Through Being Cool
A lot of libertarians have been discussing Mark Ames' bizarre essay on what the Left needs to do. Ames doesn't believe Gen X or Y are up the task. Stop worrying about being cool and start getting organized. Organized for what? Don't worry, Ames gives you your marching orders. In fact, he summarizes them at the end. Here are some excerpts, with comments:
1. Collective action is the only possible way to change shit. Large numbers of collectivized nobodies rallying to demand what they want–a better cut of the pie, and a better world to live in....
Note Ames doesn't want his people to do anything to make the world better--he just wants them to demand others do it for them. And don't ever let him catch you trying to change the world by creating something of value all by your lonesome.
2. [...] What does the Left stand for? [...] first, people need money. Then if they have money, they need Life.
I can see people demanding more money, but more Life?
Then they might be interested in “ideals” set out in the contract that this country is founded on. Ever read the preamble to the Constitution?
Uh-oh, he's bringing up the vague and unenforceable Preamble, a favorite talking point of kooks everywhere.
There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose [...] driving the libertarian ideology so dominant over the past few generations.
Libertarian ideology has been dominant? If only.
...This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.” And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it. The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union—that’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks....
I apologize for taking this argument seriously, but even if we accept his understanding of "union" (in a document that mostly deals, rather drily, with the three branches of the federal goverment and how they interact with the states), and "welfare" (in a document that doesn't seem to care much about the modern concept of welfare as in redistribution of wealth), Ames does rather conveniently leave out other parts of the Preamble. For instance, no reference to the one item that most obviously points money in a certain direction--the need to "provide for the common defence." Worse, he ignores the desire to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Hmm, what other word sounds like "liberty"? Oh yeah, libertarian.
3. Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
This part's gotten the most attention. I'll ignore the last line since it's just his opinion (though it is nice to see someone on the left so visibly condemn communism). However, after he's done spitting on people, the second line tells them what they believe. Maybe before he expectorates, he can ask these people if he's properly characterized their beliefs--he might be surprised to learn libertarians believe their way promotes the general welfare and even makes this country a better (or more perfect, if you will) place to live.
And was it that long ago that George W. Bush was in office? I swear I can remember back then any time people went up against the state that made them patriots.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:01 AM
8 Comments:
The desperate effort for young strivers to seem relevant.
Every argument he makes can be made with the same words by (what he perceives to be) the other side although withouth the Rolling Stone-type snideness (but with a very different kint kind of snideness) Glad to see the Guys enjoying their favorite sport of shooting fish in a barrel-
Got some wild salmon you'd like to see on the menu?
Note Ames doesn't want his people to do anything to make the world better--he just wants them to demand others do it for them.
It seems as if Ames is trying to refute E.A. Hanks' semi-coherent essay, in which she condemns "The Left" for talking instead of getting things done. Leaving aside the fact that for Ames, The Left seems to be a muddled mixture of liberal Democratic politicians in Washington and organized left-wing organizations like CodePink -- which are certainly not the same as each other -- she does seem to want action rather than talk.
I agree with Hanks and with you that when it comes to economics, people should make things better rather than asking others to do so.
But when it comes to changing American foreign policy, I agree with Ames with regard to tactics. An individual cannot change American foreign policy except by collective political action (voting, rallies, walking door-to-door for candidates, giving money to a politician).
[...] What does the Left stand for? [...] first, people need money. Then if they have money, they need Life.
The traditional spectrum of politics is: Radical, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Reactionary. (Libertarians don't appear on this one-dimensional spectrum.) Back in 1981, William Rusher predicted that the final battle of modern politics would not be between conservatives and liberals, nor between reactionaries and leftists, but between conservatives and leftists -- because only these had actual ideologies.
Today, American conservatives still have an ideology, as do libertarians. But the American left -- whether of the liberal variety, or the CodePink semi-leftist variety -- do not have ideologies. You can't find any actual ideologies until you go further left than MoveOn and CodePink. Communists have an ideology, but the American left does not.
This is what makes them so futile. MoveOn knows what it hates, and whom it hates. But it has never attempted to describe the ideal balance of liberty and control it would like to see in the United States, or its ideal international distribution of power. The American left has become so Fabian than it really believes in "progress" -- which in practice means that an American liberal or leftist honestly cannot tell you what causes they will be rooting for in thirty years. Fifteen years ago gay marriage was not an issue being discussed even among those who were seen as very friendly to gay liberation (a now antiquated term). Fifteen years ago, the Left was upset that Bush and Clinton were not pushing harder with China about human rights; today my leftists friends believe that Obama is right to promise China that we will ignore their human rights violations if they join the fight against global warming. Fifteen years ago the Left opposed "misogynist" religions like Christianity and Islam; today the Left has forbidden any negative talk about Islam.
So there will continue to be Hankses for the foreseeable future: that's what happens when you give your soul to a movement that redefines itself every decade or two.
To paraphrase Joyce: Conservatives embrace an absurdity which is logical and coherent. The left embraces one which is illogical and incoherent.
To paraphrase the car talk guys: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more, or less, than one person who doesn't know what he is talking about?
I love these people who criticize individual liberty, longing for a greater centralized power to protect the dumb people from themselves...
...not seeming to realize that the only reason they have the freedom to criticize is because that great a centralized power does not (yet) exist.
VermontGuy wrote: To paraphrase Joyce: Conservatives embrace an absurdity which is logical and coherent. The left embraces one which is illogical and incoherent.
It will be interesting to see, in the next few decades, whether having a coherent ideology tends to attract more people or drive more people away.
The greatest era of ideology was the first two-thirds of the 20th century. In 1973, when the Franco regime finally allowed complete freedom of the press in Spain, they braced themselves for editorials spouting the Communist line. Instead, the next day the Spanish newspapers were full of photos of topless women.
In the past couple years, there has a been a resurgence of ideological conservatism, and the great leaders of this movement all invoke Reagan (and often criticize both Bushes). And I know some people who have been "converted" to conservatism by the arguments offered by pundits. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent kind of ideological "conversion" to liberalism. But if a Republican is elected in 2012 this may end.
No one needs to "convert" to liberalism. They're already winning over the country. Even with the Republicans doing well in the last election, the government is intruding more and more in the private economy, and the demographics are changing guaranteeing some places will always vote in Democrats.
Post a Comment
<< Home