Intellectual dishonesty

Here is Chris Bowers' (MyDD :: Trying To Tie This All Together...) plaintive appeal to be taken seriously, now that one of the adults, er we mean "major candidates" has echoed his personal stance on Iraq:

Bill Richardson appears to be the first major candidate to articulate my personal stance on Iraq. It was sweet for a candidate to not only state that he was for full withdrawal, but to also, you know, actually propose total withdrawal in policy terms. I was excited about this, because I have regularly seen my position dismissed as naïve, not serious, and a bunch of other patronizing terms. However, with Bill Richardson making the argument, this position can't be brushed off as "not serious" or "naïve" anymore without belying [sic] obvious intellectual dishonesty on the part of the person making the dismissal.

He probably means "betray" not "bely". But more importantly, he should mean "Kucinich" when he writes "major candidate", not "Richardson". Such a correction would be intellectually honest and serious. To expect the correction would of course be naive on our part.

Copyright blues

Left Itch readers are not the most well read -- how could they be if their time is spent reading this blog? It is entirely feasible therefore that they are unaware over the comic skirmish that has erupted over a YouTube video by an ex-Obama advertising hack who borrowed a bit from an Apple ad which uses Orwellian imagery to present Apple as an alternative to mindless drone alternatives. The ex-Obama hack's twist was to use the Apple ad to poke fun at Hillary.



That Orwell's work is at the center of this is appropriate at each of the multiple iterations of outrage. First that a corporation could use such an image without irony is itself a reflection of the mindlessness. Second that someone like Obama, a rherorical hoodwinker, could be (again without irony) offered as an alternative to the "system" (indeed ably represented by Hillary). Third that the owners of the copyrights of the Orwell work would be outraged by all this appropriation (not for purist reasons, but because it dilutes their cash cow). And finally in the latest twist, that the "netroots" would get hyper-righteous about it all (MyDD :: 1984 Copyright Holder Threaten 1984 Hillary Ad). Says Matt Stoller:

Via Boingboing, I'm watching this power grab by copyright lunatics.

"Power grab"! "Copyright lunatics"! The sort of invective usually reserved for principled leftists like Kucinich. Rhetoric to match their idol indeed! And if he can get away with false populism while raising $25 million, they should be permitted to eat the system and have it too.

A long way from the Second International

The "progressives" are not getting anywhere, and there is much hand-wringing among the netrootsarati. Cries abound for a new paradigm to save and rejuvenate liberalism and leftism. And amazingly answers are found. And in places and terms that would leave an outdated leftist or humanist scratching her head -- for the solution, my dear comrades, lies in that word that we learned in the 80s: "entrepreneurship". We at the left itch are poor satirists, but fortunately the original material (MyDD :: How liberal entrepreneurship can help solve the progressive money problem) leaves no need for such explication:

Support entrepreneurs. The New Progressive Coalition, which I profiled several months ago (see this summary of the NPC), is the clearest example of supporting liberal entrepreneurs I have yet seen. NPC helps connects builders of progressive organizations with potential funders, and also provides organizations with practical tips and advice. This is a very useful organization, but its membership fees are rather high and tend to lock out a lot of people who can provide a little bit of help. (On the other hand, the fees are fairly low for anyone who's serious about organization building, considering the myriad other costs involved in such a venture.)

Unfortunately, there are not many other resources available to liberal entrepreneurs. Sure, there are plenty of resources for people who run non-profits, and there are a handful of resources available to people who run grassroots political organizations. But those resources are insufficient, because they just don't cover the kind of organizations liberal entrepreneurs might want to run. Where are the resources to support a for-profit company which provides consulting to candidates to help them reach religious liberals? As you may have guessed by now, this sort of problem is exactly what I'm looking to solve.

At a time when union membership continues to decline and the few remaining members vote against their own class interests, what better strategy than to take on the method, or at least the language, of the masters? This, I believe, is what our young friends in the "netroots" call a "framing" issue. This may be a brilliant attempt at frame inversion?

Smear fear

Demonstrating the maxim that the bully is at heart a coward, Chris Bowers speaks of his fear of popular GOP candidates for president (MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics):

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani remain two idols of the establishment media and punditry elite, and the Republican Noise Machine is still better at smearing Dems than we are at counterattacks.

The man is too modest! MyDD (and its fellow netrooters) are as good, if not better, better at smearing Dems than the Republican Noise Machine. Or has it slipped their collective memory that Kucinich is a Democrat?



Setting aside the humor of it, the netroots crowd are not well-suited for the bullying they indulge in occasionally. Unfortunately, their ignorance of their destructive attitude is as dangerous as their left-baiting would be if it was intentional.

Uncivil war on Lieberman

The rodent from Connecticut deserves every bit of misinterpretation thrown at him, so we note the below (Think Progress » Lieberman: There Is No Civil War In Iraq (But Even If There Is, We Should Stay) mostly in jest:

Lieberman claimed the “facts” suggest Iraq is not in a civil war. But seconds before, he said, “Why do proponents of withdrawal from Iraq keep insisting that [our] American troops shouldn’t be policing a civil war?”

Lieberman, contrary to what Think Progress is implying, is not necessarily contradicting himself. It is possible that he is right that Iraq is not a civil war (perhaps in Lieberverse) and also right that we should police it if it turns into one.

Rinse and repeat

Once again the "gradualist" hard-nosed "netroots" -- the very youngsters who played up Obama while ridiculing Kucinich -- learn a vital lesson about politicians. They are unhappy (Daily Kos: Obama caves to Bush) with their idol Obama's take on Iraq war funding:

Obama just surrendered to Bush.

Well maybe no lesson learned after all. Obama did not "just" surrender to Bush. He just made it clear to the few impressionable followers he has that he is not much different from Bush. We await the inevitable bone throwing and reconciliation. Or perhaps a new netroots candidate? A greater gradualist to save the day! Joseph Biden?

Intellectually speaking...

Here are two startling ideas that you have probably not hear before:

• There is a strong anti-intellectual streak running through the American collective psyche.



• Republicans/Conservatives benefit from this tendency.

But then we have Matt Stoller announcing (MyDD :: Needed: A Line in the Sand on Iraq) the demise of the conservatism, as an intellectual brand:

Obama, who is more and more staking out progressive territory (not boldly, but he is going there), is appealing to a group of independent voters that are increasingly sympathetic to liberalism. This makes sense. Conservatism has died, intellectually speaking. After watching New Orleans in tatters, Iraq in flames, and a government engulfed in corruption, the Republican brand is gone. And yet the Democratic brand, while slightly improved, is not sparkling with dynamism.

What are we to make of these claims? Conservatism (in its personification as the Republican Party) suffered an electoral defeat. Is this an intellectual defeat or a political one? If the 2006 election results were indeed a signal that government is a necessary and positive element in societal progress, then it would follow that the conservative demonizing of it has finally been challenged and rejected. This is however, at best an optimistic conclusion. It is far more parsimonious to conclude that the people, especially independents, did not intend any sort of ideological message in their recent choice, but merely their mild discontent with the most excessive acts of the Bush administration (and the GOP). A quick glance at PollingReports will assuage any worries the right might entertain that "independents" are anything more than those who sit in the middle of an already right-centered narrow range of differences between Democrats and Republicans.



The truth (at least the more justifiable version of it) is that the Democratic Party and liberalism have been intellectually dead for a few decades now. While the party continues to shuffle the deck chairs of populism, fickle labor support and a Dixiecrat legacy, the party faithful and their commanders are divided between DLC triangulators and "netroots" tacticians. If indeed there is an anti-intellectual streak running through the populace, it should be no suprise, in such an atmosphere of retreat from principles. The liberals have nothing to offer. Intellectually speaking.