Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Feel-good liberalism
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, December 23, 2006

  1. John Edwards, Defender of the downtrodden... (via Kip)
    During [John Edwards'] career of allegedly championing the helpless, he took no pro bono cases.
    Ironically, despite Edwards' alleged concern for the 'poor', he opposes many free trade agreements that lift people in third world countries out of actual and desperate poverty. Ironically, despite Edwards' alleged concern for the poor, he rails against Wal-Mart, whose business model-created efficiencies allow the poorest among us to live more inexpensively.


  2. Washington Post, Defender of the downtrodden...
    It should be easier for labor unions to organize.
    However, as the ShopFloor blog points out, the Washington Post is more interested in Labor rights in theory than in the newsroom...
    This is ironic in that the WaPo "Pressmen's Strike" of yore still stands as one of the greatest labor disputes of all time, with the WaPo taking a very strong stance in an effort to break the union. Today, they are known as bare-knuckle labor negotiators and they are having internal union troubles right now [pdf] as they try to force their reporters to appear on their fledgling and flailing radio station. So forgive us if we tire of hearing the WaPo lecture us all about the importance of unions.

    But lecture they do, pointing out all the canards from the AFL-CIO talking points (WaPo editorial page editor Fred Hiatt and AFL-CIO General Counsel John Hiatt are brothers, after all), including our favorite that, "polls suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of nonunion workers would choose union representation if they had a chance to vote for it." First, we think that's a little high and second, would the AFL allow the 30-50% of current union members who don't like their union to opt out? Of course not. As we've noted before, this is the Roach Motel — or the Mob — you can get in, you just can't get out.

The modern liberals' is a feel-good liberalism, not a classical liberalism. As Dean Barnett writes...
POPULISM IS THE LAZY POLITICIAN’S way to seek power. If you assume the populist’s mantle, it’s not like you actually have to know anything. All you have to do is demonize the rich and tell people that you want to help them. Empower the rubes with the sense that their misfortunes are due to forces beyond their control, and suggest you’ll bring those forces to their knees. Populism is a cheap, tawdry and condescending kind of politics. Worse still, it’s divisive in an era when all responsible politicians should be looking for national unity.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
POPULISM IS THE LAZY POLITICIAN’S way to seek power.
No doubt laziness has a lot to do with it. But I wonder - how strong is the role of ignorance? How many of these populist politicians really believe the drivel they spout?

Since I don’t willingly associate with them, I can’t read them well enough to answer that with any authority. My impression is that at least half of them believe most of what they say.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
You’ve described their ideology as "Folk Marxism" in the past.

These days they call themselves "libertarian democrats."
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I’m sorry Jon, but you missed an edit here:
Edwards’ alleged concern for the poor, he rails against Wal-Mart, whose business model-created efficiencies allow the poorest among us to live more inexpensively, and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3
yes, but that was for the children, so he gets a pass on that one.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
The modern liberals’ is a feel-good liberalism, not a classical liberalism.
More accurately, it’s not liberalism at all. Liberals are supposed to believe in freedom above all; hence the name. When a man cares for some notion of equality or justice more than liberty, he’s not a liberal no matter how many times he says he is, and for the sake of accuracy in our terms we should stop paying him the compliment of calling him such. He’s tarnished the once-good name of liberalism.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3
I don’t think Edwards was being hypocritical in that example. A volunteer was trying to do something nice for Edwards; Edwards didn’t direct them to Wal-Mart. It’s amusing, but it doesn’t really constitute hypocrisy.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Let’s not forget Kerry’s true compassion for the poor.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/1996/05/16/kerrys_charity_gap/

 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
The Left is enamored of the "chickenhawk" trope, implying that anyone who favors military action must go to the front lines. If they were to apply this flawed logic consistently then they personally should be on the front lines in the class war. If John Edwards continues to harp about the rich-poor divide, but does not give away his own money to charity, does this not make him a "chickendove"?


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
For the sake of maintainint the season’s spirit of ’good will toward men’, I wasn’t going to read this blog until the New Year.
Then, the devil moved my finger on the mouse...
...and here I am, reading the latest installemtn in mean spiritedness.

There is nothing more hypocritical than submitting a one-sided list of political hypocrises like this, as I’m sure you’re quite aware of the hypocrisy among conservative politicians, as well as liberal ones.

The country is in a state of upheaval, due to the rapid changes brought by globalization and a threatening world beyond our shores. Everybody is nervous. Every grouping -labor, business, the haves, the have-nots - are scrambling to protect their interests and the interests of their children. That’s the natural order of things: competition.
Along the way, we see hypocrisy, corruption, and zealotry. It’s everywhere, folks, under every system and in every sector.

My own nomination as the major cause of unrest and animosity is the introduction of religion as a political issue, simply because it came at a time of uncertainty and change. We hardly need this addtitional layer of strife.

With all this going on, your pretense that it’s all on one side is just your own ’feel good’ reading of politics.









 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
There is nothing more hypocritical than submitting a one-sided list of political hypocrises like this, as I’m sure you’re quite aware of the hypocrisy among conservative politicians, as well as liberal ones.
Indeed. And I’ve often pointed out that hypocrisy. Though — oddly — I don’t recall you complaining about the one-sidedness of those posts. Huh.
My own nomination as the major cause of unrest and animosity is the introduction of religion as a political issue,
Introduction? Because politics was secular until recently?
With all this going on, your pretense that it’s all on one side is just your own ’feel good’ reading of politics.
I never made any pretense that it is one-sided.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
introduction of religion as a political issue,
—————————————————————
"Introduction? Because politics was secular until recently?"
== Compared to previous decades, the lines have certainly been more blurred between state and church with faith-based groups receiving government money.
== The political empowerment of the intolerant version of Christianiry on a national scale is also something relatively recent.
===Did anyone care what church Eisenhower attended? Even Kennedy’s Catholicism was a short lived controversy, and one much less shrill.
***********************************************
"I never made any pretense that it is one-sided"
?
Your title was Feel Good Liberalism.
**********************************8

I know, I get tired of my own carping.
It’s because I sense a level of inteliigence here that could induce you to make broader explorations of the ills afflicting our country.
It’s like expecting more from the child that can.

Then, too, I’ve had a life-long addiction to defending the underdog, whoever that may be. I can’t help myself.

Now I’m going on a blog-free diet to avoid the attack-attack-attack atmosphere for awhile.


 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
== The political empowerment of the intolerant version of Christianiry on a national scale is also something relatively recent.
That’s remarkable. The intolerant version of Christianity is only remarked upon now because it was the standard a generation ago. What, do you think we had gay marriage until just recently? Creationism was the standard science class material a couple generations ago. Abortion was out of the question. Nobody was arguing about whether we could use curse words on TV; they were arguing about whether we could show a fully clothed Elvis below the waist. Nobody questioned Eisenhower’s religion, because he was quite open about it. He even added "under God" into the pledge of allegiance.

There wasn’t much fuss about that brand of Christianity because it was the norm. And if you didn’t like it, you kept your mouth shut. It’s not the Christians who spoke up recently — it’s the non-Christians who spoke up.
"I never made any pretense that it is one-sided"

Your title was Feel Good Liberalism.
So? This does not seem to support your point. If you need assistance, I can point you to posts in which I have criticized Republicans without any corresponding criticism of Democrats.
It’s because I sense a level of inteliigence here that could induce you to make broader explorations of the ills afflicting our country.
In the interests of time — yours and mine — I don’t try to cover absolutely everything in every post. If you’re not satisfied with the scope of a single post, try the archives.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider