Does the extremism of some progressives spell danger to delicious evolution?

[rodeodance]

SFGate
Back to Article

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2007/10/12/notes101207.DTL&type=printable

SFGate
The whine of voracious liberals
Does the extremism of some progressives spell danger to delicious evolution? Well, yes

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, October 12, 2007

I hear it nearly every week in response to nearly any column that has anything to do with me daring to say I appreciate or admire or moderately wish to commend some sort of progressive movement or corporation or product, one that appears to be creating some sort of good in the world, moving things forward or upending the status quo or infuriating the religious right and making you think/shop/screw anew.

I get the e-mails. And there is, by and large, a general outpouring of agreement, understanding, clarity. There are also lots of healthy disagreement, discussion, valid points of contention. There is the requisite tiny hunk of phlegmy, grunting hate mail from the turgid and the monosyllabic and the neoconservative. Well and good and lovely.

But then there's this other hunk, a surprisingly large and very whiny group of responders who invariably say something like this: It does not matter that Company X has made impressive strides in environmental awareness or product design or gay rights or whatever the hell you're talking about. It does not matter that maybe you're a little bit right and this is a slightly revolutionary thing you mention.

It is still not enough. Company X has Serious Flaws. Product Y still kills trees in Bangladesh. CEO Z hates kittens and wears fur mittens and once said something mean about transsexual midgets. Therefore, you are completely wrong and I cannot believe you support this company/idea and this must mean you're a capitalist idiot Audi-driving hypocrite and I'm never reading your column again. Unless I do. So there.

[Luminous Animal]

1. dp

.

[Luminous Animal]

2. You know...

I read nearly 200 responses to Morford's original Whole Foods article and I find his criticism of his critics snitty and over the top. Most of the critics took the opportunity to educate Morford that Whole Foods does not have a benevolent business model. Very few insulted him or threatened to never read his column again.

The fact is many people who are informed and involved in the organic industry, both as producers and consumers, are aware of Whole Foods' anti-union activities and their lobbying with the huge food industry to weaken federal organic standards. What Whole Foods provide is more a brand and an experience rather than a holistic approach to food.

What Morford's critics were attempting to do is educate him and his readers to the reality of Whole Foods niche marketing at the expense of workers, local farmers, and the environment and offer information on genuine whole food alternatives.

[roseBudd]

3. I will never forget after returning from 3 very sweaty hrs. in a Dollar Store parking lot

reminding likely democratic voters that Paul Hackett was running against Mean Jean Schmidt in a special election in August, a DUer who said that she & I am assuming gender based on a username wouldn't work to help elect Hackett because she did not feel him on woman's issues.

I still haven't picked my jaw up off the floor and this was in Aug. 2005.