What is useless for what? With my eyesight I do not go to a web page without knowing in advance what it is about
....
Liberals are useless.
Useless for supporting their stated ideals.
Useless for enacting the kinds of progressive changes they claim to desire.
Useless for anything besides offering a somewhat less offensive alternative (in style of presentation if not necessarily substance) to their right-wing adversaries.
This, at least, is Chris Hedges' argument. It's one most of us here have made at one time or another and will doubtless make again.
Hedges closes with this:
I went on to spend two decades as a war correspondent. The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, like the qualities I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire—self-sacrifice, courage, the ability to make decisions under stress, the capacity to endure physical discomfort, and a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger. If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.
[...]
full at --
<http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/liberals_are_useless_20091206/>
Your usual counter-argument -- which I fully support -- is that this POV, satisfying as it is, misses the mark: liberals aren't "useless" and "cowardly". They are in fact, filling a necessary niche and working as hard as they can within a self-devouring memetic frame. For example, it's impossible to believe in free market fundamentalism (as many liberals do, though in a softly stated, "opportunity" form) and work hard for a single payer health care system.
Despite this, liberals paradoxically seek, in Adolph Reed's words to "make capitalism work for the poor." So, all manner of legislative and rhetorical gyrations are made to create the appearance of a progressive action which, in reality, is yet another funds transfer program from the US Treasury to corporate hands.
But, the argument goes, warts notwithstanding it's 'better' than anything McCain might have come up with. Our portion is to gratefully accept what's offered, happy that the permanent emergency of a right-wing government has been held at bay for a few more years. (This, by the way, is one of the main points Badiou makes about the politics of Sarkozy in _The Meaning of Sarkozy_. I wanted to dive into that a few months back but my desire was blunted by a distracting discussion of Badiou's supposed shortcomings as a philosopher.)
The fighting liberals Hedges wants to see cannot exist within neoliberalism's perceptually constraining rat maze. To become fighters, they must be willing to abandon their faith in capitalism as Hedges has apparently done.
I encourage the liberals in my life to stop talking about 'alienation from nature' and start talking and thinking about the capitalism which produces the excesses of industrial society. To stop complaining about 'this fucked up company' and start thinking and seeing social relations defined by capitalism. To stop bitching about Obama's "betrayal of change" and remember what I told them from the start: he's an agent of neoliberalism and, therefore, an effective 'change agent' for capitalist interests.
Unless you're willing to seriously engage with the 'communist hypothesis' your laments will never gain depth. You'll be trapped vacillating between the 'hope' that this or that liberal pol is a 'good person', willing to do the right thing and angry disappointment when things turn out as they almost always do.
This is okay for a 15 or 25 year old but edges towards pathos when seen in a person who has done some living (speaking generally here, not putting Hedges down so hold those cards and letters Hedges fans).
.d.