Friday, March 26, 2010

Why can't we be friends?

A note to progressive and liberal readers: I critique you because I love you. No, really. That I don't comment much on the right-wing Tea Party types is not because I have any sort of affinity for them, or because I'm not well-aware that their idea of "fascism" is giving brown people food stamps, but because most of them are already too far gone and have never shown much interest in opposing war and wanton destruction it brings, their passion for protecting human life not extending to those unfortunate enough to live outside of an American woman's womb. On the other hand, many liberals and progressives -- even the party-line partisans (update: damn, must have been the coffee) -- demonstrate some awareness of the fact that the terrorists want to kill us not because we're free and listen to bad pop music, but because our government has often done some very bad things to poor people in far-off lands. That's why I find it unfortunate that so much of the liberal left has bought into, hook, line and sinker, the myth of Barack Obama, a man that has only expanded the state-sponsored killing. No, he hasn't launched a preemptive invasion of his own, but he's maintained and institutionalized the vast majority of the Bush foreign policy agenda, adopting the same lies about an Iranian nuclear weapons program U.S. intelligence agencies say doesn't exist and even extending the war on terror to places like Yemen, killing numerous civilians in the process.

My purpose in writing isn't to smugly shame those with which I disagree, or to simply mock those so blinded by partisan politics they can't come to terms with the fact their vaunted leader is a war criminal -- though this is a blog, on the Internet, and I can't say I've never given in to the temptation to be more scathing than constructive. Rather my intent is to encourage those on the left to maintain their principles, to not accept a little imperialism abroad in exchange for some paltry "reform" at home. If violence is what you abhor, then by definition the state -- the greatest purveyor of it -- is what you should oppose, even when the man dropping the bombs casts himself as a worldly liberal rather than a Texas hick. I'll have more to say later...


  1. If one steps outside the GWOT bubble and examines the Obama agenda, it is hard to escape the colonial nature of his neoliberalism. Those US military bases in Africa, Central Asia, and South America aren't for capturing terrorists--they're muscle for US puppet regimes to continue stealing the lands and resources of indigenous nations and foreign citizens, who, like us, have no say in how their states govern.

  2. Anonymous12:42 PM

    "...but because our government has often done some very bad things to poor people in far-off lands."

    " not accept a little imperialism abroad in exchange for some paltry "reform" at home."

    Are you saying we ARE Imperialists and that we DON'T do bad things to poor people in far-off lands?
    Are you confused or am I missing something?

  3. Anonymous,

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say, since the sentences you quote are complementary, not exclusive. But to clarify: I'm saying the U.S. is an imperial state that often does very bad things to foreigners, and I'm asking liberals/progressives to quit defending a government that slaughters innocents abroad just because those in power promise them mild reforms like the recently passed healthcare bil.

  4. Spartacus,

    You make a good point. While the bombs and drone attacks grab the headlines (and most of my attention), U.S. imperialism extends far beyond the Mid-East, and in ways that are just as insidious but more under the radar.

    On that note, Alternet had
    a good article
    recently detailing just the sort of corporate-state shenanigans going on in Africa to which I think you were alluding.

  5. Thanks. Keep it up.

    --Sel-identifying Progressive

  6. I can't believe you made an apology! (sort of) You were quite correct in your first piece. I know. I have been one of those 'goodness and light ~ lacy liberals' while knowing deep inside there was much more to it. A little schooling from a few good people helped too. You write what I feel.

    I too am sick of the name calling and making BIG the things that don't really matter (beck, tea party types) to deflect from the real horrors going on in our quest to dominate.

    I've been commenting on social news blogs for a few years now and find what you wrote to be the case. Ninety five percent of the liberals I see and read are following the the liberal line 'hook, line and sinker.' You are giving these liberals a chance to look way down deep inside and decide. Follow a line, or do what's right! Who has the guts?

  7. Tehranchik,

    Please don't take this as an apology -- I'm a blogger, after all, so I don't believe in apologizing -- but merely a clarification to the newbies not quite as ready to smash the state that we're all in this together, and that I'm trying to open some eyes, insofar as I can, not just criticize.

    It also helps provide a good reference when I get a bunch of angry liberals in the future.

  8. Hell, yeah.

    I wrote several years back about the absurdity of liberals who called themselves friends of women because they championed people who doled out birth control in one part of the world and bombs in another part. I pointed out that what the government spends on family planning isn't even a patch on what it spends to kill families who've never done a thing to any of us.

    I was scolded for being too mean, for trivializing women's issues, blah blah blah.

    Really, you've got way more patience with these people than I do, even though I used to be one of them. Either we have to agree on an ever-expanding list of Things To Not Talk About or we're doomed to yell and cuss one another out from now until eternity.