LIt just kind of boggles the mind, really.
There is a strain of self-described “progressives” who are just as arrogant as the worst of the right wing. Unfortunately, a great many of them are prominent voices on the professional left and are treated with undue deference, as if they had something to say that was worth hearing. I mean, many pro left websites and other publications who have been undermining the entire progressive movement for decades and they don’t seem to notice. If you think the 2016 presidential election was an anomaly, let me assure you, it wasn’t. If it had been, that would be bad enough, but they’ve been doing it to us for decades.
(And to the person who left a comment recently asking me when I was going to take on the “rest” of the professional left, it’s happening… I will take them all on. No left-leaning click-bait site will be spared..)
I can go on and on with examples. For example, start with 1968. Does any real liberal think Richard Nixon was a better choice for president that year than Hubert Humphrey? Did his mere association with Lyndon Johnson make him wholly responsible for the Vietnam War? In a race in which one looked objectively at Humphrey and then objectively at Nixon, what liberal in his right mind would choose Nixon? Are you people crazy? Then, in 1972, Nixon was holding peace talks, but in the meantime, he had expanded the Vietnam War to attempt to get rid of the “Commies” in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. He slowed down the draft, but the bombing campaigns were killing far more innocent people.
Then, in 1972, unicorn progressives started their “my way or I’ll hold my breath” strategy and manipulated the Democratic Party into nominating George McGovern, who was quite possibly the worst Democratic nominee in history. that led to the worst electoral blowout in history. Then, in 1976, Jerry Brown sent shivers down the legs of unicorn progressives, who really didn’t support Jimmy Carter in 1976. See, most of them had abandoned the Democratic Party by then, and were “independent.” You know, because nothing says “independent” better than demanding that everyone vote your way or else. Then, after four years of the most liberal presidency we’d seen in years, in which Carter reasserted the value of human civil rights in the United States and around the world, at the same time he stopped the terrible stagflation that was going on under the Republicans. Less than 2 1/2 years after Watergate and Nixon’s resignation, Carter barely won, primarily because unicorn progressives refused to support him.
In 1980, unicorn progressives rallied around Ted Kennedy for president. They “primaried” Carter and Carter won and they refused to support him even a little that year. Instead, they supported former Republican John Anderson, who was an independent who was willing to say exactly what they wanted to hear. Sound familiar? That was 36 years ago and you can swap out Kennedy’s name for that of Bernie Sanders’ and Anderson’s for Jill Stein’s. The only difference was, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was running and was relatively well-known as not entirely batshit crazy. So, eight years after the 1972 debacle, in which the most liberal of the two parties was destroyed by the minority GOP, another pummeling happened. Then, in 1984, unicorn progressives refused to get behind liberal Walter Mondale and an even worse pummeling happened, just about a year and a half after we emerged from the worst recession in the post-war era to that date.
Then, in 1988, unicorn progressives refused to get behind Michael Dukakis and let George H. W. Bush win. Whereas Bill Clinton was able to get enough support to survive in 1992 and 1996, in 2000 and 2004, these same unicorn progressives refused to get behind Gore and Kerry and let the biggest stiff in the history of presidential politics, George W. Bush. Then, finally, in 2008, it seemed that the fog had lifted. Every liberal got behind the presidential aspirations of one Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, we all now know that the only reason they supported him was because they were voting for “the black guy” and they were only supporting him because they wanted to elect a “black president” in order to “stick it to the man,” as it were. How do I know this? It’s easy. They worshiped the man and treated him as something of a “messiah” during the campaign, but spent two solid years treating him as a “disappointment” because he turned out to NOT be a “messiah,” but just a really good politician. They started whining about him even before he took the oath. I mean, for chrissakes, people, they whined about his choice for the preacher who would give the invocation. They really complained about the choice of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and they still do, even though he’s been gone for more than four years and nothing bad happened while he was there. Because of their constant complaining about the absence of perfection in Democratic government, they left the saintly President Obama with a Republican Congress to deal with and now, a President Trump with a Republican Congress. I mean, the unicorn progressives still whine about “Blue Dogs,” as if there is a possibility to having a Democratic president and Congress and Democratic majority state houses without them. They actually think the Democratic Party can elect a majority of progressives just like them, which is absurd.
See what I mean? You may think that the whole Bernie Stan phenomenon is an anomaly, but it really isn’t. This bullshit has gone on for a half century now. For some reason, a certain strain of people who call themselves “progressive” believe that have the luxury to “perfect” the Democratic Party. They believe they have the political skill to turn an imperfect process into a perfect one. They actually believe they can create a progressive majority through sheer force of will. They don’t seem to even notice that they are a distinct minority among the populace; they’re like the chihuahua who imagines himself a coyote and starts chasing deer. Wait, I take that back; no chihuahua would be that stupid. The chihuahuas I know understand how small they are and they bark to make sure no one steps on them. Unicorn progressives, especially those who make up the professional left, seem to have no idea
This strain of unicorn progressives, especially those who make up the professional left, need to be stopped. They tend to be white, college-educated and comparatively well off. And they are enormusly arrogant. You’ve seen them refer to people as “low information,” as if there is a magic bit of information that would serve as the key to making them always vote “progressive.” They define “progressive very narrowly, so as to make it seem like an exclusive club that only they can belong to. They take a patronizing view of People of Color and the poor and they also assume that those two terms are synonymous. Though they will swear to their dying breath that they are in no way racist, they refuse to acknowledge the concept of “white privilege” and they are almost as prone to referring to minorities as “other” as right wingers.
If you read the professional left, you will see what I mean. Hell, look at the Bernie Sanders faithful for a clue. They spent the better part of two years denigrating the People of Color who overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton and they continue to do so. They dismiss the fact that Hillary lost primarily because some people didn’t show up at the polls and they refuse to acknowledge that they failed to show up because unicorn progressives portrayed Hillary Clinton as a lying crook for a couple of years. Beginning Monday, this blog will take apart the professional left blogs, one by one, at least one per week and explain why their click bait strategies are bad for the progressive movement as a whole.