Moron
Posted by TFG on November 10th, 2007
The union movement is about solidarity, which is a fundamental progressive value.
Yeah, sure. Progressive.
Go ahead and try to take guns away from Americans and see how Progressive they are. The number of people who give a flip about teevee show writerss is dwarfed by people who care about something that matters. The notion that solidarity is some kind of value held only by Progressives, or that it’s fundamental, is completely moronic. Maybe it is funadamental, but it’s the same for 300 million Americans.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Hmm, solidarity when it comes to supporting TV shows writers = important value to progressives.
Solidarity when it comes to supporting US troops in Iraq = not so much.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Love the talking point Kev, I’ll make sure to keep my eyes open for Nancy Pelosi swapping out our brave boys’ bullets for blanks. I’ll bet you a sawbuck right now she’s got some French somewhere in them bloodlines. I’m going to call a moratorium on the “Dems don’t support the troops” line of bullshit until such time when the Dem leadership in Congress actually grows a spine and refuses to fund the war. Since they keep putting appropriations bills without timetables on Bush’s desk, your assertion is invalid.
—
I get where you’re going with the post Scott, but there’s a little additional context to what she’s getting at. The so-called Netroots, of which Digby is one of the leading voices, is attempting to redefine Progressive politics in the image of the Grover Norquist Conservative model. Jonathan Chait in The New Republic hits the high notes, but a post like Digby’s can be cynically read as a Netroots/Progressive answer to Luntzian/Rovian politics: own the message and communicate ideas in terms of values.
Solidarity is a Progressive value, especially as she has it framed. It’s not coincidental, nor a publicity stunt when a union in an unrelated industry joins another on the picket line. Union members, most of whom share Progressive political opinions, are eager to assist fellow union members in their victories. Just because we’re talking about teevee show writers doesn’t mean that the UAW or the Pipefitters Local 205 doesn’t want management thinking twice about the resolve and power of unions next time a contract is on the table.
Where Digby doesn’t go with her argument, however, is to claim solidarity is solely a Progressive value. The larger point to the whole argument is to bring the many disparate and fractured ideologues* who have been yanking liberal politics in dozens of directions to the table together around a set of common values - protect the middle class, take care of the least of us with health care, rein in the robber barons of the corporate world, no blood for oil, etc.
*Dems have been plagued for decades by having some portion of their base represented by obstinate single-issue idiots - think of the PETA people, Greenpeace, etc. They may still vote D at the end of the day, but they’re also going to hold their breath and turn blue over their issue and generally made it difficult on the leadership to present a unified front. Well, that, and every time there’s a protest staged by a liberal group there’s some naked asshole on stilts in a jester hat with a sock on his cock who makes the evening news and delegitimizes the whole damn protest. But that’s another argument altogether, I suppose.
What the Grover Norquist model does brilliantly is to bring all of the “Big Tent” ideas together under a very simple set of value-based ideals, and to get unified support for Republican candidates without a great deal of infighting and single-issue in-party partisanship. There really hasn’t been a Progressive message machine until the Netroots came along. Although they’re still feeling their oats (and have their own naked assholes on stilts to contend with), it’s been encouraging to watch the organization of Progressive ideals grow in size and influence over the last couple of years. Digby is one of the leading voices, and is simply working to articulate a values-based argument that opposes the “millionaires striking against millionaires” story that’s serving as “conventional wisdom” in the MSM.
(Can they stop striking now so I can have my Thursday night stories back please?)
November 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I’ll buy all that. It’s that whole framing idea, on a different level. To me.
At the end of the day, as it was when I wrote this, I really don’t care. That line just jumped out at me and really bugged me. And no matter what, it is millionaires striking against millionaires.
I love the ‘naked assholes on stilts’ formulation, too.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
My utter disdain for the Democrat Party developed us they moved from being liberals to progressives. Heck, I like to think that I am a liberal in many respects, but I am decidedly not a progressive. Progressives like to think they not only hold all the moral high ground, but refuse to believe their are any other moral alternatives aside from the one or two thoughts that dominate their rather limited thinking. The little angels zeal in declaring everyone not dancing on the head of the pin with them as a reactionary/bigot/idiot/colonialist/sexist is exceeded only by their quest to build their hill ever higher so as to keep the distance between them and the great unwashed masses ever farther apart. Don’t believe me? Give a progressive everything he/she/it wants. The next day there will be a whole new set of demands driven by their pitiful self-righteousness and need to be different (read better) than everyone else.
Bastards.