Why do people that act conservative in every way

[Creideiki]

want to claim that they're progressive? Is it some kind of cognitive dissonance? Are they ignorant of the political spectrum and political science? Or is it an insidious plot to move the discourse further to the right?

[Two Americas]

1. great question

This would require a lot of thought and discussion, in a venue that allowed for calm and thoughtful exchanges. I will respond depsite that.

It is not an insidious plot, I don't think, in the sense that there are evil masterminds plotting it behind the scenes and pulling the strings. That is where many conspiracy theories fail. However, it can look as though that were the case.

It is cognitive dissonance, caused by the simultaneous need people have to see themselves as "winners" which requires them to see the system as good (if they are winning the game, if their life is based on that, they don't the want to hear about how the game is rigged or illegitimate), and the undeniable evidence they see all around them of the brutality and unfairness of the system. The evidence says that the system is rotten, but fully acknowledging that would invalidate their own life, destroy their self image and identity.

Sometimes this cognitive dissonance reaches a fever pitch, and a crisis is reached. People start becoming fearful and aggressive, and extremely uncomfortable. They must then do one of two things: reject the system and get their thinking into alignment with the evidence, or attack the ideas or people who are forcing them to challenge their assumptions and premises. The second is easier.

For example, people are able to reconcile their compassion for poor people with their own participation in and defense of the system that causes poverty, providing that poor people will stay in their place - play a role that protects the caring person from the contradictions in their own mind and life. If poor people stand up and speak out as equals and tell the truth, it becomes very unconformable for the caring person. They will then try various ways to pacify the poor people - we are on your side, we will get to your cause, the Republicans are the real enemy, we are doing a lot for you so don't be ungrateful or impatient, if you want people to support your cause you are going to have to behave, things could be a lot worse, you need to give it more time, we are working on this.

If these pacification efforts fail, and the people from the oppressed group continue to speak out, then people are forced to either stand with them or else eliminate them. Otherwise the whole edifice of pretension comes crashing down, and should that happen people's identity and self-image and the validity of their lives are all at risk.

This leads people to viciously attack the very people they are claiming to have compassion for. There is another factor that makes it difficult for people to take the courageous path, to actually stand with the people who are suffering, and that is that they are rewarded for making the safe choice and punished for making the morally correct and more courageous choice. There is comfort and security to be gained by turning on the persecuted people, and there is fear and uncertainty and risk in standing with the persecuted people. This carrot and stick keeps many in line, and leads them to promote and defend all of the premises and assumptions of the extreme right wing. Since they know on some level that this is wrong, they desperately try to paper that over with a lot of progressive sounding rhetoric.

This is the growing cancer within modern liberalism, and will be its undoing. Ironically, when it succeeds it fails because that brings the dissonance into sharp focus. People then react by thinking "wait a minute! We can't be wrong, we are winning!" and that then makes people less willing to question their thinking, and more angry and hostile in their defense of their thinking. This is the source of all of the feuding here, and everywhere today throughout the Democratic party at all levels.

This is the most important political issue of our age. Yet it is the one that people are most resistance to discussing.


...


...

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Damn. How do you change THAT.

What you describe is such a deep issue, I'm not sure anything can be done about it honestly. I mean what do you do?

[Two Americas]

5. social memory

The pattern is broken by communication that skips a generation. See my post below.

People in their 30's and 40's - especially the educated, successful, and upscale - dominate the political discussion. People who are now in their 60's and those in their teens and 20's will be able to make that very powerful connection that simply skips over the thinking from the dead years, rather than trying to fight or overcome that.

There is absolutely nothing in the current accepted and popular political narrative that is of any value whatsoever - the answer to the social problems cannot be found within the current political landscape, because the current political landscape IS the social problem. We must reach back, and we must approach it afresh. The elders can remember, the younger people can look at it with a fresh and new perspective.

It is going to be very exciting, and has almost arrived.



...

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. WOW you nailed it.

"There is absolutely nothing in the current accepted and popular political narrative that is of any value whatsoever"

That's been hitting me lately as well. We are locked in a political dialog that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's actually happening. Basically there are these people who advocate smaller government, who's last president spent more than any president in history, and made the government larger and more invasive in our personal lives than ever before. Then there are these people who advocate government programs to bring up the disadvantaged to be more productive for society, who's last president handed out money to rich corporations who handed it out in bonuses to those who have a proven track record of failure. Neither the ideals of the "right" or the "left" are manifest as realities at the policy level, they are tribal identities, collective fantasies we have been trapped in. I think the entire political narrative in this country should be trashed, or at least viewed as a unified entity, a two headed monster which has left the realm of reality entirely.

[Two Americas]

17. you can't get there from here

The solution to the problems can't be found within the problems. That is why things are going so haywire here. We have these bitter feuds going on, and they have nothing to do with reality. They only serve to distract us from the truth, to keep us in a fog of confusion and frustration.

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. I agree. Like when I heard the Freepers talking about secession, I really wanted to go talk to them.

Because while its completely ridiculous, there's something in that, about the awareness that this just isn't working. And I think that's actually what we need to realize at this point. Secession obviously isn't the answer, but a complete rethinking of things is the right path at this point. Its like with Obama. I see a really cool individual there, somebody who WANTS to move forward, to get past this shit, but at the same time he is SO mired in it, because its not about the president, or even business in usual in DC, its about our culture as a whole. The media, the generational issues you describe, the whole picture. Change isn't going to come from any politician operating in this framework. It has to come from communication, from connection, including (as you say) between the generations, the closing of that communication gap that keeps us isolated and lets a very few individuals define the discourse.

[Two Americas]

25. it will surprise a lot of people

A lot of the people who we think of as Republicans - the every day people spouting Limbaugh crap and watching Fox and voting Republican - are actually much closer to becoming left wingers than most upscale liberals are. I talk to a lot of blue collar Republican voting groups, and it is relatively effortless to talk socialism to them, while it is almost impossible to do that with gentrified upscale liberals, the people who dominate the party and the organizations. I was even surprised at the positive reaction I got this winter talking about GLBQT rights to AOG Warren followers. Those are the people who switched and put the Democrats into power, and they did that as a rejection of Reaganomics and the religious right. What I heard most often from people as the election drew close was "we need another New Deal." The key there is to present the political situation as a battle between the haves and the have nots, and build solidarity and empathy between the different factions of have-nots. "Have not a contract" or "have not health care" and "have not a job" are a lot closer to "have not the right to marry" then either are to the program being pushed by the dominant voices in the party and in liberalism.


...

[napoleon_in_rags]

27. Man, you are right on there.

I've seen that exact same thing. Its a very thin veneer which separates working class conservatives from traditional socialist or even communist ideologies. Here are a few traits I observe:

1) A resentment toward "the accomplished individual" (traditionally called the 'bougeosie') as manifest in celebrities, intellectuals and 'rich limousine liberals'.
2) A celebration of the the worker, the common man over the aforementioned elite.
3) A celebration of the state, in terms of patriotism and flag waving, and collection of other state oriented memorabilia
4) A dedication toward elderly, disabled and social service, though it manifests locally and often through church groups or non state entities.

With many "leftists" I know, there is a lot more talk and a lot less rock on these issues. Its yet another example of our political dialog having nothing to do with reality. I'll never forget a moment in college, where for some reason the professor asked if we would rather our whole lives for us planned for us by the government, or by a single corporation. I said government, because people (supposedly) have direct control of the government while corporations are privately controlled. A girl in the class told me that was repulsive, the most "republican" thing she had ever heard, to choose to have the government running your life rather than a corporation. She considered herself a liberal, and her perception was the left was the hip party of the Pepsi corporation, while the right was about big government. I corrected her saying that the left is traditionally more associated with more government intervention in public affairs. But in retrospect, was she even wrong? Her politics were coming from a youthful gut level sense of our culture, seeing all around her the 4 points above in action - and in that context she really had a point.

I don't know why the marriage thing is such a big deal. Its a red herring. The only issue is whether or not government should define marriage. As a queer myself, I say no, the government should not define religious concepts for the people, to do so violates the first amendment. A church has the right to define marriage in accordance with its faith, and the government has the right to define domestic partnerships for its own legal reasons, but it is unconstitutional for these two to intersect. Getting people behind "keeping the state out of defining our religious concepts" seems like a winner to me.

[Two Americas]

31. good post

There is a resentment toward "the accomplished individual" in a sense, but it has more to do with cultural issues than education or success. It is better expressed as "resentment toward the accomplished person who believes that their accomplishments make them a superior individual to me and takes every opportunity to remind me of that."

There is hardly a person in "red" areas who does not agree with this very far left wing statement - "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

Then there is this sentiment, also widely held - "it is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight" - which leads us into the patriotism issue.

The patriotism of blue collar people is not what many city liberals think it is. This hinges on how people define "America." Many here routinely say "we" when they are referring to things the ruling class did or is doing, such as invade Iraq. Rural people say "they" when referring to what the rulers are doing, not "we." Many every day people mean family, friends and neighbors when they say "America" and that is what they are loyal to, they do not mean the ruling class. When upscale liberals say "America is evil" they hear that as "my family, friends, and neighbors are evil" and reject it.

We can hardly criticize people for their patriotism, when we don't even understand it, and when we are selves are not willing to put ourselves at risk or make any sacrifices under any circumstances.

A few months ago, there were two polls posted here. The first asked "are you will to doe for your country?" and the second asked "are you willing to go to jail for your principles?" Ob both cases, almost everyone said "no!!" and many said "hell no!!!" to both questions. I remember two of us who said "yes" to both questions. That indicates the gap between many upscale liberal activists and the everyday people.

Many here think that the poor have no one to blame but themselves, and that the poor should do our dirty work for us, including the fighting. There is an enormous gap there between the liberal activists and the people, and that gap is what the right wing exploits to get into power.


...

[napoleon_in_rags]

34. The gap is an information gap.

Many here think that the poor have no one to blame but themselves, and that the poor should do our dirty work for us, including the fighting. There is an enormous gap there between the liberal activists and the people, and that gap is what the right wing exploits to get into power.

I don't relate to that statement at all, and I'll bet if you posted a poll right now you'd find most DUers don't think the 'poor should do our fighting for us'. Most liberal activists I know are pretty poor, many just ride bikes, live in small apartments etc. I mean as far as rich liberals, I've seen attorneys who are liberal and do okay, but most rich folks I have known want to pay minimal taxes and have minimal regulation of their business activities, and that makes them Republicans. But the information gap is there, and I think its the main thing. I for instance live in the city and drink lattes, eat out all the time, dress up and go to clubs and sometimes drink champagne. You may think this makes me an upscale liberal, but on the other hand I don't own a car or own my home. I live in a very small place, with some roommates. Its just the city lifestyle, that's what you do when you're working class in a city. Decades ago my grandmother lived the same way in New York when she was young, they'd eat at Delis every meal because nobody have a kitchen in the rooms they rented.

So that's the urban lifestyle. By why are city people liberals? Well first of all, we benefit massively from public programs like parks, public transportation and planning. But many programs would also help rural poor people as well, so that's not all of it. I think what it really comes down is that the city lifestyle is massively social, you talk to other people all the time, and you get your news from other people. The rural situation geographically and physically makes people more isolated, and more willing to get their news from the television, which means they get their news from a very very very rich person like O'Reilly, and therefore the opinions they are exposed to are naturally conservative, since its coming from a rich man.

[Two Americas]

35. a couple of points

Urban people are left wing, suburbanites not so much at all. Even suburban Dems are pretty conservative, especially on economic issues which are after all what politics is about.

Yes, most DUers are left wing as we can see from polls here. However the discussion is thoroughly dominated by a relatively small number of conservatives, and so too is the party at all levels.

I have no grudge against upscale people. I disagree with conservativism, and upscale tends to go with conservatism (not always of course.)

Being more informed does not necessarily make people less conservative. The opposite may be true.


...

[napoleon_in_rags]

37. And hell, you never know.

Maybe in the giant picture, we're all wrong and somehow conservatism takes us in the better direction, we all follow our judgement and we are human. Regardless

However the discussion is thoroughly dominated by a relatively small number of conservatives, and so too is the party at all levels.

But the actual thing per our conversation above, is that conservatives don't dominate shit. If they did, we would be living in a pro-life nation with small government. What we have is a huge state apparatus with almost none of the grass roots conservative issues addressed after 8 years of "conservative" control. The second thing is that we Liberals don't dominate shit either. Look at the banking bailout: Conservatives would have wanted the banks to fail, following free market rules. (Leftist) liberals would have wanted government money to aid the elderly, infirm and poor...or the direct victims of the crisis. NOBODY advocates giant handouts for rich people with a proven track record of economic failure. Its neither a liberal nor conservative stance.

It all brings us full circle to what we were talking about at the start, the current political narrative doesn't address what's actually going on.

[Two Americas]

38. those aren't the real issues

The grass roots conservative issues are just made up things that the right wingers use to fool the public. They don't really care about those.

The agenda of the right wing is to defend and promote the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. That is the only agenda, and they pursue it relentlessly and consistently. Since hardly anyone would vote for that, they make up "issues" to trick the public into supporting them.

The reason why we are not living in a pro-life nation with small government is because the political right wing does not care about either of those issues.

There is no ideology to right wing politics, so they wouldn't want the banks to fail because that happens to be in alignment up with some belief system or something. They want whatever is best for the wealthy and powerful few.

Politics is about power and economics - always. It has nothing to do with ideology, philosophy, beliefs, choices, or positions on issues. All of that is a distraction, and while we are distracted we are robbed blind.



...

[napoleon_in_rags]

39. You nail it once again...

I feel I'd be preaching to the choir to add anything to that. Great post.

[Two Americas]

40. thanks

Feel free to preach to the choir, though.


...

[Two Americas]

6. for example

Take the current terrible feuding over the issue of GLBTQ rights. Younger people can see the injustice with fresh eyes, and can also see that the approach we are taking is not working. Older people can remember segregation, can remember a time before women were even in the workplace to any extent and were mostly home makers, can remember why there was a need for affirmative action. It takes both perspectives, because the fresh eyes, the clarity, the energy that the old timers lack the younger people have. The historical context and experience that the younger folks lack the old timers have. Some of the people in between will bully or patronize those who are the age of their children, and mock and ridicule those who are the age of their parents. Both are seen as a threat to their power and privilege, and to their world view. The young will be accused of naivete and impatience, the older people will be seen as obsolete, doctrinaire or unrealistic.

Of course not everyone from any of those age groups fits that pattern. In fact, few do. Few ever do. However, it only takes a few and those few will determine our political future. The battle has started.


...

[xchrom]

11. we further complicate that by running 'winners' as our political leadership.

based on the very human fact that everyone 'loves' a winner.

in turn 'winner's embrace the status quo -- because they gain power.

combine that with how americans treat their political leaders -- we shame monarchies.

[Chovexani]

12. I often think this stuff is in our collective psyche as a nation

We channel that human impulse towards aristocracy into our celebrity culture, and our political culture goes hand in hand with that nowadays.

I think if we WERE a monarchy we wouldn't be nearly as bad about it, frankly. (Please note, I am not advocating monarchy anywhere but certain nightclubs :P)

[xchrom]

13. it's very strange -- you'ld think we'd be less monkey like --

except in certain night clubs;)

[Chovexani]

14. Everyone needs a Queen to look up to

;)

[xchrom]

15. you can borrow my gown -- if i can borrow yours.

and i have a fab tiara to go with it.

[Two Americas]

18. winners versus losers

The battles here are between the winners and losers, and are not really about political issues at all, although there is a practical political effect from this - the privilege and status of the dominant group is defended, the point of view of the dominant group is promoted by this "winners" mentality.

Some of us have now been declared to be the losers. We are supposed to believe that this makes us "wrong," but of course we are not. And who wins, how do you become a winner? Those willing to bully others and shut down discussion "win" - for now. That is no sort of "win," and the truth will eventually prevail. It may take a little time, but it will happen.


...

[xchrom]

19. like a lot of things it's about pressure.

it isn't about 'losers' at that point.

the critical things left unattended build up pressure over time -- creating fault lines underneath 'winners'.

institutions should always undergo rigorous reassessment -- i.e. geithner is a perfect example of leaving an institution unattended -- i only site this as an example -- there obviously many others.

[Two Americas]

21. yes

Many others.

Those who kiss up to the dominant group in the hope of gaining advantage will find that this will come back to bite them.

Critical things are being left unattended, as you say. Pressure will build and build. The frantic efforts we see at keeping the lid on things is a good sign, because it means that the pressure is building, and it means we are getting closer to the goal - "always darkest before dawn," etc.



...

[xchrom]

22. that's essentially it.

whether it's issues dealing with lgbtiq equality or the economy -- if we worship leaders above institutions doing the job they are SUPPOSED to do then it will all fall apart.

if we are invested in our institutions -- and having those institutions regularly reinvigorated, regulated, eliminated, or what ever needs to be done in order to have them work -- we will always stay light years ahead.

'losers' can be dispassionate about this.

now if 'losers' can get it across to every body{espcially those at the top of the hierarchy} -- it's not about them -- it's about everybody.

it seems to me that this is something that fdr was able to consider without being threatened.

[Two Americas]

26. the cart and the horse

Do we support the party in hopes of thereby promoting the causes we believe in?

Or do we support the causes merely as and when that promotes the party and the politicians?

Are we willing to jettison causes and attack the people advocating for them, and abandon or turn on the victims of persecution and bigotry, whenever we think that doing so might help the careers of politicians or the partisan electoral success of the party?


...

[xchrom]

28. IF we are true -- and IF we are real pragmatists --

then personalities be damned.

those are our hold overs from monarchies -- i don't have a problem with monarchies -- except we aren't one.

the REAL revilotion -- and i know you already know this -- isn't in the first wave -- that's romance -- it's in the succive waves and whether you can make the status quo bend.


personalities come and go.

[Two Americas]

29. pragmatic

There is an idea floating around that the pragmatic is the opposite of or is contradictory to the idea. But that idea undermines and sabotages the political left, because the ideals and principles of the left represent the most pragmatic and realistic path to effecting social change. When we assume that we have to choose either the practical or the ideal, we lost both put principles and any hope of practical results.

We don't support left wing ideas because we think they are right so much as we support them because they know that they work.

What is truly impractical and unrealistic is hoping that compromising with the conservatives, running to the right, or pandering to the middle will work. People claim that we must do that in order to be realistic and practical, but the truth is that we do that out of fear and confusion. I think that it is difficult to recognize how much fear and confusion is being continually injected into the discussion, because we are too close to it. The fear and confusion are so thick that it is a wonder we can think clearly at all.



...

[xchrom]

33. i've always said it's a matter of PR, marketing

and message bearers.

it's a little like an equation.

if you take the employee free choice act as an example -- this is a simple and prgamatic way to stand behind the american worker -- the PR and marketing campaign isn't bad -- but it is noticeable that a message bearer like obama is missing.

The People certainly need both better and more representation as well as a pay raise.

how is it that such a thing can't get a face behind it?
it is pragmatic -- but can you imagine the shake-up in washington if The People had much straonger representation?

[Two Americas]

41. we must demand it

Something has gone seriously wrong with representative democracy. The idea that we merely select the best choice, and then wait and hope they do something, believing that they are on our side or anting to believe that, is incompatible with a healthy participatory democracy.

The politicians are supposed to represent us, we are not supposed to represent them. Yet that is what people are doing. They pick their favorite, as though they were making a consumer choice or cheering for a sports team, and then act as a public relations agent for the politician and their career. This is precisely backward from the way that representative democracy works. It sabotages and undermines democracy.

A good politician is one who listens and responds to pressure. If we do not say anything, if we apply no pressure, not only do we all lose but so does the politician since he or she has nothing to respond to and is therefore forced to respond solely to the pressure applied by the wealthy and powerful. As FDR said "if you want me to do something, force me to do it." He welcomed pressure, as do all good leaders.

The party is now divided into two camps. There are those who tailor and adjust what they say, what they support, depending upon what might be best for the politician they have selected or best for the party, or at least what seems best for them in the short run. Others put principles and ideals first, and see the advancement of those principles and ideals as being more important than the success of the party or any politician.

Elections are an effect, not a cause. They reflect the national political discussion. When the national political discussion is about elections and nothing but elections, the people have no voice, no power, and there is no vibrant national discussion to drive change. The right wing and their wealthy and powerful clients want us to see it as a horse race, a sports contest, as red ad blue states, as choices, as elections and nothing else. We are to make our personal choice, cheer them on, and then defend them no matter what. That is no democracy, and it will prevent any change from ever happening.


...

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. A lot of them are too young to honestly know any better.

If you grew up under the corporate media/DLC distortion of what it means to be a "Democrat", then you believe all you need to not be a Republican is "pro-choice".

If you believe in gay marriage, you're a "fringe liberal", and (God forbid) if you dare speak of things like single payer health care, or prosecuting the Bush Crime Family, or breaking up the Wall Street $tranglehold on the Democratic party, well then you must be a communist or some sort of Ralph Nader lover.

[Two Americas]

4. 35 years

We have now had over 35 years with virtually no genuine or authentic or powerful left wing narrative getting to the public.

This may go in cycles, and be related to generations. Every second generation resists, and every fourth generation rebels. In between, we have complacent and conservative generations. Every 40 years there has been a major social upheaval, and every second upheaval is extreme - 1690's, 1770's, 1850's, 1930's, 2010's(?) ...and we are right up against a big social upheaval again according to that pattern, and there are certainly many indicators that are reminiscent of those previous times of upheaval. In between those major upheavals, there are more minor ones such as the 1890's - half way between the Abolition movement and the modern Labor movement - and the late 1960's - halfway between the 30's and today.

At each of those times, there is an interesting connection that goes on that jumps a generation. Today's veterans of the minor upheaval in the 60's were talking to the veterans of the Labor movement from the 30's who learned from the veterans of the Labor and Progressive and Populist movements of the 1890's who had learned from the Abolitionists who had learned from the veterans of the American Revolution etc.

Each generation tends to blame the previous generation for the social troubles, and looks back to the generation before that for guidance and analysis. If the pattern holds, people born around 1990 will start rejecting the ideas of those born around 1970-75 and start listening to those born 1945-50. When they do that, they will be making a connection to the people who learned from the radicals of the 30's who learned from the radicals of the 1890's who learned from the radicals of the 1850's and so forth, and that is extremely powerful.



...

[Creideiki]

7. That's oddly heartening

If social conservatives were so distraught at the upheaval of the late 60s/early 70s (I remember flashes of parts of the anti-war movement that my mother was active in), then the 2010s upheaval could shake society to its core.

[Two Americas]

20. the contradictions

We are trying to live in a rat's nest of confusion and the contradictions are astounding. The liberal organizations are all run like sweat shops or plantations, in violation of every principle and ideal we are supposed to be fighting for, and we are expected to be grateful for the opportunity to donate our work and scarce funds to help build successful lives for the winners, winners who keep telling us they are on our side and that we have no possible choice other than supporting them, and no course of action other than being compliant and subservient. One group of historically persecuted and disadvantaged people has been set against another. The most mildly left wing ideas are under immediate and continual assault. One group at a time is being targeted, isolated and marginalized, and driven away. The most effective attacks anywhere against teachers and public education, against diversity and affirmative action, against civil rights, against organized Labor, are not coming from the right wing, but are being promoted by people who claim to be progressive or liberal, and it is demanded that those arguments be seen as progressive, as liberal, as Democratic party values. Every rhetorical trick and talking point and debate tactic that the right win think tanks have developed for the purpose of confusing and frightening people and shutting doe debate is now being routinely used by Democrats against Democrats. All attempts at reconciling the two warring factions have now failed. Those defending the traditional principles and ideals of the civil rights movement, organized Labor, and the Democratic party are on the defensive everywhere.

[QC]

8. Some are too young to know that there were ever moderate Republicans.

Having grown up in the past decade or so, they think that anyone who is not a fascist must surely be a lefty.

I think that explains some of the quite conservative people here on DU who insist, contrary to all evidence, that they are liberals or even, laughably, progressives.

They simply don't know that the political spectrum is much wider than what Americans have been permitted to believe these past few years.

[Creideiki]

9. Make that past few decades

I had a friend in the early 90s at the UW who was a moderate Repubican doing an internship with Sen. Slade Gorton. The moderate Republicans had to hide their existence that long ago. Over a decade and the archconservatives have been cowing the fiscal conservative/social moderate movement within their "own party". And now it looks like a bunch of them have decided to flee the sinking ship and just because they voted for a Democratic presidential nominee, they are "Democrats" now.

[QC]

10. True--it really goes back to the 70s,

and yeah, there are lots of new "Democrats" who don't really seem much like Democrats at all--it's just that they're not at all like Jeff Sessions, either.

[Two Americas]

24. Malcolm's take on this

I have always felt that what Malcolm is saying here applies generally to liberalism and the party. With whom do we identify?

Message To The Grass Roots
Malcolm X

Nov 10, 1963, Detroit

To understand this, you have to go back to what young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro -- those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were -- a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro -- remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant -- and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.

Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and 'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer -- peacefully.

The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don't have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don't stop suffering -- just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he's a Christian preacher. If it's a shame to him, you know what it is to me.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxgrassroots.htm

[Mike 03]

30. I'm fascinated in your question, but confused. Could you name some names so I can get an idea of

what type of political view you are talking about? I really want to understand this better.

[keepCAblue]

32. Example: Radio host Ron Owen of KGO in San Fran Bay area

Can't stand him...always stressing how LIBERAL he is but never has any guests on but Republicans, neocons and Bluedawgs. He's as hypocritical as it gets.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. No understanding of the terms. I actually consider this a weird sort of compliment.

Who would want to call themselves something that is abhorrant? Obviously it must be a good thing to be a progressive.

Honestly, I think most of the time it is utter ignorance / wishful thinking, but sometimes it is disingenuity.

[Two Americas]

42. why?

Why do people want to be seen as, think of themselves as liberals or progressives? Why is that more important to people than promoting and defending the principles and ideals that those words supposedly represent?

There are frequently arguments here between those expressing right wing points of view, and furious if they are challenged on those, because that is seen as "accusing" them of not "being" liberal or progressive, and those who are trying to promote and defend the principles and ideals - who are then called purists or whiners or bashers or haters and what not.

For example, why is being accused of "being a bigot" (almost always that is not literally the case) seen as worse than the expression of bigotry itself? Isn't that the same thing the right wingers are doing with their "how dare you accuse me of being a racist" and "playing the race card" and "reverse racism" arguments?

Are our self-images as liberals or progressives more important than the principles and ideals?


...

[kaiwai]

43. The problem

I'm a libertarian; socially liberal, economically freemarket.

The reason why some are conservative is because they are control freaks. The very idea of allowing someone to own their own life and do it as they wish scares the crap out of them. The idea of someone doing something that they themselves wouldn't do leaves them confused.