Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 'Once Again—Death of the Liberal Class' By Chris Hedges

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 13, 2012, 11:45 a.m. EST by KevinPotts (368)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[Excerpts] "The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents. Liberals, by voting for Barack Obama, betrayed the core values they use to define themselves—the rule of law, the safeguarding of civil liberties, the protection of unions, the preservation of social welfare programs, environmental accords, financial regulation, a defiance of unjust war and torture, and the abolition of drone wars. The liberal class clung desperately during the long nightmare of this political campaign to one or two issues, such as protecting a woman’s right to choose and gender equality, to justify its complicity in a monstrous evil. This moral fragmentation—using an isolated act of justice to define one’s self while ignoring the vast corporate assault on the nation and the ecosystem along with the pre-emptive violence of the imperial state—is moral and political capitulation. It fails to confront the evil we have become.

“The American Dream has run out of gas,” wrote the novelist J.G. Ballard. “The car has stopped. It no longer supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It’s over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now. …” (...)"

"(...) The ineffectiveness of the liberal class, as I saw in the former Yugoslavia and as was true in Weimar Germany, perpetuates a dangerous political paralysis. The longer the paralysis continues, the longer systems of power are unable to address the suffering and grievances of the masses, the more the formal mechanisms of power are reviled. The liberal establishment’s inability to defy corporate power, to stand up for its supposed liberal beliefs, means its inevitable disappearance, along with the disappearance of traditional liberal values. This, as history has amply pointed out, is the road to despotism. And we are further down that road than many care to admit.

Any mass movement that arises—and I believe one is coming—will be fueled, like the Occupy movement, by radicals who have as deep a revulsion for Democrats as they do for Republicans. (...)"

"(...) I am not sure when I severed myself irrevocably from the myth of America. It began when I was a seminarian, living for more than two years in Boston’s inner city on a street that had more homicides than any other in the city. I had to confront in the public housing projects the cruelty of white supremacy, the myriad institutional mechanisms that kept poor people of color trapped, broken and impoverished, the tragic squandering of young lives and the fatuous liberals who spoke in lofty language about empowering people they never met. The ties unraveled further during the five years I spent as a war correspondent in El Salvador and Nicaragua. I stood in too many mud-walled villages looking at the mutilated bodies of men, women and children, murdered by U.S.-backed soldiers, death squads and paramilitary units. I heard too many lies spewed out by Ronald Reagan and the State Department to justify these killings. And by the time I was in Gaza, looking at the twisted limbs of dead women and children and listening to Israeli and U.S. officials describe an Israeli airstrike as a “surgical” hit on Islamic militants, it was over. I knew the dark heart of America. I knew who we were, what we did, what we actually stood for and the terrifying and willful innocence that permits most Americans to think of themselves as good and virtuous when they are, in reality, members of an efficient race of killers and ruthless profiteers.

I was sickened and repulsed. My loyalty shifted from the state, from any state, to the powerless, to the landless peasants in Latin America, the Palestinians in Gaza or the terrified families in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who suffer on the outer reaches of empire, as well as in our internal colonies and sacrifice zones, constitute my country. And any action, including voting, that does not unequivocally condemn and denounce their oppressors is a personal as well as a moral betrayal. (...)"

"(...) For a poor family in Camden, N.J., impoverished residents in the abandoned coal camps in southern West Virginia, the undocumented workers that toil in our nation’s produce fields, Native Americans trapped on reservations, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, those killed by drones in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or those in the squalid urban slums in Africa, it makes no difference if Mitt Romney or Obama is president. And since it makes no difference to them, it makes no difference to me. I seek only to defy the powers that orchestrate and profit from their misery. (...)"

Read Full Article: 'Once Again--Death of the Liberal Class' By Chris Hedges http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/once_again_--_death_of_the_liberal_class_20121112//



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 7 years ago

Chris is angry because we so called liberals talk a good game of nothing. Talk, Talk, Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk, Complain, Bitch, moan, vote, cry, sing, then here we go again, Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk, oh - I no what to do, it's simple, Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk, scratch - scratch, Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk.......

When you get done talking you might want to take some action or maybe get orgranized. The revolution has started! It's just waiting for shut up!


U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

Forget about being a liberal. Forget about having a party affiliation. Just be a democrat.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (368) 7 years ago

stevebol, I'm usually pretty good at interpreting the deeper meaning of statements and I'm an expert at wit and sarcasm...but that one just went way over my head lol Care to enlighten ? :-)

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

The word 'liberal' was adopted by the corrupt dem establishment several years ago. Probably after Glen Beck started throwing the word around. Hedges uses an older definition of the word but I'm not real clear on the meaning. He has given up on the word basically.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (368) 7 years ago

Yeah, I understood that part. What stumped me was "Just be a democrat."? Why would I want to be a democrat? lol And "Forget about having a party affiliation." How does a person "be a democrat" without having a party affiliation? :-)

I think Hedges is trying to redeem the word "liberal" rather than give up on it. The dems have become predominantly "neo-liberal", which leans to the far right while still maintaining the illusion of representing the left. Obama is a prime example of this. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Neo-liberalism has become “the new left” which is actually, in reality, so far to the right that it no longer represents the left at all. Hence 'Once Again--Death of the Liberal Class'.

"(...) The American Revolution was the result of a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations in early American society and government, collectively referred to as the American Enlightenment. Americans rejected the oligarchies and aristocracies common in Europe at the time, championing instead the development of republicanism based on the Enlightenment understanding of liberalism. Among the significant results of the revolution was the creation of a democratically-elected representative government responsible to the will of the people. However, sharp political debates erupted over the appropriate level of democracy desirable in the new government, with a number of Founders fearing mob rule. (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

"(...) Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought. The main focus of modern liberalism in the United States includes issues such as voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as: equal education opportunities, access to health care, transportation infrastructure, basic food for the hungry and basic shelter for the homeless. Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberal thought, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity, and that promoting the general welfare of society exceeds the legitimate role of government. (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Well done.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

In order to be a liberal you must first believe in liberty. That is what's missing in the current class of folks that consider themselves liberals. The new progressives are not at all interested in progress; they mostly want to conserve what they have and sand-bag the edges.

Whether Dem or Rep control the Gov they both work to add restrictions on our lives. When was the last time you heard of Gov getting rid of a law, particularly one that requires the expenditure of your money? As Gov grows liberty diminishes.

The idea that we can fix Gov with even more Gov is like trying to fix one broken leg by breaking the other. Give people liberty and you will get both progress and prosperity.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Government is not the problem. The government pandering to the wealthy instead of the people they are supposed to represent is the problem. Without government, I could just take what I want and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

Are the wealthy not people? Of course they are, but politicians need money to stay in office and the rich are a ready source. Politicians can also get money from unions, environmental groups, minority organizations, corporations, and the organization of concerned pot growers. So the politician is motivated to restrict your liberty in order to pay back a debt to one of these groups.

This is why Gov is the problem. It is a corrupting entity and its encroachment on our lives must be restricted. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights. Restrictions on Gov.

I believe that T Jefferson had it right:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities"

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

The government gives food stamps to cover the shit wages payed by deadbeat employers. The government is spending the majority of it's resources to pay the way for people that work full time so the 1% can pocket the profits as if they single-handedly produced every item and or product themselves. Government in this area covers for deadbeat employers. Lets just say that stops. Right. Foodstamps go, welfare in general goes. Regulation goes. What does a starving population resort to? For a test run, find the closest ghetto to you and drive though those neighborhoods with 1,000 dollars scotch taped to the hood of your car. Let me know how that goes, then you can re-asses what government does for you.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

Check out these folks. They get 98% of the money to the people that need it. The Gov is just inept. It is embarrassing just how bad we are.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

if every citizens had guaranteed income, businesses could work to get that money

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Another play for socialism without calling it socialism. This tactic is childish and tired. Do I get another place in your "they hurt my feelings" thread?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

did you take my money away?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

The Gov does not give anything. They take from you and dribble to your neighbor, but only after they take their commission. They have an efficiency rate of about about 37%. Most good charities (United Way, Salvation Army, CARE, etc) have better than 90%. Why this waste is tolerated is perplexing. Tell the Gov that you will keep your money and direct it to the organization that you decide does the most good.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Ah, specifics. Now I can get into specific problem and solution topics. Yes, gov charities need an overhaul.

[-] -2 points by DogBone (-201) 7 years ago

The government (obama admin) gives food stamps to the society that they created. The obama admin wants people to become more dependent on the Gov. Just ask pelosi, she once stated that welfare and unemployment was very good for the economy

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

lol, really? Obama created poverty. This is my last reply to you because I can see now that you're a complete dip shit. Is that the purpose of this sock, to defame the right by posing as an idiot republican? More games from the lame class.

[-] -1 points by DogBone (-201) 7 years ago

Obama the food stamp president

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well the wealthy (1%) HAVE "injured" the non wealthy (99%) by

  • buying the govt (corrupting it as you describe),

  • rigging the system against the 99%,

  • moving our jobs over seas,

  • stagnating our wages,

  • charging us loanshark level interest,

  • busting our unions,

  • stealing our pensions,

  • hiding their assets,

  • evading their fair share of taxes,

  • crashing the world economy,

  • taking our tax dollars in bailouts,

  • overcompensating themselves with obscene unearned pay/bonuses.

So the peoples govt should act to correct this obvious injury by one group (1%) onto the rest of us (99%)

Don't you agree?.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

I am 100% for prosecuting folks that break the law. Which corps broke which laws?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

All the big banks. The big brokerages, The big ratings agencies, The big insurance corps. And more.

Where have you been?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

Were you unable to find any names of corps or list of broken laws that went un-prosecuted?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

There have been NO criminal prosecutions.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

Really, so the current Attorney Gen is too much of a coward (or has taken too much payola) to go after them? Which corps is he coddling? What are their names? What crimes did they commit?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Theft, fraud, bribery. Pick a corp amongst the industries I listed.