The AGE of the DEMAGOGUES -- Chris Hedges -- MUST READ

[grasswire]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_age_of_the_demagogues_20151129

excerpt:

A faux liberal class, epitomized by amoral politicians such as the Clintons and Barack Obama, has led many disenfranchised people, especially the white underclass, to direct a legitimate rage toward liberals and the supposed liberal values they represent. Racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, homophobia, sexism and vigilante violence, condemned by liberal, college-educated elites, are embraced by those who have been betrayed, those who now speak back to liberal elites in words, gestures and acts, sometimes violent, designed to denigrate the core values of a liberal democracy. The hatred is the product of a liberal class that did nothing to halt corporations from driving tens of millions of families into poverty and desperation as it mouthed empty platitudes about rights and economic advancement.

The Republican business elites, which declared war on the liberal class’ call for cultural diversity, allied themselves with an array of protofascists in the Christian right, the tea party, groups such as the National Rifle Association and The Heritage Foundation, the neo-Confederate movement, the right-to-life movement and right-wing militias. The elites in the Republican Party, who needed an ideological veneer to mask their complicity in the corporate assault, saw these protofascists as useful idiots. They thought, naively, that by demonizing liberals, feminists, African-Americans, Muslims, abortion providers, undocumented workers, intellectuals and homosexuals they could redirect the growing rage of the masses, sending it against the vulnerable, as well as against the only institution that could curb corporate power, the government, while they greedily disemboweled the nation.

But what the Republican elites have done, as they now realize to their horror, is empower a huge swath of the public—largely white—that is gripped by magical thinking and fetishizes violence. It was only a matter of time before a demagogue whom these elites could not control would ride the wave of alienation and rage. If Trump fails in his bid to become the GOP presidential nominee, another demagogue will emerge to take his place. Trump is not making a political revolution. He is responding to one.

The corporate state was never threatened by the liberal class’ myopic preoccupation with cultural diversity or the right wing’s championing of supposedly “Christian” values. This was anti-politics masquerading as politics. The culture wars did not challenge imperialism, neoliberalism and globalization. The dictates of the market, the primacy of corporate profit and the military-industrial complex remained sacrosanct. The mounting distress of the underclass was ignored or manipulated during the culture wars. Liberals who embraced cultural diversity did so within a neoliberal framework. Feminism, for example, became about placing individual women in positions of power—this is Hillary Clinton’s mantra—not about empowering poor, marginalized and oppressed women. Post-racial America became about a black president.....”

[Octafish]

1. Seeing my friends get tossed from their homes in 2009 really burned me up.

They weren't made whole, like AIG: "100 cents on the dollar," as Tim Geithner put it.

"The ruling political elites have been exposed as charlatans." -- Chris Hedges

That's why I bring up UBS: The Swiss bank hired Sen. Phil Gramm to serve as "Vice Chairman." He brought in both former President Bill Clinton and forever pretzeldent George W Bush, and others from both parties, where, since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in "Wealth Management":

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Hah hah. It is to laugh.

[grasswire]

2. this article makes me think twice about calling myself a liberal.

DAMN!

NO MORE THIRD WAY

NO MORE "reaching across the aisle"

[jwirr]

6. If I am not mistaken this is why we started calling ourselves

progressives.

[grasswire]

8. yes, I call myself liberal/progressive

But I think I will start using "social democrat".

[jwirr]

10. I like that.

[erronis]

32. No shame in either social or democrat. Amazing how language is distorted.

Bernie has made these words proud monikers. Let's wear them well.

[passiveporcupine]

37. Gladly

Social Democrat here!

[hifiguy]

41. I will join you.

[Enthusiast]

45. Me too.

[floriduck]

67. How about a Democratic Socialist? nm

[Octafish]

19. Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

That's how Paul Wellstone put it.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. I stopped calling myself a liberal when "liberals" pushed free trade

That's pretty consistent with what Hedges is talking about.

Hedges' rage has alienated him from the system a bit more than my rage has alienated me. He is right, and I've tried to say the same thing, about how political discussion has been narrowed to only those matters that don't threaten the elite. The elite have no consensus among themselves about same-sex marriage, therefore we were able to discuss it. Ditto abortion rights, but not all aspects of women's equality. Discussions about equal pay will be ignored to death, for now, and if they persist perhaps a demagogue like Trump will sick his stormtroopers on those of us who believe it's a real issue fit for discussion in the public forum.

I see an America in the future where every woman is guaranteed the right to terminate her pregnancy, but with 90% of Americans living measly paycheck to measly paycheck, very few will be able to afford an abortion under a system of completely privatized healthcare.

That's where I think we're going under the current presidential front runners. Even if my man Bernie becomes president, he'll never get his program through a Congress in which the Republicans and corporate Democrats have a working majority. Income inequality will persist but most of us won't know it because the privatized propaganda ministry, aka the corporate media, won't say a thing about it, or, if it does, it will just be a talking head reciting dry statistics with no visuals, all said and done in 15 seconds or less, then on to the missing blond teenager or the messy celebrity divorce of the day.

[MisterP]

12. that's one of the things damaging Clinton: she IS one of them

in 2015 everyone knows at least one family that's had their house sold out from under them through bank fraud, and then got to foot the bill
in 2015 everyone knows people who've been brutalized by the cops and/or sent to jail
in 2015 everyone knows at least one vet who it takes a decade to even ask about where they'd been sent
in 2015 everyone knows someone who's spent at least 5 years unemployed, looking every day and sitting on the couch the rest of the time
in 2015 everyone's acquaintances have had to delay marriage (or even sex of any sort) because their income can't match their needs
in 2015 everyone's acquaintances average $40,000 in student debt--just to get into the job market
in 2015 everyone's had to delay even basic checkups over insurance, and many have spent nights keeping everyone up sobbing through another agonizing medical attack because a $1,000 copay is too much for minor surgery

someone who supports 90% of Cruz's economic policies yelling about how crazy Cruz's policies are is NOT gonna cut it for Americans

[hifiguy]

15. Your last sentence defines the problem.

[Octafish]

20. Money trumps peace.

It's stolen the soul of America.

[MisterP]

25. well, the important thing is that the McMansion class has money for a second wine cellar

this all doesn't really apply to the top 10% that benefited from Reagan (and Carter and Clinton's) financialization of the economy: they're a $250,000+ gentry who really has no idea of what money is--a widget can cost $20 or $10,000 and they just "have money" and can just click "buy" or have the personal assistant drive out and get it; the $20 soup isn't 100% dairy/gluten-free or whatever? the maids can have it (many are actually sick of having so many maids and get a smaller McMansion so the family can be alone for damn once)

[cantbeserious]

66. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[grasswire]

21. word

we CANNOT allow corporatist Clinton the nomination

[niyad]

3. k and r

[bklyncowgirl]

4. Interesting take on the identity politics which play such a large role in the Democratic Party.

I tend to agree with the analysis but I imagine that there are many here who will disagree.

[grasswire]

9. Hedges is our conscience.

An oracle of our time.

I think we ignore him at our own peril.

[retrowire]

33. ...

...are... are you Chris Hedges???

jk FEELTHEBERN WOOOO

[grasswire]

56. thanks for the compliment.

No.

[Scuba]

62. /\Truth/\

[MisterP]

13. it's not just an appeal to identitarianism, but a sort of "commerce" or "trafficking" in identity

the Dems mask bad policies with lip service to non-whiteness, the GOP does the same with vacuously-ultra-Protestant hetero lily-whiteness; and the other party doing that is used by your own party as a bad example of what's threatening your well-being, pitting two submerging classes against one another

and the thing is, it's not "social issues being used to mask economics" because the social issues are, again, mere lip service, just bones tossed to the voters or wedge issues to angry up the blood

[bklyncowgirl]

49. You said it much better than I did. Thanks.

[grasswire]

54. I had never thought of this dynamic prior to reading this

.....the fact that so much focus on diversity has merely stifled discussion of inequality.

SMH.

[JEB]

5. K&R for exposure.

Quite the dodge to which we've been subjected. Divide and conquer both sides.

[grasswire]

7. sickening, isn't it? nt

[dpatbrown]

35. As a college student in the 60s,

divide and conquer was quite apparent, and a major concern. And it has worked out beautifully for the ruling elite. Very, very difficult to convince others. Social issues have always been used to create these divisions. And as long as football is the number one priority to those many people, many of these folks just roll over and check what game starts next. Anything else is just a distraction to them.

[Martin Eden]

11. "Trump is not making a political revolution. He is responding to one."

The above quote is an important distinction and the article contains many important insights, including:

It is not that cultural diversity is bad. It isn’t. It is that cultural diversity when divorced from economic and political justice, from the empowerment of the oppressed, is elitist. And this is why these liberal values are being rejected by a disenfranchised white underclass.

My take on the artcle by Chris Hedges:
The "political revolution" is not an organized grassroots effort, but is more like the proverbial frog realizing it's getting burned in the boiling pot of water. It's jumping out to escape and cannot be so easily controlled, but it's motivated by pain/anger/fear and will latch on to demagogues clever at manipulating the mounting rage.

The status quo is that boiling pot of water. The 99% is in it, and we have to escape. A political revolution is indeed necessary, but it has to be the product of the rational side of our brains with clear goals to build a better future.

What it "boils" down to:
We need the political revolution being articlated by Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton is the status quo.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. For any Sanders supporters, who seem to think Hedges supports him too:

Hedges interviewing Ralph Nader, earlier this month:

HEDGES: So let's talk about Bernie Sanders.
And I think as a back story, and my own critique of Sanders, is that he has long been a member of the Democratic establishment. He campaigned for Bill Clinton in 1992, again in 1996 after Clinton passed things like NAFTA, assault on the prison--you know, exploding the prison population, attacks on welfare. He campaigned for the Democrats in 2004, indeed in 2004 announced that you should not be running for president as a third-party candidate. This was the supporter of John Kerry, who was out-Bushing Bush on Iraq--he wouldn't have withdrawn from Fallujah. Bernie has supported in his voting record, despite his rhetoric, almost all military appropriations bills, funding for the NSA, funding for the CIA. There is not a pro-Israel resolution coughed up by the Israel lobby and AIPAC he hasn't supported. I don't see how, given the fact that we are being disemboweled by the war industry--Seymour Melman was onto this a long time ago--we can't talk about creating an egalitarian, a socialist society if we don't confront the war machine. And he won't confront it.
And I would like to know how you view his candidacy and what this will mean, especially given his long complicity with the Democrats--and he's been the main force behind building a third-party candidacy in Vermont; he never supported--and there's powerful or strong grassroots movements that would like to build a third party in Vermont--what this means for progressives, what this means for us, what it means for those of us who would like to confront corporate power.
...
HEDGES: Well, but he's part of the Democrat--he sits on the caucus. He has seniority. The Democrats, in a quid pro quo, do not mount serious candidates against him in Vermont, and in return he doesn't support third-party candidacies, including your own.
...
HEDGES: But isn't he just giving Hillary Clinton her talking points week by week, I think you pointed out?
...
HEDGES: So let's say this scenario that you suggest plays out, which I expect it will--and it's one of the reasons why I've been very critical of Bernie Sanders. So it does play out. What does that mean for us if this kind of moral and physical collapse with Bernie selling out to the Clintons and the Democratic establishment--what are the consequences of that?
NADER: The consequences are he doesn't mean what he says, therefore he'll come across as a betrayer of millions of people who went to his rallies and are telling pollsters he's our choice, because he has entered the two-party prison and basically says, I'll drop all my principles because I think the Republicans are worse than the Democrats.
HEDGES: Well, I think he's already shown that he is in that prison.
NADER: Oh, yeah, he is in the prison. But he--.
HEDGES: He's completely consistent.
...
HEDGES: But he's giving credibility to the Democratic establishment and to Hillary Clinton.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15060

What it boils down to is that Chris Hedges says Sanders is part of the Democratic establishment, and is complicit with what he accuses Hillary Clinton of.

[Martin Eden]

61. Thanks for the link

The word "complicit" can have a very broad definition with a tenuous connection, or it can be a collaboration on very specific issue, or somewhere in between.

Nader and Hedges were focusing on the obstacles erected to third parties by the two-party establishment. Bernie Sanders has caucused with the Democratic Party and has not actively supported third parties. In a broad sense he is complicit in that, but is he a driving force behind the obstacles and does he have the same motives or is he merely working within the current political system in a pragmatic way pursuant to a progressive agenda? Who has a better chance to actually start swinging the pendulum back towards the people and away from corporatocracy -- Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders?

It's a real stretch to assert that Sanders "is complicit with what he accuses Hillary of" -- like accepting campaign finance from Wall Street and owing them favors. I would also argue that funding troops who are already in the field is not the same as voting to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. Sanders spoke out forcefully against the IWR and the points he raised were prescient, whereas Hillary parroted the war propaganda and voted for it.

Hedges uses a very broad and tenuous definition in his accusation of complicity. Personally, I refused to support John Kerry in the 2004 Dem primary because of his IWR vote, but in the general election I travelled to Ohio to help GOTV for him because the choice, like it or not, was between Kerry and the unmitigated disaster of GW Bush. Campaigning for Kerry in the general was the right thing to do, regardless of whether Hedges condemns it as complicity.

Sure, Bernie Sanders willingly entered Nader's metaphorical "prison," but he and Hedges don't seem to acknowledge that the prison needs to be assailed from both within and without. If Sanders hadn't successfully navigated the political establishment to be in the position he is now, the progressive agenda would have much less chance of being advanced. They call Bernie a "sellout" and speculate about scenarios and whether he is in it to win it. I understand their cynicism as frustrated outsiders, but I don't believe the route Sanders has taken is an abandonment of principles. He is in it to win it because that's the best opportunity to bring about the kind of change he's worked for his entire life.

Electing a Democratic Socialist president would indeed be a political revolution, relative to the status quo represented by Hillary Clinton. It might fall short of what Hedges & Nader demand, but it would be a big step in a positive direction. They have some pretty good insights into our political corporatocracy, but in terms of real action (compared to Sanders) they're not offering much besides catcalls from the sidelines.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. I think I more or less agree with you

that Sanders' positions are constructive, and that Hedges, and Nader with him, is criticising him out of frustration from being outside the community that has a chance of implementing change. I just want the people who see this Hedges' piece as an endorsement of Sanders to see what Hedges' views really are.

[truedelphi]

51. I agree with you in emphasizing this aspect of the Trump voter phenomena -

The voters supporting Trump are not hearing or responding to what we on the left are seeing about Trump. The sound bytes we are exposed to, that color our thinking into the idea that Trump is so ridiculous that he cannot at all get the vote of any thinking person, are not what the average Republican voter is exposed to while watching Fox. And they are focused on other aspects of his speeches than those sound bytes. And many of us are not taking the time to analyze what is going on.

The ones who are supporting Trump (at least, who I know) keep mentioning that "he doesn't need anyone else's money to run for President."

This indicates that just like many of us progressives, they are tired of the Corporate Control.

They also like his message about Planned Parenthood - that he would continue to see that there be adequate funding for the aspect of Planned Parenthood that helps women have health procedures OUTSIDE OF ABORTION. This is a much more sensible and moderate approach than that of the other candidates. And it indicates that these Trump voters are more aligned with women's needs than we realize.

[Martin Eden]

63. Trump is his own man

He actually bucks Republican orthodoxy on some issues, but he's also a bigoted neofascist demagogue who has no regard for the truth.

[truedelphi]

65. Very much agree, but then his followers

Are not that conscious of the fact that like you say he is:

bigoted neofascist demagogue who has no regard for the truth.

[hifiguy]

14. Happy to kick and rec Hedges.

More truth than can be quantified in that excerpt. Excellent piece!

[malthaussen]

16. The GOP elites may be horrified, but I'm not so sure.

Mr Trump is not their candidate. But his ranting makes it more likely that Mrs Clinton will be elected, if voter apathy can be encouraged. Mr Sanders has said time and again that only a revolution will change things, and if no one comes to the revolution, we have more of the same, and that is good for the GOP elites. They might rather have a puppet they can directly control, like Mr Bush or one of the less-crazy candidates, but in terms of getting what they want for themselves, Mrs Clinton is almost as good. Nevertheless, they don't like her much, which is interesting. I think the GOP is trying to figure how it can reduce the relevance of the crazies, how it can placate them, so that it can continue to conduct business as usual. But since the crazies have chased almost every sane politician out of the GOP, they're at a loss for an alternative within the party for Mr Trump, or any suitable demagogue (to use Mr Hedge's word) that caters to those left in the Party.

-- Mal

[Doctor_J]

23. He's talking about the ones who get richer and richer with the status quo

They're afraid people like Mr. Dear will make things so bad that the money stream will dry up due to a serious realignment - revolution if you will. If Trump gets elected the wall builders and PP shooters will feel emboldened and might dynamite the tracks of the gravy train. That's why Hillary will be president.

[malthaussen]

24. Sure, but does "terrified" overstate it?

I'm not fully sure, myself, though I am happy with the idea that in an older generation, they were "terrified" of Commies -- to the point of throwing the odd bone to the rest of us, to keep us placated. But that is sort of the point: if they were truly "terrified," wouldn't they be doing something to pour oil on troubled waters? They could be too complacent, or too stupid, to see a threat; or there could be some baroque machination that is working perfectly to order for them. Occam's Razor would say not, but people are not as deterministic as natural laws.

-- Mal

[hifiguy]

42. HRH has been their Plan B all along.

Blankfein said publicly that Wall Street would be "very comfortable" with wither HRH or Jebthro.

And that tells you every last thing you need to know about HRH. The oligarchs' gravy train will roll on, unopposed and uninterrupted with a bought and paid for ally in the WH.

[KG]

17. autoHedgesDURec

[ibegurpard]

18. This has been known since Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

It's a lesson that the Democratic Party is obviously UNWILLING to take to heart. I say UNWILLING because there's no way they don't know about this by know.
Good cop bad cop is the political game.

[KoKo]

27. And, Joe Bageant (Deer Hunting With Jesus & other books)

Website:

http://joebageant.net/

Rep. Keith Ellison has "Deer Hunting With Jesus" as one of his top Book Recommends:

[erronis]

36. Great list from Ellison (and you). I really enjoy Bageant's writing - nothing barred. Thx.

[haikugal]

57. Good book...K&R!

[floriduck]

68. "Saving Capitalism"

by Robert Reich. I'm reading it now and it is excellent. Bernie's proposals are right in line with Reich's proposals.

[maindawg]

22. Trump is a clown

The real demigod exists in the shadows. He will reveal himself at the right moment, just like Dick Cheney did. The new guy is going to make Dick look docile.
I am worried for us.

[KoKo]

29. He could also be a useful "tool" for one side or the other...

He certainly is getting all the free air time he needs from the Corporate MSM. One does wonder who it benefits besides himself.

[villager]

26. "Faux liberals," indeed. The "liberals" have been willingly caving to a far-right agenda since 1980

...and we've seen some of those dynamics played out here on the "Underground" during its short, happy life this century...

[pa28]

28. He's right to point out the Democrats culpability.

We've used social issues as a fig leaf to cover our complicity with the right on economic equality issues and we've lost a big chunk of our traditional electorate as a result. There was a price to pay for vacating our role as the party representing the interests of working Americans.

When an actual fascist becomes president assigning blame is going to be a little like Murder on the Orient Express. We all did it.

[hifiguy]

43. That fig leag is brayed here every day as a "badge of honor"

while the masses sink further into crypto-slavery, about which we are not to speak.

[Todays_Illusion]

30. That atricle is complete insane nonsense with the last paragrapph in complte disagreement with the

first. And I don't consider Chris Hedges to be liberal he is just another of the libertarians busy pushing the nation to one party rule.

[stupidicus]

34. they are why I've never used the liberal or dem label for myself

and have been sickened over being compelled to vote for their kind.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. If you hear a "Democrat" bragging about "Economic Growth",....run.

[hifiguy]

44. As if pursued by lions.

[bread_and_roses]

40. K &R ++++++++++++

Hedges tells it like it is.

A faux liberal class, epitomized by amoral politicians such as the Clintons and Barack Obama, has led many disenfranchised people, especially the white underclass, to direct a legitimate rage toward liberals and the supposed liberal values they represent....

...The mounting distress of the underclass was ignored or manipulated during the culture wars. Liberals who embraced cultural diversity did so within a neoliberal framework. Feminism, for example, became about placing individual women in positions of power—this is Hillary Clinton’s mantra—not about empowering poor, marginalized and oppressed women. Post-racial America became about a black president who, as Cornel West says, serves as “a black mascot for Wall Street.”...

...The liberal class failed for decades to decry neoliberalism’s assault on the poor and on workingmen and -women. It busied itself with a boutique activism. It is not that cultural diversity is bad. It isn’t. It is that cultural diversity when divorced from economic and political justice, from the empowerment of the oppressed, is elitist....

...Republicans, like Democrats, did not prevent wages from declining, unemployment and chronic underemployment from mounting, foreclosures from ripping apart communities, banks from looting the U.S. treasury, or jobs from being exported. The two major parties colluded to pass trade agreements, ranging from NAFTA and the WTO to the now-pending TPP, that impoverish workers and weaken the power of government to intervene to protect the citizenry and the environment. They worked together to strip citizens of constitutional rights and install the most pervasive security and surveillance state in human history. They collaborated with Wall Street to trash the global economy and seize trillions in taxpayer money in bailouts. The two parties funded disastrous and futile imperial wars that enrich the arms manufacturers and defense contractors while bankrupting the nation. They militarized police, rewrote the laws to explode our prison population and destroyed social service programs such as our welfare system, which was dismantled by the Clinton administration.

[haikugal]

59. Hedges says it like it is, very true...and we hear the neoliberal nonsense here constantly.

When they're called out they swarm alert until they can silence the speaker. True neoliberal values.

[Enthusiast]

46. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

There is no way we can ignore this reality. This is what caused all the bullshit we are suffering from.

[KoKo]

47. K&R...Its a Good Read if you have time or Bookmark

Hedges makes some interesting points about Party Politics that one may agree or disagree with...but, are worth reading.

[Starry Messenger]

48. *Yawn*

Hedges can't wait until a Republican gets into power again, that's his bread & butter. Writing this same article for the last 8 years must be getting pretty boring.

[grasswire]

55. you sound like those people who were jealous of Greenwald. nt

[Starry Messenger]

58. Jealous? Of what?

What an odd thing to think. I almost never think of Greenwald. Hedges is a pretentious ass, however.

[CrawlingChaos]

50. HUGE K&R

[Township75]

52. I wonder how many people will love this piece should Hillary win the nomination

Will those extolling this piece still extol it in October 2016 if she is running against Cruz or trump ? I bet they won't and you can't have it both ways.

It's either a great piece of you vote for the corporate way should she get the nod. I bet you love Obama too but this piece called him out as well. TPP!

[KoKo]

53. One Hopes that reading it before that happens will be informative....

After the Nomination what good will it do?

[Township75]

60. Absolutely

But I think people should use some caution talking about how awful someone is when they may be squealing lot a young girl in love with a boy band when that someone ends up being the nominee.

[Blue_Tires]

69. Stopped reading after the first sentence

Sorry, I'm not really that much into emoprog porn... I'll leave the rest of you here in private to get off on it...

[PosterChild]

70. Ah, I see! Bill, Hillary, Obama....

...... they are the ones who are responsible for the rise of trump and his ignorant hate filled followers . Now that there makes perfect sense!