One wonders, from a perspective outside America where “liberal” isn’t quite yet a fighting word (although “Liberal” most certainly is), what it is, exactly, that makes a liberal into a liberal. From our perspective, outside of America, there is little discernible difference between a “liberal” and a “conservative” – for the most part, liberals and conservatives agree on all the relevant issues: that it was a mistake (logistically, legally, or morally) to invade Iraq isn’t the question, the question is one of means and efficiency (who makes a better leader and who will more quickly pacify the Middle East: a Democrat or a Republican?), that troops, even in an illegal war, should be “supported” unconditionally, taxation (bad, bad, bad), poor people (bad, bad, bad), rich people (good, good, good), oil (yes, more please), global warming (an inconvenience), etc. The politics are the same; the only diference here is one of efficiency – who will do it better and quicker; that “it” isn’t a question, “it” is to be done. And, from the perspective of those outdated concepts – namely, gender, class and race – there is no real difference between liberals and conservatives (rich white men).
What’s the difference between liberals like Oprah or Anderson Cooper and conservatives like Bush? Oprah and Cooper feel guilty about being rich and guilty about acting in their own narrow interest. Bush does not. That’s it. That’s the only difference. One group has shame – or at least the capacity to feel shame – and the other does not. For instance, today on her show, Oprah has a special on poverty in America, can Oprah, that woman of noted wealth and generosity bring herself to talk with actual, real poor Americans? No, she talks to Morgan Spurlock’s wife about the episode of “30 Days” where they pretended to be poor. Is that all that an American liberal is – a conservative who feels guilt and shame? Is that the secret behind so-called liberal anti-Americanism? That shame and guilt aren’t American values? Indeed, that they are profoundly anti-American?
Another question: what is behind the fascination with dressing up as (exteme tourism, if you will) a “poor person” (Spurlock and wife) or “an inmate” (ibid) or “a black person” (journalist in Montreal) or an “obese person” (Tyra Banks) in order to find out if it really does suck to be poor, black, fat or in jail? Why does the so-called “liberal establishment” – the very liberal establishment that, in the words of Cooper himself, are “not in the business of showing terrrorist propaganda [an Al-Qeada tape]” on ostensibly “liberal” and “objective” newsprogramming – need to “experience” it for itself their so-called causes? Here’s an idea for a few shows: dress a man up as a woman, get him a job as a secretary in order to confirm that not only does answering phones and making photocopies suck, but that male employers have the unfortunate habit of sexually harrassing their underlings. Another one: dress Anderson Cooper up as a conservative and send him to a university to find out if conservatives are really persecuted.
11 Comments
Well said, Craig, as usual.
Say, did you ever catch “30 days” – an experiment too much for the executives, apparently…
That was the only episode of his show that I saw in its entirety, his movie on hamburgers notwithstanding. Most fascinating about all this is the refusal of the “liberal establishment” to believe any claims of oppression unless they “experience” it for themselves. Barbara Ehrenreich comes to mind as another example, whose book on working at Wal-Mart, I’m told, is rather condescending – how else could a guilty liberal act? – to her co-workers: “What is this fat, pregnant lady doing with cleaning chemicals, scrubbing the floor in the vitamin aisle? Doesn’t she know she should be off her feet at home and, when not at home, at the pilates studio or, at the very least, hooked up to an ultrasound machine? What is wrong with this world! That bleach could harm her baby!”
I monitored Anderson Cooper for a while and I think he’s a closet conservative (among other things). Whenever something bad went wrong with the Bush administration he’d say that he wasn’t interested in the political aspect of it and when guests criticized Bush, et al, he made a point of saying “well, the Democrats don’t have any better ideas.” It might just be CNN’s version of fair and balanced, but I don’t think so.
Ah, yes, the oft-discussed question of AC’s orientation. He does dress well – likely the best costumes on TV right now. The SNL version of AC is quite funny.
hi Craig,
Nickle And Dimed is a book with some problems, and there are some problems with its reception, but I don’t recall any passage like that which you describe. Maybe you read or heard a bad book report. I also don’t think Ehrenreich would agree with your description of her as a member of the “liberal establishment” nor does she strike me as motivated much by guilt, unless she’s changed her mind and I haven’t heard. (Earlier works of hers have been anthologized as representatives of socialist feminism.) Nor does Ehrenreich fit the bill of someone who refuse to believe any claims of oppression unless they experience it for themselves.
Also, whatever problems there are in work like that of Ehrenreich and Spurlock, is that work’s problematic handling of issues better or worse than those problems not appearing to many folks at all? That’s an honest question, not intended to be combative, one I wrestle with and argue with my partner with pretty often.
As for liberals, they’re generally useless, at least the American one, but I don’t understand the vitriol they seem to generate in many quarters. It’s like getting mad about velcro or pennies.
Take care,
Nate
As for liberals, they’re generally useless, at least the American one[s], but I don’t understand the vitriol they seem to generate in many quarters. It’s like getting mad about velcro or pennies.
With respect, I think liberals are a big problem insofar as they, more than any other constituency, foreclose critical thought. It is liberals that maintain the “fundamental Denkverbot” of liberal democracy that Zizek writes of. In liberalistic culture, the bloodless smirking of Jon Stewart passes for critique and Jimmy Carter and Clinton are leftists. It’s insane and very frustrating. Liberals, more than conservatives, are the reason no left-socialist political party could ever arise in the US, and liberals are the reason “civil rights” are the terminus of social justice.
Liberalism is the opiate of the American “middle” class. I am convinced of this.
Gah. I’m one of the haters, I guess. That said, I don’t think the snide dismissals of the Bono-Oprah-Anderson set are helpful (much as I’m guilty thereof). And coming at liberals w/ a volley of Agamben, Althusser, and Foucault has gotten me nowhere fast.
In sum, liberals need to be re-politicized. The most progressive of Americans will appeal to Jeffersonian truths, in my experience. “The founding fathers would spin in their graves if they knew what Bush is doing. . . ”
Liberalism is a velcro straight-jacket on the possibility of an American Left. The trick being, the jacket is so easy to put on and wear, no one can fathom wanting to take it off. That way lies totalitarian collectivism and Islamofascist terror (Real straight jackets!), so it goes.
The famous ones, I agree, whatever, who cares. But the average I-vote-Democrat and read liberal, this is the worst.
Last sentence should go “read Vanity Fair.” Something went awry there.
Did you read Jan Wong’s ripoff of Barbara Ehrenreich’s wal-mart book? She did a series of articles for the Globe in which she worked as a cleaning lady for less than minimum wage, lived in an apartment in Scarborough (the horror!), etc, etc. She dragged her kids along with her. There was a poor-like-me component to the articles, but they were equal parts “This is what the help thinks of us,” us being the rich people who hire Asians to clean their houses. This wasn’t unintentional. From the press release, announcing the series: “In plain words, this often hard-hitting, frequently humorous series reveals a great deal about the strangers in our homes and what they really think of us.” The latter point being the really important one, I suppose.
I didn’t see it, but I assume this is the “feature” you mean. I’ll read it now – not literally right now, but soon.
Yeah, that’s the one.
Andrew,
I respectfully disagree. Liberalism can’t be completely foreclosing critical thought, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But even if liberalism does exert some kind of limiting effect on critical thought for some people, acting as the opiate of the middle classes, surely the fate of the world doens’t rest solely or primarily on the backs of the middles classes. Similarly, even if there is the liberalism induced dearth of critical thought that you’re saying exists (do I understand you correctly?), I’m not convinced that a bounty of critical thought of the variety you see as missing would make all that much of a difference.
Take care,
Nate
Post a Comment