traditionally a left-wing colour, while blue is associated with right-wing politics. However, in the United States, the Republican Party is considered center-right and the Democratic Party is considered center-left.

There is some historical use of blue for Democrats and red for Republicans: in the late 19th century and early 20th century, Texas county election boards used colour coding to help Spanish speakers and illiterates identify the parties<3>, however, this system was not applied consistently in Texas and was not picked up on a national level; for instance, in 1888, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison used maps that coded blue for the Republicans, the colour Cleveland perceived to represent the Union and "Lincoln's Party" and red for the Democrats.<4>
Since the 2000 election the news media have tended to use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, especially as it relates to the electoral majority in each state, informally calling them the Red states and Blue states. The colour green is often used for the Green Party, and the colour yellow is often used for the Libertarian Party or for independent candidates generally. A February 2004 article in the New York Times examined this issue.<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colors#Exceptions_and_variations

I think the commies need to reclaim it. The repubs can be something moldy. :D

[maryf]

31. Army drab maybe

Thanks! I like red...

[FredStembottom]

9. Thick, murky article.

Can't make heads or tails of it.:dunce:

[maryf]

10. Read these lines from the last paragraph, pretty clear I think...

I know a lot of folks don't always read the entire article, I'm guilty at times my self, but I do think the last paragraph needs to be read! and I can't edit my OP anymore, should have included this from the last paragraph there:

being an authoritarian progressive who is anti-leftist or anti-radical or anti-revolutionary is not considered by many as a form of dogmatism, but rather political “common sense” and purportedly more humanistic than, let’s say, openly confronting or naming the sources of millions of people’s misery. It also means you are more likely to get published and keep a job or be offered a new one by those who run progressive institutions that seek to serve as alternatives to the political climate at most professional jobs. <snip> Yet too many progressives, despite having significant points of disagreement among them, seek to protect themselves, insulate their positions from interrogation, or gain currency by relying on red-baiting tactics and distancing themselves from those they publicly dismiss as “authoritarian leftists,” “radicals,” or “revolutionaries.”

[FredStembottom]

46. Read that before.....

I think the problem is that this is some kinda turf-war that I have no experience with.
Just confused and thinking out loud.:blush:

[BeFree]

13. How about Truther?

Isn't that another term that is used to deflect questions posed by people whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed?

Such a gesture is consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using the Truther label.

[maryf]

16. I agree

good point to be considered and discussed without rancor or ridicule, everyone could learn...

[Better Believe It]

14. K & R

[TBF]

17. A most timely discussion. nt

[maryf]

19. that all should be having...

we gotta talk to each other, we're all in the same boat...(and get those people out of steerage! they're dying there...)

[RandomThoughts]

32. were not all in the same boat.

[maryf]

36. yeah about 1% are in the flagship...nt

[RandomThoughts]

40. I disagree with that.

[maryf]

48. That's your right

but you could expand on that.

[RandomThoughts]

83. The 1% has many associations.

So depends what you say the 1% are.

The flag ship has many associations, so depends what you think flag ship means.



However you would have to expand on what you mean by that, or you would be hearing my views, not me commenting on your views.

So how could I expand on that thought, without you telling me more of what your thoughts are. But I can disagree, either on best guess of what you mean, or by disagreeing with you saying without saying what you mean.

[maryf]

21. bumping...

[me b zola]

34. K&R

[Panaconda]

35. Hey that was really interesting

Thanks for that. Too much of what passes for political opinion is just really stale talking points that maintain the status quo. This was worthwhile and I looked up this person's blog. Here is an example of what I found:

“Southwest Airlines & ‘The Souls of White Folk’”

Tamara K. Nopper

March 2, 2008

In his 1920 essay “The Souls of White Folk,” African American scholar and activist W.E.B. Du Bois raised the question: “‘But what on earth is whiteness that one should so desire it?’” Answering his own query, Du Bois responded, “Then always, somehow, some way, silently but clearly, I am given to understand that whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever and ever, Amen!”

A recent incident I had while flying on Southwest Airlines demonstrates Du Bois’ point. I therefore detail the situation here both to document it and to theorize its relevance for understanding contemporary white supremacy.

As is practice with Southwest, I had boarded the plane when my category of seating was called. Having been lucky enough to download the boarding pass for category A, I was among the first to pick my seat. Shortly after sitting down, an older white man sat in the seat next to mine. He then proceeded to spread his legs wide open as if, to quote a wise person I know, “he thought he had balls the size of pumpkins.” In response to the uninvited pressing, I requested room for my legs. The man then proceeded to imperiously point his finger to the floor to emphasize that his feet were within the boundary of his seats. He never addressed the fact that his legs were spread beyond them so as to invade my space and press up against my body. Instead, he said to me, “You’re a big girl.” Talking on my cell phone, I interrupted my conversation to calmly tell the man “Don’t fucking talk to me that way.”

With his right hand, the man reached across himself to grab my left arm. With my arm in his grip, he looked me in the eyes through his glasses and replied, “I’m going to slap you in your mouth.” I freed myself from him and then stood up. I called out to the steward at the front of the plane that I needed assistance since I had just been grabbed by the person sitting next to me. Hurriedly, the man bolted out of his seat, muttering that he would move. As he exited the row he made it a point to emphasize that I had cussed at him, neglecting the fact that he had made the comment that initiated our negative exchange.

...

http://bandung1955.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/southwest-airlines-the-souls-of-white-folk/#more-1140

I learned a little something today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian%E2%80%93African_Conference

[maryf]

38. Wow and thanks

I hope everyone reads the whole story, it kills me how often I hear railing against people's "inappropriate" anger, so righteous the vast majority of the time when put into the right context. I hope this encourages folks to read W.E.B. Dubois and to look closely for examples. Thanks too for posting the wiki link, and for having the inquisitiveness to look up bandung from the woman's website.

[leftstreet]

37. K&R Well worth the read

Thanks for posting

[maryf]

39. thanks!

glad to have shared...wish to heck I could post the whole thing, just hope everybody reads it...

[geek tragedy]

41. So, now nonviolence is redbaiting? What stupid bullshit.

"2) the wholesale dismissal of armed struggle, direct action tactics, street protests, and marches by many pundits and scholars quick to remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance;" is not redbaiting.

Anyone who claims that is a liar.

It's called not endorsing the tactics used by Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh and Henry Kissinger.

One is allowed to be an open Communist at this site. Endorse violent resistance to the US government, and you will get your sorry ass banned in a nanosecond, and hopefully reported to the FBI.

Anyone disagree?

[leftstreet]

42. So you're equating 'street protests' and 'marches' to 'violent resistance' to the US govt?'

Huh

[geek tragedy]

43. The author equated "wholesale dismissal of armed struggle"

with redbaiting and cites as an example of such 'redbaiting' the following common sense observation: "marches by many pundits and scholars quick to remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance."

Endorsing or supporting or condoning violent resistance to the US government is both criminal and immoral.

Disagree?

[leftstreet]

44. 'armed struggle' isn't always against 'government'

not sure the point you're trying to make, other than getting people to fail to oppose 'armed' or 'violent' actions against 'government'


lol actually it's a pretty good example of red-baiting

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

45. The author thinks that opposing violence is red-baiting.

Which is nuts.

[TBF]

51. That is not what the author said. nt

[Panaconda]

53. Let's use two examples

To be clear these examples are meant to stand on their own. There are no analogies intended for general conclusion in this case.

Example 1): Warsaw Ghetto: Did the Jews have the right to take up arms against their Nazi oppressors? Was this immoral for them to use violence to counter the violence placed upon them? Did they have the right to fight back?

Example 2: Iraq: Do the Iraqi people have a right to take up arms against this foreign occupying army? Is it immoral of them to shoot back as they are being shot at?

What say you to these examples?

[geek tragedy]

54. If these academics were in the Warsaw Ghetto or Iraq, maybe

that point would be valid. The author here is talking about domestic progressives/leftists disclaiming armed resistance as a legitimate means of expression/social change.

Indeed, one will not find anywhere an example of someone saying armed resistance to oppression is always wrong. What one will find is a statement that within the US (or UK or EU) armed action and other forms of violence are simply unacceptable.

[TBF]

55. Simply unacceptable -

I am curious as to how you categorize what is happening to millions in our country currently. Millions out of work, losing their homes, unable to procure health care, and winding up in the over-crowded shelters/food banks. Perhaps the capitalists are not rounding us up into ghettos and shooting us (yet), but how do you categorize leaving someone on the street (or even in a tent - given the increasing number of tent cities) to simply lie there and die. What else will happen to them without food, shelter, employment?

Is that not the state abetting murder? Is it ok to resist in that situation?

Believe me, I'm not big on violence either. I have a hard time swatting a fly because I love animals so much. But at some point does it become self defense when you are simply trying to survive?

[geek tragedy]

57. The solution is via the political process, not via murder.

It is not self-defense to murder people because you dislike our economic system.

[TBF]

60. You ignored most of my reply -

so the only option of people living in the streets is to walk to the voting booth once every four years (if they live that long) and pull the lever for one of the corporate candidates?

Ok, well at least we both know which sides we're on. I stand in solidarity with the workers, the poor. And you will stand by and watch as people die.

[geek tragedy]

63. They do not have the right to pick up a gun and shoot cops or bank employees.

Very odd form of purism--"if you don't support the left's right to commit murder, you are a closet rightwinger."

Sorry, the people pushing violence should be ostracized and marginalized.

[TBF]

65. Again, I didn't say they did.

And I didn't say anyone is in the closet. I think the conservatism of both parties is in the open. Granted, we have status quo and we have bat-shit crazy, if you'd like some delineation, but that is what we have.

I also don't hear people "pushing" violence. What I do see is people afraid, and wondering how long this is going to go on before that sort of thing naturally happens. You can only push people so far. Once you've taken away their livelihood, and they feel they have few options, it is likely you'll see them in the street. You and I would both hope for peaceful marches and strikes. Well, you may not hope for marches and strikes, but I would hope for that sort of movement in order to influence change, as we saw historically with the human rights, worker rights, and suffrage movements just to name a few.

The folks in power (and I mean both sides of the aisle) are playing a dangerous game - stealing from the populace and making very few efforts to alleviate the pain. How do you see that ending?

[geek tragedy]

66. Peaceful marches and strikes and civil disobedience are perfectly acceptable.

However, the author cited stated opposition to violence as an example of redbaiting.

[TBF]

67. She stated a lot of things -

but you've zeroed in on one phrase of the entire article and turned it into a crusade.

This is the objectionable paragraph -

2) the wholesale dismissal of armed struggle, direct action tactics, street protests, and marches by many pundits and scholars quick to remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance;


And I would argue that she's on target there. That is a tactic folks use when they want to dismiss anything leftists are doing. I've heard it in relation to PETA and other organizations "Oh well I would support them but I don't like their tactics". Or "It isn't what you're saying - it's how you're saying it".


The point is that it IS what we're saying. It IS the content that freaks out the gate-keepers. When we question the status quo it IS seen as a threat. Why is that?

[geek tragedy]

68. It is not redbaiting to dismiss armed struggle.

It is not redbaiting when speakrs "remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance."

Indeed, the author is herself implicitly pushing the idea that violence is an inherent part of leftwing ideology.

[TBF]

70. I don't see it that way -

I see it as describing how leftist conversation is shut down, not advocating it.

[geek tragedy]

72. It should be shut down. It would be hypocritical for us to object to this:

and then say "well, violence might be okay if your side does it."

[TBF]

74. So you are saying leftist voices should be silenced.

Interesting that no matter how many times the establishment dances around it finally we get to the core of the discussion. No free speech for people we don't agree with.

[geek tragedy]

75. No, but violence and those who endorse it must be repudiated. nt

[TBF]

77. OK, but that has nothing to do with this OP. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

81. I believe in self defense...........

that's in both a personal AND a meta version. When the right wing is calling for "Second Amendment remedies" I won't rule out violence in self defense. When it comes to the rise of fascism, I won't rule out violence in self defense.

We're MUCH closer to fascism than we are to any sort of socialist revolution, so I won't rule out any self defense remedies.

I'm on the side of the poor and oppressed. Who's side are you on?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. This is hillarious - so many of the positions she attacks are so obviously sensible.

Yes, if you suggest that liberals should make common cause with authoritarian "left", or that capitalism is a bad thing, or support violent "resistance" to it, then I am not going to take you seriously. Come back when you have something worth hearing to say.

[maryf]

49. Do you realize that you have proven the authors main point?

That by not taking people's positions that are different from yours seriously, and shutting down the conversation, you are disallowing an opportunity for voices to be heard without rancor or ridicule. It is in conversation that ideas are born, and by not engaging in a conversation with those who might be more radical than you, you help the status quo of rising unemployment, rising poverty, (and homelessness) and lowering quality of life to continue. The last comment especially is demeaning and ad hominem, a personal attack.

[geek tragedy]

58. Sorry, but the line gets drawn on politically inspired murder.

Leftwing activists have the same right to use violence to pursue their policy goals that Teabaggers and Christian fundamentalists and Islamic jihadists have--none.

Whether the left should engage in armed resistance and violence is not a legitimate debate topic.

[TBF]

73. You are the only one debating that -

because that is what you want the debate to be in this thread. It has very little to do with the OP. You grabbed the word "violent" the one time it was used and focused on that word rather than the context surrounding it.

The discussion is how leftist viewpoints are quashed, and you are illustrating how it is done. And you are advocating for shutting down speech from the left. So, basically, no free speech on your watch.

That bill of rights really gets in the way doesn't it.

[geek tragedy]

76. No, condemning violence is not the same as squashing leftwing speech.

Not even close.

[TBF]

78. No one said it was.

You continue to deliberately miss the point of the article in order to discredit what it says. Typical, just as the OP describes.

[TBF]

50. "Sensible" liberals -

Your message reminded me of these "sensible" liberals -

"The Palmer Raids were attempts by the United States Department of Justice to arrest and deport left-wing radicals, especially anarchists, from the United States. The raids and arrests occurred in November 1919 and January 1920 under the leadership of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Though more than 500 foreign citizens were deported, including a number of prominent leftist leaders, Palmer's efforts were largely frustrated by officials at the US Department of Labor who had responsibility for deportations and who objected to Palmer's methods and disrespect for the legal process. The Palmer Raids occurred in the larger context of the Red Scare, the term given to American fear of and reaction against political radicals in the years immediately following World War I."

much more at the link ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

As you admonish republicans, and make good fun pointing and laughing at the tea partiers, please remember that it is the liberals who rounded up the communists because they actually supported labor and posed a threat to capitalism. I can assure you that I have not forgotten.

BTW, it's spelled hilarious, but whatever ....

[geek tragedy]

59. Rounding up people based on ideology is not the same as

stating that violence is an unacceptable way of pursuing an economic agenda.

That is the logic of Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden.

[TBF]

61. I didn't say it was -

I was talking about sensible liberals - which is what the other post brought up.

While we're on the subject, let's hear your view on the Palmer raids.

[geek tragedy]

64. The Palmer raids were an obvious abuse of power

by the DOJ, and were quite rightly (though belatedly) squashed by Louis Post.

[blindpig]

69. Sure, after the damage was done.

A. Mitchell Palmer claimed that Communist agents from Russia were planning to overthrow the American government. On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested. Palmer and Hoover found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. The vast majority were eventually released but Emma Goldman and 247 other people, were deported to Russia.

On 2nd January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested and held without trial. These raids took place in several cities and became known as the Palmer Raids. A. Mitchell Palmer and John Edgar Hoover found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects, many of them members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), continued to be held without trial. When Palmer announced that the communist revolution was likely to take place on 1st May, mass panic took place. In New York, five elected Socialists were expelled from the legislature.

When the May revolution failed to materialize, attitudes towards Palmer began to change and he was criticized for disregarding people's basic civil liberties. Some of his opponents claimed that Palmer had devised this Red Scare to help him become the Democratic presidential candidate in 1920.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USApalmerR.htm

[maryf]

80. Thanks for the link...

my history lessons come from unusual sources! :hi:

[blindpig]

52. Gatekeepers....

though Malcolm had another term, steeped in history.

k&r

[TBF]

56. But now that folks are being kicked out of the house

maybe they're starting to see the obvious. As Carlin said:

"Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it . . . they’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fuckin' place. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about you."

http://alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00106

[old mark]

62. This reminds me of some of the "radical" posturing speech of the early 1970's.

There was lots of wasted verbiage, "correct radical thinking", stuff about who was a real radical and who was merely a liberal, etc. I believe that whatever actual radical politcs were extand in that period were mostly self delusion and self promotion. I am sorry to see this type of rhetorical bombast making a comeback-it ultimately led to fractures in whatever real leftist movements there were, and played into the Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush I presidencies...all of these played on fears of armed evil radicals marching in America and burning the flag.

The extreme left has always been a feared minority in the US, and I'd hate to se the rebirth of the type of phoney leftist - fake revolutionary "movement" that used to exist in "the old days". It was stupid bullshit then, and would be just as bad or worse now.

I was there, and I remember it well...


mark

[maryf]

79. but do you not also see a resurgence of red baiting?

and as the OP says, its not just against communists, but any left of the status quo. Wouldn't you say that the current status quo is further right than the status quo of the "old days"?? and don't you see cause for concern there?

[Hannah Bell]

71. kr

[Recursion]

82. What about dismissing people as "corporate shills" or "DLCers" or "neoliberals"

or whatever the boogeyman of the week is? What do we call that? Blue-baiting?