In American politics, all progress is symbolic. And even by symbolic standards, it’s empty. Like, why would the first woman president have to be one of the few women in public life to have achieved fame and political power via marriage rather than her strengths?
Progress with an Asterisk
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
53 Comments. Leave new
Alas, if the asterisk in the last pane actually does apply before the person in question takes office, it will no longer do so when he or she leaves…. 😉
Henri
That would be an interesting stat to track down. Most ‘women in public life’ who have achieved something on their own are entertainers.
A few have achieved political power through marriage – Eleanor Roosevelt & Nancy Reagan spring to mind, as does Michelle Obomber. Others have gotten there by themselves – Elizabeth Warren & Patty Murray.
In general women are more inclusive & given to compromise. That says to me we need many more women in government – preferably because of their own merits, rather than their husband’s popularity.
But CrazyH, do you want those «religious» presidents to be devout ? 😉
Henri
I’d prefer them to be “rational” but I don’t think we’ve got that option any more.
Th. Jefferson was a deist, he’d be unelectable today. I guess that’s called “progress”
«Th. Jefferson was a deist, he’d be unelectable today.» Well, CrazyH, he’d probably have to manumit his slaves…. 😉
Henri
Mr. Jefferson would agree with you, CH, on exactly nothing. But perhaps if he were here, he could explain to you how the Constitution was supposed to work.
We need many more women in government, as a matter of fairness and representation. Sadly, though, I don’t think that, even with the “in general” qualifier, history has borne out the popular supposition that bringing more women into power would automatically make government more decent.
Nobody climbs that greasy pole to the heights of power, without having been vetted by the ruling elites. There is a strong selection bias for sociopathic personalities, regardless of where they came from.
Let me qualify that. There are a many good and decent women, and men, in local and state elected offices. Once in a while, one might even slip through the filter into Congress. Naturally, they all face daily uphill battles against power, but it makes a difference. At the upper echelons, however — I doubt it.
Well c’mon already. Four decades plus of full on feminism and they’re still not stepping up? What’s stopping them, pray tell?
More to the point. Why are (some) women so strongly pro-Hillary? I’m sorry, she’s a terrible role model for a girl. Am I the only one who sees it this way?
“See, you want to be like Hillary Clinton:
1. Use your husband’s name and influence to build a power base.
2. Be secretive.
3. Let your husband treat you like shit and publicly humiliate you and accept it without retaliation or significant complaint.
4. Constantly bring up how you’re a woman because that matters, somehow, but not in any sexist way.
5. Not actually accomplish anything, even though you had all that access and influence.”
Because “Go Team Woman!”
Sorry it ain’t more complicated than that. Individual women think of themselves and each other as representative of all womankind. Almost like a hive mind. It’s the same reason that makes Megyn Kelly believe that by retweeting about how she’s a “bimbo,” Trump is insulting to all women. Same as if I criticize one woman or a group of women, another woman takes it personally. Or, my favorite, if any man complains about women in general, a woman will say that since she doesn’t do whatever the complaint was that either no woman is really like that or it’s just a very tiny minority that are. After all *she’s* a woman; therefore, she *is* all women.
Hey–you asked.
This woman is an example to all of how ‘inclusive’ women can be. Clearly government would work far better with more like her.
Clearly, our beloved «Jack Heart» has found another idol, to stand proudly beside Donald John Trump – Mitchell Peter Fifield – congratulations !…
Henri
Indeed. If only we had more men in office with even half a backbone to push back against the inane Left’s hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy, and silencing and shaming language.
«If only we had more men in office with even half a backbone to push back against the inane Left’s hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy, and silencing and shaming language.» Ah, our dear «Jack Heart» is projecting again. But why not go for broke, «Jack Heart» and put more «men» in office with not half but a whole backbone – «men» not unlike your esteemed self ?…
Pitiful….
Henri
Oh, Henri – you’re missing Mr. Ass’ sublime logic here. The only possible reason you could ever object to white cops shooting unarmed blacks is if you hate all whites.
The only possible reason you might note that European settlers murdered Indians wholesale is if you hate all whites.
The only possible reason you could stand up for gay rights is if you hate all straights.
And, of course, the only possible reason you could ever object to arson is if you hate all firemen.
So quite obviously, you, personally, are a hater. I’m glad I could clear that up for you.
Thanks, CrazyH ! I fear that while hardly an Aristotelian – I tend rather till Epikouros – I’m far too influenced by Aristoteles’ logic and my mathematical training to fully appreciate «Jack Heart»’s attempts to create a coherent system. You examples help me to understand how s/he reasons – if, indeed, the use of that particular verb is appropriate in this particular context….
Henri
Perhaps you’re a bit confused, dear Henri. Projection is a proclivity of the Left.
And CH! “Indians?” I expect better. You’re slipping. That’s not PC. How backward of you!
You’re a bigot because you never miss a chance to blame white men. You’re a hypocrite because when I do blame a different group for something, you get upset.
How is it you can blame white cops for killing “unarmed blacks” but I’m racist for blaming blacks for committing the most rapes, murders, and cop killings per capita? Or that you will blame Europeans for atrocities but won’t do the same to the Indians? Or that you’ll blame whites for slavery when blacks, Arabs and other peoples practiced it as well?
You’re a hypocrite as well as a self-hating white male. QED.
> You’re a bigot because you …
uhhh, Jackie? I just asked you to provide examples this kind of nonsense just yesterday. Still waiting …
(Don’t get your hopes up, I get bored of your smorgasbord attacks – you want to pick ONE on-topic issue, I might take the time to point out where you’re wrong.)
«Projection is a proclivity of the Left.» I fear, dear «Jack Heart», that the confusion is all on your side ; projection is rather a proclivity of individuals like yourself who lack ego strength and cannot face up to their own desires. Your knowledge of psychology seems, hardly surprisingly, to be on a par with your understanding of logic…. 😉
Henri
Perhaps, Crazy one, if you actually spent some time on here talking about your own beliefs like many of the rest of us instead of just musing or attacking others. I dare say I know little of how you describe yourself other than being some sort of liberal/”progressive”/atheist/social democrat even after our countless exchanges. All I can do is attempt to deduce your beliefs from how you attack me and others.
You did say that one must be a feminist in order to like women. And someone, maybe Alex, challenged you on that. I don’t know how to find this. And you’ll deny it again anyway. Just like you always do. Maybe you deny because you don’t like how I characterized of phrased it. Maybe because you can’t stand to agree with a rightwinger on anything at all. Maybe your denial is pathological. I think it’s just your MO.
> You did say that one must be a feminist in order to like women.
Bull. Shit.
Aha! Found it.
You said “attacking women’s rights,” i.e. not being a feminist was the same as attacking all women, i.e. not liking them. Then not one but two people besides me disagree right below.
I eagerly await the form your denial will take.
The quote you are so proud of is “Attacking women’s rights is the exact, same, thing as attacking women”
Which I stand behind.
But the quote you’re looking for is “one must be a feminist in order to like women.”
These things are quite far apart. The fact that you somehow think they are equivalent merely demonstrates your defective reasoning skills; as does this little jewel:
“not being a feminist was the same as attacking all women…”
I didn’t say that. You did. The specific fallacy is “false dichotomy,” The same applies to the rest of your smorgasbord as I demonstrated on [June 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM] above.
Instead of using defective reasoning to concur up ludicrous assertions about what I “mean” you should stick to critiquing what I *say*.
What I find interesting is that all three examples (woman, black, Jewish) aren’t relevant to the needed abilities of a president.
Barack Obama was a terrible president. He wasn’t terrible because he is black. He was terrible because (take a breath): he supported trade agreements, he went after Edward Snowden, he kept the prisoners in Gitmo, he didn’t go after George W. Bush and President Cheney, he did nothing substantive to address global warming, and so on.
Hillary Clinton was a terrible secretary of state. She wasn’t terrible because she is a woman. She was terrible because: she’s a liar, she supported trade agreements before opposing them, she’s a liar, she used a charitable organization as a slushfund, she’s a liar, she went after Edward Snowden and lied about how he’d be able to get a fair trial if he returned to the U.S., and so on.
Sanders? I suspect he’d make a great president. Not because of his foreign policy abilities, but because he is the only one who can rally an organized, outraged, informed electorate into a force to compel change for the better. If Sanders were to win? Here’s my list of expectations:
Wall Street indictments. Climate change initiatives that actually deal with reducing the problem. Universal healthcare. Better minimum wage. Tuition-free college. And he wouldn’t do it by giving secret speeches to Goldman Sachs. He’d simply go on the television and deliver a three-minute speech: “If you want universal healthcare, RIGHT NOW, phone your representatives, e-mail them, send physical letters. Deluge them with your outrage. Make them understand that if they DON’T vote your interests, you will vote them right out of office. MAKE SURE they understand that you are the ones in charge. Put the fear of God into them.”
Hillary Clinton? She couldn’t get enthusiasm if she was handing out free pardons in a prison.
Alex
You are 100% right about the first two. Much as Bernie is, actually, different (I think he is basically honest, and basically decent) he’s still a capitalist, and he would be working in the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never been friends with the working class, ever, they only play that on television. Corbyn in England has at least some history of Labor being slightly a party of labor (and he has actually called for nationalizations, which Bernie hasn’t). We haven’t had a party of labor in the country since Eugene Debs.
It might make me a fringe-dwelling lunatic, but I think that it is possible to gleefully, whole-heartedly embrace capitalism and STILL be honest and decent. If some CEO runs a company, pays all of his employees a living wage AND has a fancy house? More power to him. It’s these so-and-sos who eliminate overtime, crush unions, shift everyone to part-time, etc., all the time shrieking about how greedy the employees are, that ought to be lined up and shot.
Alex –
Concur. As an analogy: even though people die on the highway, highways are not inherently evil. They make it possible for people and goods to get from place to place, and that’s obviously a good thing.
But consider an unregulated highway. No speed limits, no cops, no repercussions if you kill someone.
That would be a bad thing. We’d have an immediate 260,350,938 vehicle pile up as the assholes tried to take advantage of the situation. Even with the cops & regulations we have today, human assholiness is still the number one killer on the highway.
Likewise, capitalism. Unregulated capitalism allows the assholes to take advantage of the majority of decent people. They may get theirs quicker (or crash & burn) but they harm a lot of innocents along the way.
If we want capitalism to work, we need speed limits, cops, and penalties for those who do not play nice with others.
(you know’d dat already, Alex, just taking advantage of your post to get up on my soapbox)
suetonius,
I agree. The welfare state the Dems created has devastated the working class.
“It might make me a fringe-dwelling lunatic…”
No, that isn’t it. But the second part about shooting employers for not doing whatever workers want might.
CH,
So in your mind the main deterrent to dangerous driving is some signs and cops that usually aren’t around instead of most people being decent as well as concerned about their own mortality…
Thomas Hobbes had a better opinion of humanity.
But more to the point.
«… but I think that it is possible to gleefully, whole-heartedly embrace capitalism and STILL be honest and decent. If some CEO runs a company, pays all of his employees a living wage AND has a fancy house?» The question is, alex_the_tired, whether a CEO who pays all of his employees a living wage (as, I presume, a matter of principle) can be said to «gleefully, whole-heartedly embrace capitalism». The essence of capitalism, as it is practised, is to «buy cheap and sell dear» in order to accumulate capital. One of the things that is to be bought cheaply is, of course, labour (that’s why we speak of a «labour market») and remember that our «honest and decent» capitalist has to compete with others who may not be quite so admirable. That is why regulation of markets and firms is required, so that «honest and decent» capitalists can have a chance in a market that in the absence of such regulation is everything but….
Henri
Henri, CrazyH:
Henri, I think we need to agree (we being anyone discussing politics/economics) that we are no longer in a capitalist society but rather in a neo-capitalist one, and refer in the past tense to capitalism. The neo-capitalist society is the one you describe where you buy low, sell high, and really stick it to everyone along the way.
In my capitalist yesteryear, which may have only existed as a fantasy, the owner persons didn’t treat the worker persons like things.
CrazyH,
Your “unregistered” highway sounds very much like the “free market”.
«I think we need to agree (we being anyone discussing politics/economics) that we are no longer in a capitalist society but rather in a neo-capitalist one, and refer in the past tense to capitalism. The neo-capitalist society is the one you describe where you buy low, sell high, and really stick it to everyone along the way. » Alex, my understanding, admittedly imperfect, is that buying cheap and selling dear long predated capitalism (or to use the Marxist term, «the capitalist mode of production», which is characterised, among other things, by the integration of labour into the market, along with other factors of production. The conditions of factory workers in, say, Victorian England, described by such writers as Charles Dickens as well as economists like Karl Heinrich Marx and Friedrich Engels, is hardly a recent development which would merit the coining of a new term, «neo-capitalism». «Stick[ing] it to everyone» has been part and parcel of capitalism since its very inception ; in that sense, today’s capitalists are true to their origins. As Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto :
«The bourgeoisie [i e, the capitalists], wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. »
I can hear Donald John Trump shouting, «You’re fired !»…
Henri
If you are a supporter of capitalism, even some kind of imagined kinder, gentler version you ARE NOT a leftist. An authentic leftist or socialist, by definition, must be anti-capitalist . . . period.
“You are not a leftist PERIOD”
That is a statement that can only be made by an authoritarian. And an authoritarian is not a leftist, PERIOD.
EXCLAMATION POINT.
Leftist INEQUALITY OPERATOR OPEN PAREN Socialist INCLUSIVE OR Communist. CLOSE PAREN.
OPEN PAREN Socialst INCLUSIVE OR Communist CLOSE PAREN ELEMENT OF OPERATOR SET OF OPERATOR Leftist.
All states are authoritarian. Democracy, always a nebulous concept, does not exist in the real world.
Anyway, what could be more authoritarian than capitalism?
You’re confused.
Conservatives are the ones who say, “You must do this to be one of us.” (as you did with the comment I responded to)
Liberals are more open. We accept many different ways of doing things, many different ideas and many different people. I’ve been told that you can’t be a liberal unless you’re a vegetarian. You can’t be a liberal if you own an automobile. You can’t be a liberal if you watch TV, etc.
I disagree, “You can’t be a liberal if you insist that everyone must do things your way.”
Agree with your analysis of these three figures, alex_the_tired, but it perhaps should be pointed out that the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton pardons may be related to the sums which have to be paid to obtain them, cf the case of Marcell David Reich (aka Marc Rich)…. 😉
Another thing to keep in mind is that these so-called «trade agreements» have, in fact, little to do with trade, rather their main focus is on usurping state sovereignty by forcing states to accept stipulations regarding Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow corporations to sue state parties (but not the other way ’round !) before panels comprising international corporate lawyers, from the decisions of which no appeal to the courts is possible….
Henri
Times when a progressive/Leftist purports to care about state sovereignty:
1. When corporations might sue national governments.
2. When a country bombs another.
Times when a progressive/Leftist doesn’t care about state sovereignty:
1. All other times.
«Times when a progressive/Leftist purports to care about state sovereignty …»
Times when signature «Jack Heart» has shown her/himself able to grasp an argument presented by a so-called «progressive/Leftist» : none. (Not surprisingly, the same amount of times that s/he has shown comprehension of the matters s/he has purported to discuss on these threads….)
Henri
Obama on global warming.
Keep in mind however that Obama has DONE (as compared to SPOKEN ABOUT DOING) little. Climate change isn’t about tweaking car engines or any of the rest of that. Those are the equivalent of an office building recycling all its paper, meanwhile, Janice in accounting is still printing out all her e-mails so she can read them at lunch. The big problems need to be addressed, not just the little fixes. Keep the oil in the ground for chrissakes. Leave the methane in there, too. We are facing some heavy-duty disaster in the coming decades.
Not to mention, Alex, Mr Obama’s purely rhetorical contributions to making this a world free of nuclear-weapons….
Henri
Only Snowden and the TPP and the TTIP?
What about the fact that she strongly supported Bush, jrs successful effort to transform Iraq from an impoverished, war-torn tyranny into a peaceful and prosperous democracy, and pushed Obama to do the same favour for Libya? And that track record means she’ll do the same favour for Syria, Iran, Russia, and China.
«And that track record means she [i e, Ms Clinton]’ll do the same favour for Syria, Iran, Russia, and China.» She will certainly try, Michael, but I suspect the task, particularly when it comes to Russia and China, will prove beyond her and, in the course of her attempts to bring peace and prosperity, US style to these lands, she may well unleash a thermonuclear conflagration that puts paid to to the short happy life of H sapiens sapiens on this blue planet….
Henri
Symbolic progress, indeed. Everything in the U.S. is superficial. This is a result of a massive fraud that is the entire American project and also a natural outgrowth of the bourgeois mentality where form is elevated over substance and any “progress” is only skin deep.
CH: “Liberals are more open. We accept many different ways of doing things, many different ideas and many different people.”
I didn’t say anything about what are the parameters, requirements or defining characteristics of being an American liberal. I simply said that a genuine socialist (by which I mean a Marxist-Leninist or communist) MUST be anti-capitalist.
Are there any conditions for being a liberal? Obviously there are. A vitally important condition for being a real socialist is to be anti-capitalist AND anti-imperialist.
First!
> I simply said that a genuine socialist (by which I mean a Marxist-Leninist or communist) MUST be anti-capitalist.
No you didn’t, you said a Leftist could not be a capitalist. Of course being a socialist and being a capitalist are mutually exclusive.
The trouble with these discussions is that the political waters have become so muddy when it comes to ideological labels (and this has been done deliberately, at least in part I think).
In my mind, you can use the term “left” relatively; for example you could in a sense speak of the “left-wing” of the Republican party – otherwise called “moderate conservatives.”
However, when I speak of “THE Left” I am talking about Marxist-Leninists – otherwise known as communists. What you might refer to as the “far left” is to me the only Left worthy of the name. When white working class conservatives associate bourgeois liberals with a legitimate left or socialist movement it does enormous damage to the cause of overthrowing the capitalist system and building genuine socialism.
I concur on the ‘muddy’ and the possible reasons therefor.
However, I find that using more precise terms – “communist” rather than ‘leftist’ – can only aid communication. Perhaps you mean “communist” when you say “THE Left” – but other people don’t use it that way and so your message may be lost.
“Marxist-Leninist” is a poor choice for communication as well. Marx & Lenin never met, and Stalin made up the term to mollify those true revolutionaries who expected to see a communist worker’s paradise established in Russia.
Even if you, personally, believe that M-L means the same thing as “communist,” most Americans (and communists for that matter) don’t see it that way. Using it “does enormous damage to the cause of overthrowing the capitalist system and building genuine socialism”
If you truly want to establish socioeconomic justice, maybe you would be better off talking about that instead of trying to clear Stalin’s name.
Yes, I almost mentioned that even the term “communist” is problematic. You have anarchists who will use that word to describe themselves, e.g., libertarian communism as opposed to anarcho-syndicalism.
The problem with “Marxism-Leninism” from my perspective is that although it is descriptive it is a bit awkward and verbose.
And I have to clear Stalin’s name to counter many decades of CIA black propaganda; doing so would be a game changer and could powerfully boost the morale of a progressive working class movement. Such a movement would surely look like tyranny to you, CH, but the working class majority needs to finally come to realize that the communist nemesis of capitalist billionaires and the CIA was and is the good guy in this ongoing class war.
> Such a movement would surely look like tyranny to you,
When did I ever say that? I think it’s a nice dream, but unworkable in real life given real humans. Whenever I talk about how I would run the show, I talk about some sort of ‘blend’ – not pure communism, capitalism, or socialism, (mercantilism, individualism…) but the best parts of each, minus the drawbacks. (that’s probably a “nice dream” as well, but one can dream at least)
> I have to clear Stalin’s name
Why? It doesn’t move the ball down the field. Whether he was a misunderstood martyr or a terrible tyrant does not change the definition of communism one whit. Perhaps National Socialism was a good idea, but bringing up Hitler doesn’t help to convince people of that – quite the opposite, it makes them stop listening.
If you want to bring about socioeconomic justice we’re on the same side. If you want to talk about what a great place North Korea is, or what a wonderful guy Stalin was then I’m afraid you are actively working against that goal even if you are correct in both those assertions it doesn’t help.