Keep Digging
Backdrop
As some of you may know, I recently got into a little kerfuffle with Joan Walsh on the Twitterz (of all places). [The Chirpstory can be viewed on the next page of this post.]
You see, on Wednesday I wrote a rant about the looming irrelevancy of the Professional Left aka firebaggers aka Obamabashbots. It was one in a series of screeds I have written about the destructive tactics of these self-appointed leaders of the left and their firebagger minions. It was also part of a collection of screeds written by liberals of all colors, each of whom views the attack dog tactics of the Professional Left (and the resulting rancor among the Professional Left Commentariat) as damaging to not only the President, but also the country.
These screeds are penned by those who genuinely are interested in advancing liberal policies in this country, policies which will ameliorate gender inequality, extinguish racial disparities in access to healthcare, family planning services, education, raise consciousness about climate change, and beat back the plutocratic tide that threatens to drown us all. These screeds tend to be penned by bloggers who do not blog for pay and who do not blog in order to increase their advertising revenue; these are bloggers who are not attempting to leverage their seemingly self-proclaimed status as guardian of the progressive movement into television appearances on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.
All one has to do is a simple Google search using the search terms “Joan Walsh” and “Democratic base” or “the base” and you will notice that she, like Hamsher and others, have routinely and endlessly complained that they are “hippies” being punched by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and famously Rahm Emanuel.
Take a famous example: Fucking RetardedGate:
Rahm Emanuel made his famous “fucking retarded” comment, and the Professional Left got itself in an uproar, even though any sensible reading of Emanuel’s comments could not possibly lead to the conclusion that he was referring to a couple of bloggers as being “fucking retarded,” or that he was referencing liberals as a whole as “fucking retarded.”
The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.
“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.
So while, Emanuel did use the term “fucking retarded” and yes, using the term “retarded” is ableist and offensive, all the Professional Left could think about were their huwt feewings and the crumpled tissues soaked with tears of disappointment, even though they had to misrepresent the context in which the statement was made in order to include themselves among the hippies that Emanuel had so brutally punched.
Incidents like the above fomented a shift in Netroots Nation. Due to the growing sense that places like FireDogLake, Salon, and Daily Kos seemed more invested in endlessly criticizing the President than promoting a useful discussion about the ways in which liberals could advance their policy goals, people who were tired of surrounding themselves with nothing but negative commentary decided to branch off and form their own blogs. In these smaller communities, it is not considered a character flaw to express one’s support for the president. In these smaller communities, one does not have to qualify every expression of support for the president with “but I don’t agree with everything that he does.”
It is in these smaller communities that those of us who know how to walk and chew gum at the same time are able to support the president generally, while not supporting each of his policies specifically. It is in these smaller communities that people who, ironically, refuse to see everything in “black and white” are comfortable with infinite shades of gray.
Perhaps it is because of the smaller communities that have been formed over the last year that minorities who typically are ignored until we become convenient for political strategy have found our voice. As more and more people take advantage of the platform that blogging can provide, and of the communities that form in the comment sections of those blogs, more and more people are beginning to vocally express their opposition to the primarily white progressive movement which often purports to speak for all “progressives.” Indeed, in some of these communities the word “progressive” is rendered in quotation marks precisely because of the negative connotations associated with the word.
To paraphrase Justin Timberlake, we’re bringing liberal back.
Yet we, obviously, do not have the platform that the “Professional Left” does. We don’t have a voice in the base. We are shouted out of comment sections, our comments are moderated out of discussions, until all that remains are comments full of anger and irrational hatred; hatred and anger which all too frequently becomes impossible to differentiate from outright racism. We are palpably frustrated. That frustration came to a head this week.
Obama 2012
On Monday, Obama announced his reelection campaign. Twitter and Blogistan were twitterpated and generally broke into the firebagger/obot camp. The firebaggers derided the Obots as cultists; the Obots derided the firebaggers as purists. The firebaggers, presumably, 
continued their ruminations regarding who should run against Obama in the Democratic Primary. The Obots united behind the President and began to discuss how to hit the ground running.
Of course the Obots were met with jeers:
“Obama is going to raise a billion dollars from corporate donors. Small donors won’t make a difference this time.”
“We need to unite around policy goals, not around a cult of personality.”
And we got this from Ms. Walsh herself:
Finally, if progressives organize independently, perhaps President Obama might do something about the stunning economic inequality corroding our nation, as he woos our votes to get reelected. I still have a gut belief that Obama shares our values, and he might show us that in his second and last term. But we’re more likely to push him that way if we work to build a constituency behind policies that make this country work for everyone again, rather than flock to join a corporate juggernaut masquerading as a grass-roots movement in Obama 2012.
Thus I have other political interests and priorities beyond Obama 2012, for now. And I think I’m going to have a lot of company. [In other words, I'm a disgruntled white progressive and I'm going to try to teach Obama a lesson because he doesn't share our values now, but maybe with our help, we can help him see the light. -ed.]
It is against this backdrop that the Twitter Race War That Never Was must be viewed.
OMG TWITTER RACE WAR LOL!!1one
[Stop. You should read the chirp story on the Next Page (page 2 -- to get there, scroll down) before continuing.]
Rather than make any good-faith attempt to understand POCs’ concerns about the behavior and constant anti-Obama criticisms of the Professional Left, Joan Walsh does exactly what all privileged people do; she dismissed out of hand the concerns of the minority, refuses to actually confront those concerns, and then when it became apparent that she’d pissed some people off, she offered platitudes to the people voicing their concerns—patronizingly maternal pats on the head coupled with a soothing “there there.”
In so doing, she ignored the words of the very people who were expressing their concern, put words in their mouth, casually dismissed them, and then accused them of race baiting. She did not for one moment make any effort to understand what her critic was trying to say. She crouched into a defensive posture and started swinging. She did not attempt to get past whatever words she found “toxic” to get to the heart of the issue, which is that POCs have felt entirely excluded from proclamations from on high about The Base.
A review of the Chirpstory (you can find it on the next page) will demonstrate that Joan Walsh’s only concern was restoring whatever loss of goodwill or integrity that the Twitter War engendered and making me and Walsh’s other critics look like angry lunatics. [Note: I realize how convenient it is for Joan to include my Twitter name in her article, because it seems to reinforce the idea that we black folk are angry and irrational. The Angry part of my name has nothing to do with race and everything to do with this bastard of a tumor that is in my brain, fucking up my hormones and lady business -- nice stereotyping, though. -ed.] And, if she needed to cherry pick tweets to rehabilitate her image, then dagnabbit, that’s what she was going to do. Somebody might have called her racist. And if there’s one thing that nice white ladies hate, it’s being called racist. This is her reputation we’re talking about here!
If Joan Walsh had any sense she would have left well enough alone. I have very little sense and even I had the sense to leave well enough alone; I was poised to publish the Chirpstory (view it on the next page!) , but I decided against it. What’s the point? It would be of interest to only a handful of people. I don’t care if a few idiots on Twitter think I’m trying to make a name for myself. I have a day job, yo. I don’t need to make a name for myself.
The horse was dead. We’d beat it to death on Wednesday. Walsh reanimated that horse today; I guess that leaves me to beat it again. I assume she believed that because she has a larger platform, she would be able to absolve herself of her transgressions and be welcome into the warm open embrace of her commenters who would surely cheer her on, having been fed half the story with pretentious garnish. It would have been easier to admit two days ago that her tweet was poorly worded, to apologize for it, and to move on. But noppppe!
I’m a well-known Twitterholic, and Wednesday night I was going back and forth with my Twitter friends Andrew Jerell Jones (@sluggahjells) and Melissa Harris-Perry1 (@mharrisperry) about Melissa’s and my Wednesday “Hardball” star turn defending Planned Parenthood. Ironically, at the time, we were joking about race: @sluggahjells called Melissa and me “the best black and white female duo since”… and then he linked to this clip from Sister Act, with Maggie Smith and Whoopi Goldberg (and a gang of other nuns) singing the Temptations’ “Ball of Confusion,” that great anthem of 1970s social and racial strife. You remember: “Why? Because of the color of their skin … Run, run, run cause you sure can’t hide …”
[I’m astonished that her opening gambit is “I have a black friend.” What is it with white lefties who feel the need to trot out their black friends and colleagues as some sort of force shield against any offensive and obnoxious statements they may make as if simply knowing or having had a conversation, dinner, or a drink with a black person earns you some sort of gold star. The purpose of her first paragraph is to set herself up as a friend to black people. "I’m one of the good ones, Negro! Never fear!” -ed.]
Who knew I’d be living it shortly? [Haha. Totally. Having a handful of people criticize your stupid statement while you sit behind the safety of your monitor is the same as... as what... being Whoopi Goldberg? Being a part of 1970s social and racial strife? What the hell does this even mean? -ed.]
Kidding! #whitegirlproblems [HA! Good one. It’s always a good idea to throw a joke about how you know you’re white and that you’re only kidding except really you’re not. Racism is hilarious, isn’t it? -ed.]
What happened next was surreal, though, and led to the lovely Atlantic Wire headline “Joan Walsh Sparks Twitter Brawl Over Obama and Race.” In the middle of that really fun Twitter stream, out of the blue, [Imagine that! Getting a twitter message from one of your readers out of the blue! It’s not like Twitter isn’t one big morass of people yelling shit out of the blue. It's not like you have expressed your concern about staying in touch what with all the various social networking platforms out there. No! You were just having a good time with your black friend and some reader rudely interrupted you! -ed.] I got these messages:
truthrose1
@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of Dem party and ignore AA’s, we are eventruthrose1
@joanwalsh PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggerstruthrose1
@joanwalsh the divisive ones are the racist ex libertarian, ex repub, ex green, fake Dems who want PBO to fail. The real base supports PBOShe was referring to my article “Wisconsin, Obama and the Democrats’ future.” It was the second of two pieces in two days in which I explained why, despite my criticisms of the president’s centrism, I thought a primary challenge from the left was destructive.
Now here is where Walsh’s first sleight of hand comes in to play. She received these messages out of the blue, you see. And yes, the three tweets when, taken out of context, certainly seem rabid.
I wonder what happens if you put the tweets in their proper context, you know, in the order they were tweeted. Suddenly Joan isn’t the victim of some angry race-baiter. Indeed she becomes just like so many other privileged people who are uncomfortable examining their own biases or their own language and why that language is perceived by people of color to be offensive.
truthrose1
@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of Dem party and ignore AA’s, we are eventruthrose1
@joanwalsh PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggersjoanwalsh
@truthrose1 Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong.truthrose1
@joanwalsh white progressive voices use the term “the base” carelessly that is my pointtruthrose1
@joanwalsh AA’s are not the entire base, however, white progressive voices ignore us and act as if we don’t existjoanwalsh
@truthrose1 No, I don’t. That’s insanely unfair. Talk to a person, not your stereotypes. Please. Tiresome, really.truthrose1
@joanwalsh history will show how the so called “progressive” wing of the Dem party was a toxic and deceitful bunch of back stabbers.joanwalsh
@truthrose1 You’re toxic, I’m sorry. Jesus. Get some help.
Paints a different picture, doesn’t it? Not the picture of some angry black person barging in and ruining her fun Twitter party. You see truthrose tries to explain her concerns to Walsh – namely that white progressive voices ignore black people and act as if we don’t exist. (I have repeatedly voiced that same concern.) Walsh’s response – were she at all interested in unity, as she later claims to be – should have been “I don’t think that I do that. Can you explain?” Or, if Walsh was “off-the-clock” she should have ignored the tweet until a further time when she could address it appropriately. She could have started an open thread on her blog and actually gotten her hands dirty in the comment section.
These would have been perfect ways to open up a useful dialogue about the way black folks have felt excluded from The Base. But instead of doing that, she gets defensive: “I don’t do that.” She reflexively plays “the race card” — “talk to a person, not your stereotypes” — all the while implying that it is truthrose who is playing that card. And then the coup de grâce — just to show how disinterested she really is in having this discussion: it’s so tiresome. Really.
Privilege Has its Privileges
Walsh deftly dismissed truthrose without ever having to respond to her. Truthrose is being unfair. She’s angry. She’s toxic. It’s as if Walsh fell out of the Privileged Tree and hit every derailing branch on the way down. (The extremely useful Derailing for Dummies: Making Discrimination Easier site does a wonderful job summarizing these derailing techniques.) She hits the “You’re Too Angry” branch:
This one is particularly effective because it really pushes home a sense of futility and hopelessness to the Marginalised Person™. Remember they should never get the impression they can win one of these arguments, because you should be consistently implying that there was never anything to argue over to begin with.
If you’ve been following the steps correctly so far, by this point any reasonable person is going to be feeling pretty angry. This anger could lead to them being more aggressive and abrasive. The Marginalised Person™ has possibly even decided that you’re simply too obnoxious to waste patience on and is venting their sense of frustration.
This is when you whip this step out!
You can use it to disregard everything they’ve said to you and just not deal with the issue, in particular ignoring your prior behaviour that led to the anger. Conventions of social conduct hold civil discourse as the ideal at all times. When people get angry, it gives you a convenient “out” without having to concede to any of their objections or acknowledge their pain.
Furthermore, with this one you can make it seem as though you were ready and willing to listen, but then they ruined it. This way you can leave them with the sense that if only they’d been a good little Marginalised Person™ and toed the line, then they may have won someone over to the cause!
It just adds a particular distaste to the whole affair that no derailing should be without!
Also, truthrose is talking to a stereotype and Walsh isn’t like that — Walsh is a person. This is the “Stop Stereotyping Me!” branch:
Personalising anything the Marginalised Person may say is a great way of distracting attention from the issue at hand, forcing the Marginalised Person to soothe your wounded feelings or sense of indignation rather than concentrating on the argument they were making.
Rather than simply listening to criticism of a group of Privileged People with respect and consideration for the Marginalised Person, you must immediately take offence and leap in to defend yourself.
For example, when queer people are criticising the tendencies of some straight people, jump in and say something like:
“Not all of us are like that – you’re prejudiced against straight people! You’re judging straight people the same way that they judge you, and it’s hateful! We need to not categorise people and make assumptions about them based on their identity! I resent feeling like I’m part of a group that oppresses you!”
- even though the criticism was very explicitly leveled at a specified behavior. (ie.:, “I don’t like straight people who do ________.”)
But of course, this can work in many different situations where Privileged behaviour is being deconstructed or criticised. Its resonance is in its lack of acknowledgement of the balance of power by suggesting that reasonable criticism of oppressive or discriminatory behaviour is equivalent to the oppressive and discriminatory behaviour itself. Remember that while the Marginalised Person’s criticism can never adversely affect your life in significant ways, you must rank the discrimination they face – which does significantly affect them – as equal to the discomfort of your wounded feelings, to demonstrate how highly you rank yourself and how lowly you rank them.
And finally, truthrose and the others who retweeted Walsh’s dumbassery were interested in getting riled up because it’s fun, you see? This is the “You’re Just Looking for Reasons to be Offended Because You Like It” branch:
You really need to make sure the Marginalised Person knows you consider their issues to be completely trivial. It’s insensitive in the extreme – it also exemplifies your lack of awareness and empathy.
By demonstrating you have absolutely no concept of what a particular issue or point may mean to them both within their conversation with you and beyond it, you get to show off just how cocooned and protected in Privilege® you really are. Remember how maddening this is for a Marginalised Person™ – it’s a Privilege® they do not share and will probably never know so to witness it being so blithely owned and used to diminish their experience is bound to get their blood pumping.
But absolutely best of all, you are being obnoxious and hurtful enough to tell them outright that they enjoy facing discrimination and prejudice. Enjoy it so much, in fact, that they “look” for reasons to be hurt and offended! Wow. This one is almost breathtakingly perfect as a derailment tactic, it lacks any sort of conceivable class and humility and goes straight to smug viciousness. The very idea that anyone enjoys being hurt and discriminated against as a daily practice is so preposterous it could only be believed by a Privileged Person® who’s never really experienced or known what it’s like.
The fact is, many Marginalised People™ go out of their way to avoid these sorts of debates and confrontations because it’s such a painful and unenjoyable experience. Those you are encountering in this circumstance have likely made a conscious choice to do so, even knowing it will probably go bad. For you to spit in the face of their choice in putting themselves on the line by suggesting it’s all fun and games for them just adds a particularly piquant insult to injury.
In short, truthrose was toxic. Probably mentally ill. Walsh doen’t need to engage with a person like that. Phew! That was a close one.
Setting Straw-Men on Fire
My first reaction to the Tweet Heard ‘Round the World was “‘RESENT’ seems like a strong word.” Several times I stated that I thought I understood Walsh’s point, but that I don’t know of any black person who has claimed that black people are THE BASE (exclusively). So I read Walsh’s article, “Wisconsin, Obama and the Democrats’ Future” wherein she states that despite her criticism of the president’s centrism, she thought that a primary challenge from the left would be destructive. [Can you tell some of your nutjob friends, please? -ed.]
Progressives have many other ways to advance their agenda, and demonstrate their disapproval of the president’s record, besides backing a primary challenge to Obama….Let me be clearer about how I believe a primary challenge would hurt Democrats: I think many, maybe most [definitely most -ed.], African American Democrats would stay with Obama, and the racial tension that made 2008 painful would be radioactive this time around.
On the other hand, let me say this: I deeply resent people [what people? -ed.] who insist that white progressives who criticize Obama are deluding themselves that they’re his “base,” [you are deluding yourselves. -ed.] when his “base” is actually not white progressives, but people of color. Ishmael Reed laid out this pernicious line in December, in the New York Times [no he didn't. -ed.], after many progressives, of every race, criticized Obama’s tax cut compromise. Reed compared “white progressives” who wanted more from Obama to spoiled children, compared with black and Latino voters “who are not used to getting it all.” I’ve been getting a similar message from some of my correspondents, and it’s depressingly divisive.
And this is where Walsh’s intellectual dishonesty is laid bare. First, notice that she does not link the Reed article. That’s a dead give-away. If someone purports to draw a quote from another source without linking that source, you can bet your sweet ass that the person is not representing the information in that source accurately.
And so it is with Walsh: Nowhere in Reed’s article does he lay out the “pernicious line” that white progressives are not the base. Nowhere. Read it for yourself. Walsh simply makes this up, presumably so she can vent about her “resentment” towards black folks and then blame us for the current fractured “progressive wing.”
Because it couldn’t be that the reason for the divisiveness — the reason that folks have flocked out of places like Salon and Daily Kos — has anything to do with her and her ilk (the Professional Left) who have endlessly criticized the President, and written about the President and his supporters with sneers firmly carved into their faces.
Oh no. It’s the black folks who want to have a voice that are causing problems.
Walsh continues:
And I stand by that. Notice that when I wrote that I “resent” people who make that case, I didn’t specify African Americans, because progressives of all races make that case. And it is depressingly divisive. I also loathe the term “professional left,” and just can’t connect with folks who compare progressives who have questions about Obama to “baggers.” So I replied the way you do in 140 characters: With shorthand:
@truthrose1 Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong.
Later, people I respect would say it was those four words strung together — “I resent African Americans” — that made some folks see red; they didn’t see context, let alone go read my article. Point taken. Someone suggested I might have written “I don’t appreciate” rather than “I resent” — but that’s 10 more characters! If I got a mulligan, I’d go with: I resent anyone saying African Americans alone are THE base. Or something. But it’s Twitter, that’s how it goes.
Get it? She “loathes” the term “Professional Left” (which was coined precisely to describe persons like Joan Walsh), and “can’t connect with folks who compare progressives who have questions about Obama to ‘baggers.” You see what she does there? First, she ignores the message because it contains language she doesn’t like, and rather than state that — “Hey, I really want to talk to you about this, but can we do it without the name-calling? Let’s drop the Obot/firebagger crap and try to figure out what’s at the root of this division — she fired off a shorthand reply. (Certainly, she has no problem calling the Tea Party “teabaggers” because teabaggers are racist and not her.)
Further, she claims that her tweet was shorthand. Please. As a self-described Twitterholic, she knows damn well about such things as Twitlonger, or writing tweets in multiple parts, or, you know — not responding. Moreover, her attempt casually to dismiss Twitter as something silly and immature with the @s and the shortened words (despite the fact that she is (as I am) a Twittering fool and neither of us (as far as I can tell) tweet in text speak) is disingenuous, especially given that contributors on her blog have lauded Twitter as the dawn of new social media, and that she has been tweeting for at least two years.
And finally, notice how she slips in the bit about “progressives who have questions about Obama,” the implication being that we “Obots” don’t have questions about the President or his policies. We are blind followers. Zombies. Unquestioning idiots. Off the cliff like lemmings, we go!
So after she has set this false backdrop to her offensive tweet, she finally tells how she Averted a Twitter Race Brawl LOL when cooler heads prevailed — people who weren’t riled up agreed with her — despite the fact that NO ONE DISAGREED WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE HER “BLACK PEOPLE CLAIM THEY ARE EXCLUSIVELY THE BASE” CLAIM WAS A LOAD OF CRAP.
People were retweeting things I said that they found offensive, trying to rile others up, but gradually, others came in, not riled, but with insight:
ReasonVsFear
@AngryBlackLady @joanwalsh @Johnswilson1 @cindyloveseric @truthrose1 Agreed. The base is all of us. Even when we disagree. :)
And I replied:
@ReasonVsFear @AngryBlackLady @Johnswilson1 @cindyloveseric @truthrose1 Thank you, that was my point, made more elegantly by you! Good night
Whew! Race riot averted. I’m leaving out a lot of stuff because…it went on for hours and it makes Twitter look insane, all those @s and shortened words, when I think Twitter is awesome, even after all this. Also: I feel bad calling out one Twitter person, but those Tweets touched off an explosion as well as the Atlantic Wire piece; plus, I’m leaving out people whose narcissism and divisiveness would only be further inflamed by direct attention here [I wonder who those "people" are. -ed.].
Everything seemed right in the world again until someone started it up Thursday morning. I’m not going to reprise it, the Atlantic Wire does it just fine. Here is my answer, in more than 140 characters:
Say It Loud!
Joan Walsh is a privileged person. There is nothing wrong with being a privileged person. The trick is to recognize one’s privilege, wrestle with it (it’s uncomfortable, I know) and then try to move forward in a constructive way. Joan Walsh did the exact opposite of that, both in her Twitter responses and in her post.
I am extremely troubled by her dismissal of Twitter as an Unserious Mode of Political Discourse. Her response to truthrose’s explanation as to why she believes black folks have been more vocal as of late is steeped in privilege:
truthrose1
The only place AA’s can speak the truth/have a voice is on Twitter, welcome to what is called push back from AA’s
joanwalsh
@truthrose1 Good night, life is too short for race baiting!
Really, Joan? When truthrose explains to you her belief that the only place black people can speak the truth and have a voice is on Twitter, and tries to engage you on Twitter in a discussion about the marginalization of black voices, you dismiss it as race-baiting. Life is too short. Mouthy black folks are the worst.
I had no intention of getting into this any further. After initial hostilities, I attempted to understand her point. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Aside from an admittedly snarky tweet about white progressives being unable to elect their preferred candidate without us, I tweeted an “amen” in response to her kumbayah tweet; I threw in an amusing Third Bass video (after multiple Twitter cries of “I’m the base! No I am!”); and passed her a virtual peace pipe.
I was ready to drop it even though she failed to produce any evidence that there were any black people laying exclusive claim to THE BASE crown. I felt that I had made my point and that there was no reason to pile on any further.
But she wouldn’t let it go. In her mind, my attempts to engage her were themselves divisive. Indeed, it is Twitter discussions like that described in this post which are the reason that Conservatives are kicking our ass. It’s so tiresome and depressingly destructive. It’s much easier if we all let Walsh and her ilk tell us who the progressive base is after systematically excluding us from proclamations of who the base is. See how it works? We shouldn’t be complaining. We should just show up and vote when we’re supposed to and leave the thinking to the adults.
Having to read and divert your attention to POC concerns really does assail the white sensibilities, doesn’t it? Why, even bringing up such concerns is race-baiting. And heavens to Betsy, if a black person shows anger or resentment at being ignored, you should just dismiss them as toxic and insane and congratulate yourself for having averted a race riot lol. Those black folks sure are angry. Bitter. Not to be listened to. Incapable of rational discussion.
I’m done.
Joan Walsh and the people she publishes, most notably Glenn Greenwald, feel that it is their important journalistic responsibility to constantly criticize and critique Obama from a self-appointed position of speaking for progressives. Greenwald does not even identify himself as a Democrat, though Walsh appears to.
But when people, in this case people of color, who are part of the most cohesively loyal of Democratic constituencies push back against either of them, or dare to suggest that their relentlessly negative commentary about Obama is damaging to him and to the Democratic Party’s efforts to hold back the rabid, frothing monsters of the GOP who are hellbent on implementing a theocratic fascist state, we are either slimed as Obama cultists, called stupid, docile or insufficiently intelligent to grasp their superior knowledge, or dismissed because we sound angry when we speak back to them.
I guess I should thank her for recognizing – in more than 140 characters – that black people have been “the most loyal and long-suffering Democrats, and they are key to the base.” Indeed, one could replace the word “Democrats” with the words “people living in America.” I would caution her, however, to remember that fact, the next time she writes another post about “the administration’s persistent impulse to insult the most loyal Democrats.”
Sure, Biden and Obama have been telling these folks to stop whining. But you know what? So have the “most loyal and long-suffering Democrats.” Check out W.E.E. See You, The Reid Report, The People’s View, Zandar versus Stupid, and The Only Adult in the Room. Non-”long-suffering” Democrats are also pissed off: Eclectablog, Rump Roast, and Extreme Liberal’s Blog.
It seems to me that Walsh views black people as part of the base for strategic political purposes, when it’s time to crunch the numbers and figure out where the votes are coming from. (Data is very important to privileged people and the balance of Walsh’s post is a testament to that. She entirely ignores the actual issue raised, which is POC feelings of exclusion regarding proclamations about “insulting the base,” and lays out a bunch of statistics about voting blocs to buttress her case. It is convenient to do so, because the alternative — actually listening to what multiple POCs are saying — is uncomfortable.)
We count too. We are active during the interim years between congressional and national elections, and with new social media platforms, we have been able to find one another and band together.
There are many of us who do not have the luxury of blogging for pay, so we squeeze in time to blog during our personal time. And it is disheartening that despite our efforts to amplify POC voices in the online progressive community, people like Walsh view it as divisive and narcissistic. I haven’t foregone sleeping more than 5-6 hours a night because it is my dream to “incite race riots on Twitter” (which, really? We black folks can’t have a discussion without it turning into some sort of looting/riot bonanza?) I have foregone sleeping because I recognize the importance of this moment. (Take a hint: J/K jokes about race wars are jokes that white folks can’t make. Full stop. Minority membership has its privileges.)
It seems obvious that Walsh felt it necessary to whitewash the events that lead to the Twitter debacle, so that she could demonstrate to her (probably) predominantly white readership how disorderly we black folks are because she has no intention of doing any self-reflection about the issues raised, and small blogs like this one are cropping up because we feel we’ve been kicked out of The Progressives’ He-Man Obama Hater’s Club. 
We are pushing back, and we will be pushing back for the next 18 months.
A wise man once said: When the shit goes down, you better be ready.”
I’m ready. Are you?
1 I want to express that I have nothing but the utmost respect for Melissa Harris-Perry. I’m so sure she’s fretting about it, but still.
[I've made various small edits since this post was published. None are, in my view, of much import. In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "Fuck it! We'll do it live!" -ABL]
[cross-posted here at Balloon Juice. Yup.]
Salon’s version of the base is the far left. And they’re doing what the far right is going, using that designation to justify all their dumbest ideas and to call any dissenters half wits. That site is a massive, massive problem that occasional decent journalism by Justin Elliot does not fix.
The sad irony of Salon is that they’ve become what they most hate: the group that pushes irrationally and recklessly outwards beyond what is sensible in hopes of creating a better window.
But they’re not paying attention to the bridges they’re burning in doing so. They’re wikileaks reaction is irrational (really, telling the world every single secret the state dept has is whistleblowing? what a chock of shit). This was reckless, feckless, and most of all selfish on Walsh’s part, because dear god anyone else have a claim on being part of the base.
Anyways, you’re awesome.
Not to mention that progressives are the only people on the left who don’t realize the left is a coalition: progressives, AAs, unions, women, looks like Hispanics soon (and I’m probably forgetting some)… they are ALL the base. None has a veto, it’s a balancing act that the President needs to deal with. That’s why politics is a big boy job and not for whiny crusaders like Salon.
But that would undercut the moral superiority over at Salon, so we won’t see that anytime soon.
And the pundits on my TeeVee tonight (I’m looking at you, Howard Fineman of the Huffington Fucking Post!) are claiming that Obama got his clock cleaned by Boehner, will move to the middle no matter how far right it goes, and was trying to put a positive spin on a shit sandwich.
Um, no, Howard, Obama is actually President of ALL Americans, including Republicans and other Teatards, and yes, even the president of Donald Trump and his search for the real birth certificate, and governing means finding whatever middle ground is necessary to get majority votes in both houses of Congress to pass the legislation that keeps the Federal government shitting out checks to the people who depend on them, so they don’t die. Not that Fineman has to worry about his paycheck.
And I heard Obama saying things like he didn’t get everything he wanted, and he agreed to things that he would rather not have, but since the American voters in their infinite wisdom handed the keys to the House of Representatives to the inmates in the asylum, this is what America will look like until 2012. So if you don’t like it, work your ass off to send these assholes packing and replace them with adults who actually are interested in governing. You know, Democrats.
Oh yeah, and someone I otherwise like called Obama a supply-sider last night.
WTF?
That’s just flat-out stupid.
Like proposing something that wouldn’t make it through Congress in any of our lifetimes in order to “lose pure” is a good idea.
Well I’d say you summed that up pretty well !!!! Can you just go around the blogosphere and re-type this?
Not to mention a few other things, such as Glenn Greenbeck and his Baby-Jesus-izing of Bradley Manning in Wikileaks. (Does anyone out there really believe a PFC is behind all that? Really? Are you THAT credulous?)
And their ongoing unwillingness to do anything about either sockpuppeting trolls or an increasing amount of commercial spam. Those are what killed the TPM Cafe, both the truly insane trolls and in TPM’s case, constant Google-bombing with posts of nothing other than link spam.
Back when I was still Facebook friends with Joan Walsh, before severing that, I messaged her about it, and she sent me some lame rationalization about how she’s not executive editor any longer, so it’s not her fault. Right, Joan, that’s why it started back when you were, and I’m betting she still has a better pipeline in to whoever is in charge over there now (if anyone is at all) than I do.
It is sad to see what Salon has become.
And I attribute much of it to a critical mistake the left keeps making. An excess of tolerance, a profusion of inclusion if you will, is slowly poisoning us.
They let those trolls in because they want to be morally superior to the right wing blogs that ban people for the least bit of departure from the party line du jour.
Not all opinions are of equal merit. The uninformed and intolerant do not deserve respect. (Hell, if you ask me they don’t warrant the time of day!) If all opinions were worth considering, would you ask a minor-league shortstop his view on a cardiac matter? Would you trust a fishmonger to step in and fly that Boeing 747 if the pilot’s a bit out of sorts? How about the guy who painted your neighbor’s house building the next space shuttle? I’m sure they each have their own ideas about lots of things. Trust your life or well-being to any of them?
Seconded. I hear echoes in your comment of Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance, one of the most profound things I’ve ever read, and it was in a footnote in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, written in the final days of WWII. Here’s an excerpt:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
I had not read that. I had not, in fact, heard of it. I’ll look into it, though, as it sounds like interesting reading.
I never… really NEVER thought that I’d quote Spiro Agnew (and yes, I know that Buchanan actually coined the term) but I do believe that Walsh, Greenwald and their ilk are truly the “nattering nabobs of negativity” that Agnew was describing.
I gain a wealth of insight by reading your blog. I hope that you continue to fight the good fight and show up the “progressives” at every opportunity.
Deepest respect and admiration,
Doc
Wow! This is the 1st time I’ve read any of your blog posts, and you have explained the entire incident so concisely. You’ve also helped me understand something I’ve been wondering about, “Why aren’t African Americans speaking out?” “Why aren’t they angry at the blatant racism going on re:POTUS?” Now I realize, that’s not necessarily true, what is true is the media isn’t giving them a voice. Just like we liberals claim the media only gives a voice to the teabaggers, and not liberals.
I saw her comment to Truthrose about being toxic, but figured she’d been harrassing Joan or something. You’re so right about once it’s put in context, the ridiculousness speaks for itself, loudly and clearly. What also speaks loudly is Joan’s dismissiveness of Truthrose, and the “get help”? (It was nice of her to summon Jesus on Rose’s behalf though, don’t you think?) /sarcasm
I may buy that book about discrimination. My brothers use the “anger” comment with me when we discuss politics. (They’re repubs; I’m a liberal) And I’ve got to say, it’s always shut me up & left me feeling ashamed of myself.
I’m cutting my comment short cuz I know it’s already long, and if you don’t want to publish it, I understand.
jane, telling someone she’s angry is a classic way of dismissing that person as well as her arguments. Their intent, whether they consciously realize it or not, is exactly what happened. You feel ashamed of yourself and stop talking. I know that feeling; I’ve been there myself.
And, you are right with your analogy to how liberals know we aren’t heard in the mainstream media, so do people of color know we aren’t being heard in the lefty blogosphere.
I, for one, welcome comments of any length as long as they contribute to the discussion–which yours did. I hope you comment again.
Jane, I’m glad you’ve found this little corner of the internet. Stick around and read as much as you like, and keep the thoughtful comments coming.
It’s also useful to remember that one of the organizing principles of the right wing is, what will piss off the liberals most? They make sport of saying outrageous things to get you sputtering mad, then dismiss you because you’re too sensitive, too angry, can’t take the heat, blah blah blah. Ninety percent of the bullshit laws they introduce and know will never pass are just designed to get liberals screaming, so they can crow about how they really stuck it to us and collect high-fives from their buddies.
“Ninety percent of the bullshit laws they introduce and know will never pass are just designed to get liberals screaming…”
and keep us distracted so we miss other more heinous fuckery that they attempt and sometimes succeed in getting through. The image of throwing marbles in front of the runners at the beginning of Heartbreak Hill (Boston Marathon) comes to mind.
Allan, Funny you mention rightwing intentionally pushing buttons. I’ve often wondered if thing they suggest (things more ridiculous than the “normal” ridiculous) are solely to piss us off, and if they’re not laughing at us.
Thank you for being so polite, I really appreciate it. (you never know responses people will give when you actually share “truth” on blogs/forums)
we publish all comments over here at the ABL to the C (except for the truly offensive ones). thanks for reading and thanks for commenting.
the derailing for dummies is just a website. i don’t think there’s a book (although there should be.) i use it frequently.
cheers!
ABL/STM
Whew….ABL that was good and the firebaggers are no different then the teabaggers both are racist but alwasy play the victim when they’re shit is called out. truthrose 1 had every right to question Walsh and I’m gald truthrose 1 called out Walsh’s bullshit. But I’m tired of these firebaggers and teabaggers racism, that’s why I refuse to read Salon, FDL and sometimes even the Daily Kos and Greenwald is a disgruntled Hillarybagger.
But notice that even on MSNBC Van Jones, Joy Reid and even the Latino voices are missing and even the gay voice is missing.
Keep up the good work ABL.
That’s because MSNBC is typical media–I don’t know why anyone is under the presumption that it’s anything but. Sure it has a Liberal lean in primetime, but…they still employ Scarborough and Buchanan, and their primary commentators are as monochromatic as any other network.
Additionally, the last time Van Jones was on MSNBC (per my recollection), it was with Cenk Ugyur–November 12, 2010–and Ugyur spent most (and by most, I mean all) of that interview trying to badger Jones into ripping the administration a new asshole. Jones never took the bait; he would not play that game. And I don’t think he’s been back on since (please correct me if I have that wrong; I doubt it). He’s probably been mentioned more on Glenn Beck’s show than on MSNBC as a whole since then.
ABL, this puts into words a lot of the free-floating, inchoate pissiness I feel at the progressives, mostly white, who insist to speak for the entire base when in reality, they are saying, “My friends and I feel this way. We feel as if we are the base. Therefore, everyone in the base must feel this way.”
I have to say, one of the few perks of knowing I am not the base is that I have few illusions as to how much power I actually have, and therefore, I know how much work I must do to contribute.
Wow, you really worked your ass off, ABL. I’m impressed at how quick and thorough your work was on this. And jealous. Damn.
Earlier I told truthrose1 and DAOWENS44 that I hoped Walsh would reflect on this episode, put aside her shame and defensiveness, and learn something. But to tell you the truth, I don’t see much from her to give me reason to hope. I saw a comment from John Cole saying something like, “I don’t know why people are piling on Joan Walsh — she’s a good person,” and I really wanted to agree with him about that. But after seeing this thing in its entirety, it’s hard. I’ll have to wait and see what happens.
At any rate, I hope Walsh reads this blog entry, if for no other reason than for her to see the list of “alternative” blogs you named. Perhaps she’s unaware that there’s a growing “alternative universe” of liberal blogs, and it’s populated by intelligent liberal activists. (Yeah. We *already* knew that OFA is used for much more than promoting Barack Obama.) We’re not just the random, angry dregs who are looking to troll “her world.” And we’re not just angry POCs. We’re angry white progressives, too, who are tired of thumb-sucking, gratuitous bullshit Obama bashing, and pre-occupation with hurt feelings, all while wolves are at OUR (the non-privileged progressives-for-pay) fucking doors. We’re UNEMPLOYED, Joan! We don’t give a jolly fuck if you feel insulted that Rahm or Biden told you to stop whining. We DO care, however, that we avoid depressing Democratic voter turnout AT ALL COSTS, PLEASE.
Jesus Christ. Privileged people can really be such a fucking pain in the ass.
you said it sister. that’s what i felt like yelling last year after the hamsher hcr wars. NOT EVERYONE HAS HEALTHCARE, JACKASSES.
yeah. privilege. it’s a bitch when you don’t have it.
i’m sure joan is a good person. i have nothing against her personally. but that tweet was dumb, and her attempt to cover it up was even dumber.
and now i have to work on sunday because i spent most of the day writing this. :)
“and now i have to work on sunday because i spent most of the day writing this.”
Well, I want to thank you for the effort. This was well done, and I’m pretty sure it’ll provide catharsis for a LOT of us out here.
Hugs. I hope you get to enjoy what’s left of your weekend, even if you will be working on Sunday.
Preach it, Beulah! I’ve seen you at P.M. Carpenter’s blog and enjoyed your comments; glad to see you here too.
As an aging white Northeastern liberal female, decidedly not of the privileged sphere that Joan inhabits, I gotta say I am finding myself more and more enraged every day at the PL White Privileged baggers and their destructive influence on political discourse. We’re fighting for our lives, dammit, against an implacable vicious insane army and we frikkin DON’T need a pack of pissy anklebiters sabotaging every initiative and yapping to all and sundry about how our most excellent President fails their purity tests and must, if not obedient to their demands, be brought low and forced to acknowledge his inherent inferiority to them.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The black voices you hear in the media are the ones either bashing Obama or co-signing the white tv host/blogger. If you don’t do either one of those, you won’t be on tv or have your blog promoted.
And latino voices? Forget about it.
“[T]heir relentlessly negative commentary about Obama is damaging to him and to the Democratic Party’s efforts to hold back the rabid, frothing monsters of the GOP who are hellbent on implementing a theocratic fascist state…”
This. And, to co-sign Beulahmo’s point above, it’s all very abstract to some folks, particularly those who aren’t personally worried about finding a job in this crap economy or losing their crappy health care and being subject to the tender mercies of the insurance industry.
I like Walsh. I’m sure she’s a good person. I believe her heart is generally in the right place. But as even she admitted, the wording of that tweet was piss-poor. And instead of taking that opportunity to issue a mea culpa and reflect a bit on how some folks really are marginalized, she went into full defensive mode.
It’s a pity, because there is a compelling story here worthy of being explored in a high-profile platform like Salon. It’s about divisiveness alright, but not the kind Walsh has been preoccupied with since 2008. It’s about people whose voices have been completely shut out of the conversation.
Thank you, ABL, for speaking up.
Thank you so much ABL, there is another response to that twitter bitchazzness pulled by Miss Ann….I mean Joan over at weeseeyou.com:
http://weeseeyou.com/2011/04/09/you-are-not-the-victim-joan-walsh/
Keep shining the light on’em!
That photoshop photo is PRICELESS.
Here is the deal ABL, and it is interesting. Last year, Joan was included in a political discussion group I run out of my facebook inbox. She had been included for quite sometime, she’d often contributed and we had a good time. I’ve been a long time member of Salon and the Well, long time, since 1997. But as Greenwald grew more angry and his fanbois and gurls began to take over the site and chase people away for being in the “wrong tribe” being “LOTE Voting rubes” what ever other stupid names they could come up with, more regular folks, real democrats and normal people who compromise in the daily lives, we began to leave Salon in droves. We were literally chased away. I began to talk about this in the political discussion group, since it was made up mostly of old time Salon commenters.
I’d had a growing unease okay, hatred for Greenwald, since Jan 2009, which is exactly when Greenwald began attacking the President for all his failings. Yeah, exactly since Jan 2009, the day the man swore the oath of office is when the attacks from Greenwald began. There was much racism that went on in the comment section of his blog, people using the “n” word at will, like it was no big deal. He and those followers of his had been chasing me away, and others, not just me. I’d been writing about it in the discussion group, and boy did she get mad and take it all personally. She was quite angry, I mean very angry. She didn’t want to be included in the group anymore, because you know Greenwald is such a principled guy and you know he is correct about everything. It was then I knew Salon was coming to an end, the Salon I knew anyway and it made me feel bad.
So now she started some stupid flame war and doesn’t like the outcome. Too god damned bad. ABL I am pushing back with you.
This my note personally to Joan, if you are reading this, you know who I am, I rarely come to Salon anymore and a number of us do not because you’ve given it up to the Libertarians. You’ve taken Greenwalds shtick, hook, line and sinker, and Salon is going under.
You’ve portrayed yourself as some sort of victim, when those tweets do not indicate they were saying African Americans are the only base of the Democratic party. Sigh, how ridiculous you’ve become, and touchy. Wow. Guess what Joan, African American’s are the reliable base of the Democratic Party, you know along with people like me, because we’ve come to the realization that we are never going to get everything we want in life, and we don’t sit around and bitch and moan endlessly about how 3x awful everything is because Shangri-La has not been created in 2.25 years. Did African American’s abandon or pile on Bill Clinton the way you and Salon pile on this President, no, the answer is a solid and complete NO. You want a place at the table, you want to get together and re-elect a democrat? Quit writing like a god damned troll, yes it works for page hits, but my god, it makes you sound like a raving lunatic.
Ugh..
/rant over for now…
:)
Wow, that’s fascinating. Thanks for sharing your experience, it’s really eye-opening. I’m an ex-Daily Kos participant for pretty much the same reasons, and I wrote a post about it here at ABL recently.
But the mechanism of hounding and harrassing people to drive them away is the same all over the internet.
Once as I left a job for a new opportunity, in my exit interview I described the incompetent and toxic behavior of many of my co-workers and its effect on everyone else this way: “The bad drives out the good.”
And thanks for inviting me into the Facebook back-channel, and for telling me about this place.
Greenwald’s back on Wikileaks again today. Is there nothing else of importance in his world?
And Joan can keep her page views. Libertarian is just “political speak” for sociopath.
Unbelievable…and with MSNBC going full racist with Donald Trump (http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/msnbc-your-new-source-for-racist-innuendo/) it seems like some self-appointed progressives have just as much a problem with a black man being president as the Tea Party.
I propose we “liberal” bloggers band together to gain strength. If Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Joan Walsh and Howard Dean (who isn’t as bad)…are the talking heads that get trotted out on MSNBC during the election, they will hurt our chances in 2012.
I want to nominate Angry Black Lady as our spokesperson. :)
I do think it’s time to start asking whether or not a large segment of the PL is acting on sincere disagreements or racism. I would like to imagine it’s the former, But i see a large amount of evidence suggesting the latter. Namely their behavior is just fucking bizare. Why is this President, moreso than any other Democratic President in my lifetime being singled out by the left?
Sure some folks on the left were disapointd in Carter and Clinton but i don’t recall any liberal groups organizing to kill Clinton’s initiatives even the ones- like telecommunication reform- that should of been killed.
The PL behavior is largely unexplainable unless if you consider race. Is killing the affordable care act getting them any closer to the ultimate goal of single payer? No. Is declaring that every piece of reform isn’t really reform doing anything other than helping to bring about Republican rule thus insuring we’ll never get ANY reform?
If it’s not race, why are they so steadfastly against telling the truth about any of these reforms? The affordable care act is, on balance, stronger than what he campaigned on. Even without the public option. He never campaigned on an 85% loss ratio, yet we got it. Nor did he campaign on free preventive care or 10 billion for local care, but we got that. But god forbid we celebrate ANY of that, we must harp on the ONE thing we didn’t get.
Plus there’s this whole drumbeat from the PL that he “Sold us out”. It doesn’t make sense unless you consider race. From all apearances, Obama is governing EXACTLY as he said he would. Most of what he’s accomlished is exactly what he said he’d accomplish. If you compare his campaign promises (including the ones unpoplular to the PL- extending Afganistan) they’re the same. So what’s with all the “he stabbed us in the back rhetoric? I think it’s because they thought they could “push” him into governing however they wanted him to. After all this black man couldn’t of been elected without them. He should be beholden to them, follow their orders, and if he’s not he’s being a bad negro and should be punished for it.
Unless you want to believe that ALL this rancor is coming from a failure to get the public option and Gitmo still being open.
I too have hoped that it is not racism, but the evidence is starting to pile up. It makes much more sense to me now, that Glenn Greenwald could get away with calling us “Obama-lovers” on Salon.com with no repercussions. Reading this about Joan Walsh and her attitude in the tweet exchange, wow, it’s all right there, isn’t it? She’s got a lot of backpeddling to do….she has to know that she revealed her true colors in that exchange.
I’m torn on whether to try to separate the racist left from the rest of us, or whether that might actually hurt the cause. They may do it for us if they decide to challenge the President in the primaries with Kucinich or Grayson or some other ideologue living in a fantasy world.
What really pisses me off about the firebaggers and what they’ve done is that they don’t seem to give a shit about the people who are affected by their positions. The health care bill helped poor people, in all the forms it took, throughout the negotiations and they were willing to say, fuck the poor people if I can’t get my public option. That isn’t liberal or progressive, that is selfish, ego driven, power hungry, money-grubbing, click-grubbing, “corporatist”, people-are-numbers, people-are-pawns in my quest for fame and money game. As someone who cares about people, my stomach turns when I read their posts…I actually can’t read too much of it.
End rant for now….it’s Saturday and warm in Michigan for a change, I better go pick up dog shit before the rain comes. Every pile I pick up will remind me of Joan Walsh and Glenn Greenwald and Salon.com. :)
I grew up under segregation in this country and accomplished a whole lot in my life due to working hard, going to college, and fighting racism and discrimination every step of the way by triumphing in ways that defied the stereotypes. I’ve seen the way many on the left and right have responded to everything that President Obama has said/done. They are not willing to give him a break, even when it’s been proven that he’s been right. I have come to the conclusion that the president’s biggest critics are having a problem with reconciling this society’s historical views and attitudes toward POC with what they see in President Obama and others, and they are fighting it every step of the way, and their preferred method of opposition is to go on the attack to portray him in a negative way on every issue. They have been shocked to their cores that there are intelligent, competent, hardworking, rational, devoted family men like President Obama who does not need their permission before making decisions.
They have bought into the media/societal portrayals of POC that have been pushed since this country’s beginning, but they fail to realize that these portrayals haven’t been correct in all cases. IMO, this causes them untold grief, and they just know deep down in their souls that President Obama and POC need their “guidance” every step of the way. He doesn’t and we don’t. It is their fault for not recognizing that brilliance and exceptionalism can be found in any group in America. The PL is just as bad as those who think that all POC “need” them to tell us what to do, what to think, how to vote, etc. We don’t need nannies, we never have, and the sooner they learn this and realize that we have our own thoughts and opinions, the better off this country will be.
AngyBlackLady sat down and wrote a treatise!
Thank you for telling our story.
@ Insipid — I think there are several factors at play in how the “progressive left” is reacting to the most progressive president we’ve had in generations. [Note: I consider myself a progressive leftist in the sense that if I could waive a magic wand, I'd adopt a Scandinavian-flavored social-democratic style of government. I use the term in scare quotes in the opening sentence to differentiate my progressive leftism from the firebagger brand...]
Anyhoo, my sense is that a certain percentage of the firebaggers are just politically inexperienced. They probably never bothered to read Candidate Obama’s policy proposals; they were just caught up in the movement aspects of the campaign and are now shocked — shocked! — at what they perceive as the paucity of ponies. And why don’t they see the actual, honest-to-god ponies? Because they don’t know enough about history to realize change doesn’t happen overnight. They think FDR just went tada! and pulled Social Security out of his arse rather than striking deals with the devil (including the exclusion of most women and minorities) to establish the concept that this country has a stake in not allowing its seniors to starve to death, a rather radical idea at the time. Not unlike the concept President Obama established, that we have some responsibility to ensure health care for all our citizens.
Another percentage are more interested in burnishing their “more liberal than thou” cred than the dirty business of governing and the odious compromises that go along with it. They aren’t naive per se, but they see every compromise as an opportunity to focus attention on their moral superiority. I suspect a lot of our political pundits fall into this category.
And lastly, yeah, as you noted, racism comes into play too — and gender politics as well. As someone who expended a lot of pixels on the PUMA silliness during the 2008 primaries, I’ve got to say I was somewhat surprised how quickly and eagerly the disgruntled “Hillary or fuck America in the ass — hard!” contingent embraced wingnut memes about Obama as the “Affirmative Action” candidate, etc.
I was surprised and disheartened. But in the end, it turned out to be a vanishingly small subgroup. It didn’t make a dent in Obama’s electoral performance among either whites or women compared to how white candidates like John Kerry fared. And I think we (Democrats, liberals, whatever) are better off to have that shit out in the open.
Wow, Betty, that was brilliant. Do you mind if I use some of it for a post on my blog?
They are in fact largely politically naive.
Most of them don’t realize that President Obama is not in fact a dictator, and while that would go a very long way toward his being able to enact whatever he wanted, there are two things wrong with it: First, they’d moan all the louder unless he gave them exactly what THEY wanted, despite the fact that most of the firebagging “left” can’t state a coherent position on anything more important or complex than what they’re having for lunch today, and second, a dictator is not a good idea. I would not trust any dictator other than me. And I’m not so sure how many of you would like that.
Thanks, Extreme Liberal, and please feel free to appropriate as you see fit. :-)
Full disclosure. I was a big-time Hillary supporter in the primaries. I found their policies to be largely the same with Hillary being slightly more progressive. But the main reason i was a Hillary supporter was because i HATED Obama’s “There’s good ideas on both sides” rhetoric. Republicans have two ideas 1. tax cuts for the wealthy and 2. bombing brown people and both of them suck. I wanted someone who was going to stick it to Republicans and Hillary was going to do that. Obama made it clear then- and makes it clear now- that he won’t do that.
I also think that if you polled the vast majority of ex-Hillary supporters you’d find them more satisfied then many of the Obama supporters. Yeah, there’s the Hillaryis44.com crowd. But they’re assholes.
So I donated to Hillary’s campaign, made phone calls for her in the primaries, voted for her and….. Lost. Which is not to say i became a “reluctant” Obama supporter. I always viewed both individuals as good people and always thought Obama would make a fine President. I just, at the time, thought Hillary would of been a better one.
But here’s the thing: I know the debate was had and i know i lost it. The weird thing about the professional left is that they seem to not realize there was ever a debate, much less know that there was a winning and losing side to the debate.
But one of the main complaints of the PL- that mostly supported Obama and not Hillary- is that Obama is not willing to stick it to Republicans. Mmmm, he said that during the campaign. Rachell Maddow pressed him vigorously on that very point and he refused to back down an iota.
They keep saying that his refusal to stick it to Republicans is evidence of him having no back bone. I’m sorry, but it’s evidence of the opposite. If- all of a sudden- he went into full bloom Harry Truman mode railing against Republican fat cats he WOULD be breaking a campaign promise. I know- because i voted against him precisely BECAUSE he made that campaign promise. In fact, i’d be happier with him if he showed less back bone and started bashing Republicans more.
But it seems like so many of the PL wants to pretend that there was no debate. Or even worse- That Obama was on the other side of it. That he was promising to fight Republicans rather than fight for issues.
Again, i get back to racism. They were so sure that once Obama got into office they’d be able to change him from a compromiser to a fighter. Why would they think that of THIS candidate?
insipid, that was my big sticking point with Obama, too. I didn’t think he’d be a bad president. I just wasn’t convinced that he was a better choice than Clinton coming out of the prior eight years. It really felt like they campaigned on the many of the same platforms, but Hillary Clinton was interested in doing more with the same points.
The idea that you’ll change a candidate if you vote him in is ridiculous. People voted Obama into office on the policies he campaigned with and he’s stuck to them. He even encouraged voters to read his full policy documents on his campaign website There was no bait and switch. There was no betrayal of trust or evil mustache twirling. He’s doing everything he said he would do in a calm and orderly fashion to appease his most extreme opponents. If the PL wanted radical change quickly, they should have fought a lot harder for Hillary. Instead, they voted for hope, change, and unity and got mad that Obama didn’t blatantly lie on the campaign trail.
Sounds like you (and Robert) are like 95% of the people who supported Hillary Clinton — you fought hard for the candidate you thought was best during the primaries, but once the primaries were over and Obama was the nominee, you got behind him. Because you’re not insane.
Had it gone the other way, I would have gotten behind Hillary Clinton. Because I’m not insane. I’m used to my candidates falling short in the primary race. 2008 was the first time in my entire life that didn’t happen.
Anyhoo, I just wanted to make it clear I wasn’t casting aspersions on all Hillary Clinton supporters. Only a tiny percentage went PUMA-loon.
I didn’t think you were casting aspersions on former Hillary supporters. And i wasn’t trying to re-litigate the primaries. I’m VERY glad Obama is President. My point was that MOST Of the people that are so against Obama now- Jane Hamsher, Ariana and many others were very much for him then. But within like 2 weeks of him getting elected they turned. And they’re against him now for the very reason i was against him then- he’s not willing to throw down on Republicans.
I maintain that it wasn’t Obama that changed- they did.
The fact that they so completely ignored a key part of his campaign only has 2 explanations 1. They didn’t even bother listening to his campaign rhetoric and went with the guy they thought they could control or 2. They did listen and thought they could replace his judgment for theirs. Either way it doesn’t speak very well for them.
I agree with much of what you say. But I’m not so sure about Arianna, at this point. Seems to me she’s completely gone back over to the dark side.
ABL, this is entirely too much awesome for one little weekend. Thank you so much. And thanks to all the commenters here as well.
I met Walsh once in passing. She seemed like a nice enough person. But here’s something people who don’t understand politics fail to grasp: you can like somebody personally, and STILL CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR SHIT!!! Kind of like how it works in non-political realms — like with your family and friends. “Hey, that thing you did pissed me off and here’s why,” and then you deal with it and go on being friends. If you’re a grown-up, that is.
There are many stories of friendships in DC between legislators of opposite parties who will strenuously denounce each other’s policy plans on the floor, but they can still eat lunch together or whatever. (Maybe moreso before the Bush years, but still.)
JOAN is the one who made it personal. Her failure to link to Reed’s piece (which seems to be what set her off in the first place – insufficient fealty being paid to her and her Good White Liberal San Francisco Pals) and her complete intellectual dishonesty in misrepresenting what Reed actually said (and he’s said plenty in the past that I’ve disagreed with) was just hackwork, pure and simple.
So bravo to you again, ABL!
Thanks ABL!! You knocked it out of the park once again. The PL’s schtick has gotten old and tiresome. And we are fighting back. Thank God for Twitter!! And a shout out to my good friend truthrose for standing up to Joan.
I don’t have the proper words to tell you how significant I found this post, or how deeply you have my gratitude, ABL. This isn’t just about race, but about the freedom to have our own ideas, our own thoughts and our own place in a movement we believe in. I, for one, have little or no interest in trading forced acquiescence with the GOoPers for being a compliant and dismissible mouthpiece of the PL.
Thank you again.
The so-called Professional Left and the far left purists have attempted to dictate to this President since he walked through the door. I really think they believe because he’s the first AA President that they a RIGHT to tell him what to do and when to do it. It doesn’t matter that they do not have all the intell or they are not privy to meetings or anything else the President is privy to. They STILL think they know more. I have been on some these far left sites and some posters are more racist than the right-wing sites. It’s one thing to disagree with this President’s policies, but the “Uncle Tom/ House “N” they throw around on these sites is disgusting. So as far as I’m concerned Joan and the rest of the so-called Professional Left are working for the right-wing who are attempting to destroy this President, the middle class and poor in this country. I don’t see any difference between the Professional Left and the right-wing. They’re just using different tactics.
ABL, this was a great piece. Even though I am personally mostly a socialist in my far left point of view, I supported Obama from day 1 knowing he was much more to the center. How did I know that? I listened to what he had to say before and during the campaign. why did I support him anyway? Because the percentage of voters as far left as I am is relatively low and therefore our perfect candidate would have no chance of either winning the presidency or getting anything done once in. Too many asshole Repubs and moderate/conservative Dems standing in his or her way.
What I liked about Obama was that I thought he would get a lot more done that was to my liking than any other candidate around. He had a combination of extreme common sense (yeah, Sarah, you’re not the only one who can say that), high intelligence, empathy for the little guy and a far sighted viewpoint. I figured he would always keep his eye on the end game and so far he has.
What has surprised me is not so much the progressive push-back (some people are born to whine) but the degree of anger and disgust and distaste that they display when talking about Obama. This makes me think that racism plays a significant role. The vast majority of the sneering crowd are white and coated liberally in white privilege.
Obama, with his intelligence, self-confidence and ability to accomplish difficult things seems to take for granted that he has privilege too. This belief on his part infuriates people who take their white privilege both for granted and as absolute and results in the insults, the comments basically calling him “uppity”, the anger, the venom – you get the picture. HE’S NOT STAYING IN HIS PLACE!!11!1 WE ELECTED HIM AND PUT HIM THERE AND HE’S NOT GRATEFUL FOR WHAT WEEEEEEEE GAVE HIM!! HE DOESN’T COURT US, HE DOESN’T WOO US, HE DOESN’T APOLGIZE TO US!! And, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong but it sure feels that way to me.
For some reason as I was reading your comment, marindenver, it reminded me of a statement a black gentleman made during an interview for a documentary I produced where he talked about being a sharecropper and going to the land owner to tell him he was leaving. The sharecropper told him “you don’t come in here telling me about when your gonna leave, I’ll tell you when you can leave”. Your description reminded me of the mentality of some of the left, particularly Jane Hamsher, who think President Obama has to get their permission before doing anything.
You’re not wrong, Mar. In addition to no longer arguing with Teabagger relatives, there are many Whiny White Lefties I refuse to engage with any more, simply because their entitlement comes through so clearly in the degree and heat of invective they apply to Obama.
It’s a damn good thing I didn’t have anything to do today since it’s taken me hours to read everything and then more time to think. I’m old and I just don’t think as fast as I used to.
First, thank you so much ABL for taking the time to write such a good, well researched post. It really is top-notch. I had been reading Greenwald from the beginning, before he moved to Salon. And I grieved when he turned into an asshole. But after going through the 5 stages of grief now I’m just pissed off at him.
A while back I also became curious about what was being said in the black community about the president. At this time in my life I don’t have any POC as friends. I started going to J&J and from there tried other AA websites and it seemed to me that I was missing something. That’s one reason why I was so happy to see your charming face at BallonJuice. I do go to The Only Adult in the Room, but honestly, if it is run by POC I just didn’t get that at all. It just seemed to me that the people there were just sick of the BS that is being thrown at the pres, and I love the positivness (I know, not a word) of the blog.
But here is where I’m having a problem. I’m quite sure that Walsh was just totally appalled at being called a racist. I’m also quite sure that she could swear she didn’t have a racist bone in her body and I also think that if she is, it is entirely unconscious. I think she was totally out of line and I’m really hoping she will think this over and apologize and open up a dialogue about it. I think it was entirely appropriate that she was called out about it. Some people have said from the beginning that we need to have this discussion and I really agree. I would be very hurt and angry if someone called me a racist. Could it be that I hold racist views and aren’t aware of it? Hell, I don’t know. It might be possible that I could say something I considered totally innocent and have it come back to me in anger. I am always very tentative when I post on an AA site and I’m very, very careful about what I say. I like to think we stood arm and arm back in ’08 to elect the best person, and I hope that is still true.
As you can imagine I feel very uncomfortable about posting this, but I would like to hear what you all have to say about it. Sorry I’m posting this so late, but it took me forever to read everything.
Kewalo, only speaking as one Black person I have no problems having a free flowing conversation about race with white people. It’s all about where you are coming from. It’s okay if you say something that you might think will come out wrong, as long as I get the sense that you are genuinely interested in having a dialogue. If your heart is in the right place and are willing to listen, really listen, that will come through and people will engage you. It’s only when people come at it only to try to start something and get a rise out of me, that I’m pretty much “talk to the hand” and walk away.
I hope that makes sense.
Thank you MsKitty, it makes perfect sense to me and I appreciate your answer. I think that if we can get past the initial stages of getting to know each other and can speak like friends it will be less of a problem. But please feel free to speak up if I cross a line I didn’t know was there.
We have to work together to make sure we do the best job possible of supporting the president. And I think it’s also very important to take on the righties in congress too. I really did not know I was capable of hating a group of people as much as I hate them. I don’t get out much but I can use the phone and I do intend to use it next year.
I agree with what MsKitty said. I find that all people who have any characteristic that makes them “other” or “minority” (POC, LGBTQ, uterusity) are willing to talk about differences if people are willing to hear.
Our growing Angry Black Commentariat has thus far been respectful and open to discussion about all things!
I don’t know if you’ve read this article, but it’s a great place to start.
http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/
Thanks for commenting and keep coming back. :)
Wow! That was terrific. I originally thought I would read part 2, since you linked to it, and then part 1. But there was far too much info to digest it all, just in part 2.
I had several AHA moments. Thanks for posting it, and the warm welcome.
You know you’ve written a kickass post when you get so many quality comments.
Kewalo,
This may be an over simplification, but this is my analogy of how to handle a comment – whether racial or not.
Example: A husband says something to his wife that he believes is innocuous. The wife gets ticked off and says that what the husband said hurt her feelings. Questions: Does the husband stand in the middle of the floor and tell his wife that her feelings are NOT hurt; SHOULD not be hurt; she’s stupid — Or does he apologize and say he did not intend to hurt her feelings, but now that he knows, he will not say it again?
I’m old, too. Well I’m 62 and I guess that’s considered old. The reason why I gave my little analogy is because over the years, I have had to deal with people who were offensive – intentionally and unintentionally. I have dealt with overt and covert racism. What galls me is IF I tell someone that what they said IS offensive TO ME (the comment was said to me), I get BS about why I shouldn’t be offended. I’m sorry, I don’t see it like that. If I smack you in your face and you tell me it hurt, who am I to tell you “NO IT DIDN’T”.
Knocked it out of the park yet again, ABL.
I have a feeling that as of this week our little patchwork of communities will no longer be ignored. This incident has put the PL on notice: we’re here, we ain’t going anywhere, and we will go toe-to-toe with you anytime.
Yup! SubNetroots Nation, represent!
I have a question for you all…what is far left? I see that all the time and I don’t know if I am far left or not. Does anyone have a clue the difference between say medium left and far left?
I have tried to get some righties to answer me (at a social forum I go to) but they just ignore me.
I have no idea — it always seems to be a perjorative term tossed around by Faux News Nation.
You have some great commenters, ABL, bravo to you all.
What a pretentious piece of crap. No wonder the Democrats have taken such a secondary roll since 1989…
Mmmmmm…..secondary rolls….aaaggghhhllllhhhh. You just reminded me that I’m hungry.
That might explain those sedentary rolls under that fur coat.
Mmmmmm…..sedentary rolls……aaaggghhhllllhhhh.
Well, don’t be feeding them to the seminary trolls or we’ll never get rid of ‘em.
This made me Laugh OL.
Nice piece, and I generally agree.
I did want to respond to some of the comments though. First, it’s not just BHO. The progressive faction went after Jimmy Carter too, backing a primary run that, if it didn’t ultimately make the difference, certainly critically weakened his re-election bid. Gingrich kept this impulse in check in 1996, although plenty of progs were dissatisfied with Clinton. And what did they do about it? Crucified Al Gore in 2000. Imagine seeing one guy who wants to put the SS surplus out of reach, and the other who wants to give it to the rich as tax cuts, and saying that there’s no difference between them.
I have generally supported the President, but have to say that I am genuinely livid over Guantanamo and the national security state. There’s a reason why the Ninth Circuit panel was shocked after the election to find that the new administration wasn’t taking a new position on state secrets. Turning GTMO policy over to the people who perpetrated it, who have no plan at all for dealing with it, is a huge mistake on multiple levels, including political. (I have a personal interest in this issue, and don’t presume to speak for anyone else). The current policy is the result of pandering to fear, ignorance, and racism, and I think BHO ought to be better than that. Failure to investigate/prosecute crimes in the prior administration: I understand and agree with keeping the focus on the future. But that only works if the criminals from the last administration slink away, disgraced. Instead they strut about, claiming that the President’s inaction against them, and adoption of their policies, vindicates them. Which makes him look like a patsy, especially since they’re happy to do anything they can to obstruct his agenda for the future. Could he and AG Holder have taken a stronger stand? Yes they could, and it need not have weakened their domestic agenda.
Did this sort of thing cost any House seats in 2010? I don’t know, but I sure don’t think it won any.
Can you name the only 3 senators to vote to close Gitmo? And none of them are named Feingold, Sanders or Boxer.
I am so happy to read this article! Thank you, ABL for all the work you do– it’s like a healing balm to my frazzled nerves!I keep thinking that we, who are not crazy– who support this President– need to find a way to make our voices heard.
Joan “uppity” Walsh needed to be put in her place. Ed Shultz, Hamsher and the likes included. Tired.of.them.
Mad props!
The Democratic Party has lots of room for dark skinned folks and light skinned folks. Unfortunately we have too many thin skinned folkers. They want everything to be about them. Until it is, but it isn’t pleasant.
I generally agree, Ricky. But one thing I’ve found hilarious from the Firebagger set is that they can use the most vicious (and racist) invective against Obama — but if members of his administration should happen to dish it back even slightly, then they hit the fainting couches and clutch the pearls. It’s politics, kids. If you don’t have a Teflon ass, stay out of the kitchen. (Or mixed metaphors to that effect.)
I’m just awfully glad some of the Whiny White Professional Left set weren’t in charge of the civil rights movement or the women’s rights movement or gay rights or any of the other significant social movements of the last 50 years — movements that frequently found the participants and leaders taking nightsticks to the head, forced feedings, teargas, imprisonment, police dogs, firehoses, actual assassinations.
Apparently one needn’t use actual sticks and stones to break the bones of the Poutrage Set. Words are enough to crumple them into a whimpering pile in the corner.
“Poutrage” is a good one, and I’m definitely stealing it.
I’m 62 years old and was around at the start of the women’s rights movement, and I can tell you that a considerable chunk of the fiery antiwar radical males were appalled that the little girls who cooked their food and washed the blood out of their clothes and warmed their beds would have the nerve to demand their voices be heard too.
Guy with Ponytail, I first saw Al Giordano use that (see here for example: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/white-kids-poutrage).
So I’d credit him. It’s awfully good!
I’ve left one more broadside at her shitty blog — but really, what kills me the most is not only her cherry picking tweets to cast herself as the victim — it’s that she COMPLETELY and DELIBERATELY misrepresented what Ishmael Reed said in the New York Times, and then tried to cover her ass by not linking. (In the mistaken belief, I guess, that her readers are too fucking stupid to do their own googling and will just believe whatever Joan The True Progressive With a Book To Shill tells them to believe.) She’s not in Hamsher territory yet — but she’s an incredibly shitty journalist in terms of ethics.
Dumb Rethuglican is dumb.
To pass a masters degree as a Rethug must be easy as it obviously does not have reading comprehension.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/04/saturday-night-card-game-dem-base.html
I am a democrat and I supported Obama from the beginning. I don’t expect perfection, I expect my candidate to reflect liberal values. So what if everything was not fixed to Progressive Liberal perfection in the first 100 days. Is there anyone else out there that could?
Shit, I wish White Progressive Liberal would just shut the fuck up and support the President. I am a middle-class white woman in my 50′s sweating losing my home, and looking at retirement if I don’t get forced out first. People who have never had to decide whether to pay the gas bill or buy shoes for their kids have no idea.
The base is the most stable and loyal group of voters. For Dems that is not the far left (see Nader, Ralph).