Wolves in Sheep's Clothing - how American liberals have dumped the 60's era

[IndyOp]

Looks like a great new book by Guerilla News Network co-founder Stephen Marshall. I thought this would be of interest to the Socialist Progressives...


Forget the neoconservatives. As the Democrats retake Washington and progressives think they can pull the U.S. back from the brink, Stephen Marshall’s up close and personal investigation finds that the biggest threat to Western democracy is the U.S. liberal elite.

In the tradition of Tom Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson, Stephen Marshall, Sundance-award winning director and co-founder of Guerrilla News Network, hits the road and travels from the front lines of the Iraq War, through the wasteland of the former communist Eastern bloc, into a coke-dusted sex party of Britain’s intellectual elite, and into the minds of America’s most influential liberal figures.

Marshall recounts his meetings and conversations with liberal sell-outs and their critics, including Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, David Horowitz, Lewis Lapham, Naomi Klein, John Avlon, the Economist’s John Micklethwait, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger and best-selling authors Todd Gitlin, Paul Berman and John Perkins.

He finds that American liberals have dumped the ‘60s era radicalism of their youth and become complicit in a complex game of bait-and-switch, selling the world a vision of liberal democracy in which they, in fact, no longer believe. Have liberals buckled under the pressure of America’s declining fortunes and taken on the role of good cop to the conservatives’ bad?

[Warpy]

1. "liberal democracy in which they no longer believe?"

Whoa, Nellie! I think he's misidentifying a lot of Wall Street Democrats, Blue Dogs, New Democrats and just plain DINOs as LIBERALS!

Liberals believe what they've always believed, but they're being sold out by conservatives in their party.

Liberals, Senators like Kennedy and Boxer, have still been fighting the good fight, but have been horribly outnumbered as the conservative wing of the party has groomed and backed the most illiberal candidates out there.

A lot of the 60s radicalism has definitely been dumped because we grew up and, well, it was radicalism. This guy seems to be confusing solid liberalism with youthful radicalism, also.

Perhaps he should have spoken to labor instead of gin soaked popinjays like Hitchens and sour, greedy, unfulfilled flameouts like Horowitz. He might have gotten quite a different idea of liberalism in this country.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Don't forget Boxer campaigned for her buddy Lieberman because

friendship is more important than moral integrity? :shrug:

Further, although I'm as liberal as they come, I have NO love lost for any dynasty - that includes the spoiled brat politicians within the pseudo illustrious Kennedy family.

In other words, it's easy to throw us "little people" scraps when one each, politician is either from a wealthy family or has become filthy rich. Boxer and Kennedy are part of the "political elites." :thumbsdown:

[leftofthedial]

2. the current "Democratic" leadership

is only a tiny fraction better than the repukes

they've sold themselves (and us) out to the highest bidders

bait and switch is *exactly* what the current "Democratic" party offers us at every election.

[Greyhound]

3. interesting premise, but infuriating search for information.

I've gone through a couple dozen links to "reviews" of this work and every single one is a rehash of the PR package most of which is what you quoted in your post. I wonder if anyone has actually read this book?

In any case it appears that he is attempting to, at least partially, expose the facade that is American politics (love the cover art). The illusion of choice that we have been presented with since at least the 60's.

The excerpt from the book I found was almost entirely a quotation of John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", which BTW is one that should go on our reading list.

[IndyOp]

7. I am sorry for not including link to the book's website - here it is:

http://www.wolvesbook.com/

Here is the page with excepts:
http://www.wolvesbook.com/excerpts/

Perkin's book is a very high rec from you? I have Gore's "Assault on Reason" on order -- will probably read that first, but have been planning to get to "Hit Man" for a while now...

:hi:

[Greyhound]

8. I found it about half an hour after I posted. Thank you.

Economic Hit Man may already be largely known to you, it was to me, but to read the details and have suspicions confirmed was eminently satisfying, almost cathartic. It is as bad as you think, and probably worse, there is no question of them "not knowing what they were doing" they knew, they know, and perhaps worst of all, they think it was right.

I do have the same criticism for Perkins that I do for Brock, they both waited until long after they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they had extracted all the money they could, before coming out with the facts. I suppose late is better than never, but it still stinks.

[LWolf]

4. Perhaps it would be better to say

that some people are no longer liberals. They are not the "liberal" elite; they are just the elite who either still call themselves liberal, or are labeled liberal by others.

What, exactly, is liberal about them?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Brie and volvos? nt.

[LWolf]

9. I don't know those people, lol.

I was born in 1960s, and my mom was a "60s era liberal." She comes from the working poor class, though. She's never been "elite."

I'm further left than she is. She's an undying fan of Bill Clinton. She's blind to his personal faults, and to any faults of his administration.

Generally, she's a liberal with a strong work ethic and sense of personal responsibility.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. They're behavioral liberals, not economic ones

They're for choice, racial equality, sexual equality, etc., but they think unions "have served their purpose and are no longer necessary."

[Two Americas]

11. bull's eye

I am only a couple of months late responding here LL. :) Good post.

I have long argued that within a context of a strong left wing economic program, that progress on cultural issues would effortlessly follow. Within a context of culture war issues, the left is permanently weakened and stalled. I think that the party, and modern liberalism in general, is dominated by people who are "economically conservative (Republicans or libertarians) and socially liberal." They, and the right wingers both benefit by the obsession with the culture war issues, because neither want economic issues to be discussed, at least not from even a moderately left wing perspective.

Social liberalism is too often merely libertarianism with an "organic" label slapped on it.

Tens of millions of people who are now voting Republican or not voting at all would vote for a New Deal candidate and platform. It is not the right wingers that are blocking that, we are being "wounded in the house of our friends."

[Lilith Velkor]

13. "social liberal, economic conservative" really means

"I don't mind blacks and gays, as long as they ain't poor!"

Hat tip to a random DUer circa September 2003 for that one.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

14. They are afraid to take on the issue of income inequality and plutocracy

A lot of today's "liberals" are in denial about how median incomes are stagnating while the incomes of the top 1 percent, and especially the top 0.1 percent, explode. Either that or they are afraid to tackle the problem (or don't think it's important to solve it, or worst of all don't think it's a problem at all!)

I agree with Paul Krugman. Economic inequality and plutocracy is THE issue of our time. And you don't need to be a '60s radical to feel this way, just a good ol' fashioned FDR New Deal type.

[JCMach1]

12. The article also hold '60s radicalism as some sort of ideal...

that is highly suspect. In fact, they may have set us back significantly in 1968 and again in 1972. Imagine if Nixon had not been elected in '68.

[Ken Burch]

15. Nixon wasn't elected because of "60's radicalism".

Nixon was elected because the party hacks decided they'd rather lose by giving the New Left and the peace movement the finger than win by reaching out to it.

Four years later, the same hacks decided they'd STILL rather keep the party out than accept that a progressive was the legitimate nominee in a free and fair primary process.

Don't drink Ben Wattenberg's Kool-Aid.