[Various prominent minorities and women in positions of power] are quite obviously real power and constitute the exact examples of the trivialization of liberal concepts of diversity. Are you really attributing to me the belief this sham diversity constitutes a `left' that I believe in?
.........
I don't understand what you're talking about.
I used examples from the Bush administration; an unequivocally non-leftist enterprise. How you go from that to shouty assertions about a "left you can believe in" is baffling.
The point was that this conservative 'diversity' is not a sham at all.
Sufficient modifications have occurred in people's thinking to allow the inclusion of non-whites within circles of power. In 1922, a black, female Secretary of State could only exist in fiction. In 2002, it was reality. What changed in the interim and what does it mean for traditional leftist understandings of the durability, form and scope of racism in the US?
Laura Flanders, author of _Bushwomen_ asked similar questions about the meaning of 'progressive' ideas of gender progress in the age of Dubya.
Doug interviewed Flanders in April of 2005:
<http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2005/05_04_07.mp3>
Chuck Grimes continued:
Because I will not cow-tow to the meaningless discourse of Precious Sir Walter Benn Micheals, I am suppose to put up with this shit?
Precious Sir Walter Benn Michaels is a careerist who makes it his specialty to be provocative. It's his trade. He sells his books on this pablum. Do you want to link yourself to his so-called star in the perception of what is the problem today?
........
You're mistaken and overwrought.
I only mentioned Michaels once in my post when I wrote, "in one of the Micheals related threads..." to place your comment in context. Beyond that, I focused on Preston Smith and Adolph Reed (and as Doug pointed out, Reed provided the link to the PDF which, ideally, would be the thread's focus.)
Michaels didn't enter into it.
.d.