David Corn: Counterrevolutionary?

Trouble on the left: On his mailing list, Mark Crispin Miller, NYU's own Mr. Furious, has been busy denouncing this David Corn column, which asserts that President Bush did a pretty good job in his State of the Union speech. Since the author of The Bush Dyslexicon knows that it is theoretically impossible for the president to deliver a decent speech, Corn is clearly insane for making such a claim, depending as it does on bourgeois "empirical" evidence.

However, it turns out that Corn may be guilty of more than just inadvertently expressing imperialist sentiments or indulging in introspective thinking. As measured by his objectively chauvinist attacks on Gary Webb, International ANSWER, and Greg Palast (who we know is a great reporter because he wears a fedora), it appears Corn is an unreconstructed violator of socialist morality, a mole seeking to sow dissension among the laboring class, even a running dog for the forces of reactionary capitalism. We can only hope that, having identified the traitor within their midst, Miller and others inspired by the true revolutionary spirit can either re-educate him or have him disappeared before he can infect any more workers with the toxin of disbelief in the victory of socialism.

Comments

[Brad Reed]

*sigh*

I laugh a lot at the World Net Daily crowd, but I forget that "my side" has plenty of wingnuts too...

[Curious]

Did the guy in TheFalloutShelter call him a lizard annunaki as well?

[Super Prole]

I made the mistake of actually trying to read the cited screeds by the progressive defenders of leftist orthodoxy and the masses. They don't even write as well as Lenin or Stalin and their crap is awful. Hell, they even write worse than I do, and I'm very poorly educated ("joe" told me so).

I can't believe that these are the progressives. It's pathetic. I shouldn't be surprised, bit I am. When are you libertarians gonna start a working class movement? Maybe something like "Free Minds and Free Labor"? You can count on me, at least until I lose my illusions and false class conciousness.

Maybe?

SP

[Brad Reed]

Super Prole-
Yeah, it's pretty depressing. Well, actually it's pretty hilarious. Keep in mind that these types of loons exist on the right too. See here, here and here. 😉

[Super Prole]

Yeah, but the right doesn't give me the hope of a dictatorship of the proletariat. When that happens I'll be able to sit on my ass and live off the exploiters. And I'll feel fulfilled and have good self esteem and other desirable stuff.

The right just wants me to work hard and worship a dead Jewish heretic. That's fucking boring, man!

That's why I expect the right to talk nonsense and the left to talk sense but they're both full of crap. Not much to choose between them, if you ask me.

"Free Minds and Free Labor!"

SP

[Lord Duppy]

I think I'm going to use the word "burgoise" a lot more than I used to.

[Gonzalo]

The tendency toward ideological absolutism is killing the left. No ideas can be debated among their ranks. Most respectable right-wing websites maintain lively comment sections where most (but not all, of course) of the comments are part of a fascinating and critical marketplace of ideas. Not everybody agrees with each other on everything. On the left, even at the "sophisticated" sites like Kos and Atrios, the comment sections are more like the cyber-equivalent of putting Bush's face on a dartboard -- they instantly become emotive exercises, a frustrated release of angry political "steam." Anyone who introduces ideas -- and, by definition, a debate needs two or more sides to be called a debate -- into the thread is immediately dismissed as fascist and held up for scorn and ridicule, as someone who just doesn't "get it." What is "it," I wonder?

A dear friend of mine fought against Batista in Cuba in the 1950s, though not with Castro's group, and considered himself a communist in the fullest sense, . Once Castro took over, the "Revolution" needed to define itself in positive terms -- it could no longer simply be anti-imperialist or anti-Batista -- Cubans then needed to figure out what they stood FOR, what positive principles to found their new country on. Since there was no democracy at that moment, this required ideological purity (read: purges). My friend was repeatedly jailed for not completely sticking to the official Party line, and, though it broke his heart to do so, was eventually forced to flee to the US, where he is a successful professor today. In his words, "Revolutions eat their children." Extreme ideologies, from the Right and the Left, can never tolerate dissent.

In a stable democracy like ours, if one political camp continues to purge itself of the ideologically "impure" in its midst, it will eventually amputate itself to the point where there's hardly anyone left. This country needs at least two legitimate opposing camps to survive. If the Democrats can't play that role, the Republicans will have to split into the classic liberals and the social conservatives. It seems to me that whichever happens will be in the hands of the left.

[really silly]

I just love those bush forces of reactionary capitalism, don't you?

[John]

I agree completely Gonzalo. I am a life long Republican, but I am not happy at all that the Democratic party and the left in this country has taken leave of its senses. Either party in power needs a credible oposition to keep it honest.

[Gonzalo]

I just remembered another example. I was listening to KPFK Pacifica (the uber-left-wing radio exercise in indignant self-righteousness) in Los Angeles a long time ago. They had an interview with Michael Moore about his Dude, Where's My Country book. There's a chapter in the book advising on how to speak to a conservative, and his first step is to admit that right-wingers may actually have gotten some things right, you know, to lighten the mood and get past the initial defenses. He suggests saying something like, "yeah, Mumia's probably guilty of killing that guy." Moore presents it as sort of a light-hearted prelude to the real deconstruction of all things conservative.

In the radio bit, the interviewer spent half the time forcing a stuttering Moore to explain himself and then, eventually, to renounce what he'd written, and express regret that he'd used Mumia as an example. By his treatment over that one innocuous sentence in his entire left-wing screed, you'd think Moore was Bush's speechwriter.

The lesson? Never, ever, dare think for yourself in the face of leftist dogma.

[Pig Mannix]

This country needs at least two legitimate opposing camps to survive. If the Democrats can't play that role, the Republicans will have to split into the classic liberals and the social conservatives.

I'd prefer the later option. I recognize libertarians have to hold their noses and put up with social conservatives to get even the few breadcrumb concessions we get within the Republican party.

But come on! Admit it! Don't you hate them just a little bit?

As they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows, but if I had the opportunity to pick my enemies, the social conservatives would be at the top of my list.

[Jim Walsh]

It was the social conservatives (along with the prowar neocons) who drove me away from the Party of Lincoln. Sorry, I don't care how big the tent is - I have no desire to share it with the likes of Falwell, Dobson, etc. Plus, with the Democrats you at least know what you're getting, crappy as it is, as opposed to the Group of Old People who continue to mislead with insincere libertarian rhetoric.

[Shirley Knott]

Dear Super Prole,
You write "...but the right doesn't give me the hope of a dictatorship of the proletariat. "
Clearly you do not understand right-wing principles. Since the right wing is all about smaller government, they are only intending to give you a dictatorship.
Rest assured they're working at it as hard as their leftist brethren would were they to regain power.

regards,
Shirley Knott

[james]

Although I doubt there was a second King David, the huge majority of us believe there was. Good thing the GOP is appealing to some of these people, mostly with its individual rights platform. Falwell scared my sisters out of the party, but they are pantywaist libs anyway. I'd trade two freedom loving god worshippers for two unreliable security moms anyday. The preachers in this parish haven't burned any athiests lately. And although religion is causing public schools to close this Monday and Tuesday, the flocks will be anything but pius. And if you aren't worried about lint, even better!

[flyerguy]

I went to Johns Hopkins in the 90s and as a result I have had first-hand experience with Mark Crispin Miller. He is personally a first-class pompous asshole, but I have to give him credit for not turning a class on Stanley Kubrick into a political soapbox. It's sad that that merits praise in today's academic environment. I think it's a cautionary tale about the mind-twisting effects of rabid Bush-hatred on the left: when Clinton was in the White House, Miller seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.

[joe]

Well put, Jesse.

As someone who makes an effort to get inside the heads of ideological opponents and understand what they're about, it's annoying to see people whose understanding of modern liberalism is wholly informed by "Look at those Stupid Lefties" articles in National Review.

Uh, yeah, modern Democrats hate Orwell, love Stalin, and are really worked up about Mumia. DNC Platform and Radio Pacifica? One and the same.

[Phil]

Most respectable right-wing websites maintain lively comment sections where most (but not all, of course) of the comments are part of a fascinating and critical marketplace of ideas.

Really? Which ones?

The tendency toward ideological absolutism is killing the left. No ideas can be debated among their ranks.

While this may be true, look at how GOP control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and White House has caused a strengthening of ideological lines and stifled intraparty debate. Anyone who veers of course is absolutely thrown to the wolves by the GOP leadership. Hell, when the House leadership is talking about not letting any bill get to the floor that doesn't have the support of "a majority of the majority," that's ideological absolutism.

[Ironchef]

The only thing that I find bearable with social conservatives is when I propose this to them:
"Leave me alone damnit. I'm not hurting anybody."
Freaks on the right are more apt to agree with that than freaks on the left. Sorry, but true.

[joe]

"The tendency toward ideological absolutism is killing the left. No ideas can be debated among their ranks."

That must explain why the Democrats nominated pro-death penaly, pro-welfare reform presidential candidates in 3 of the last 4 elections, nominated a candidate who voted for the use of force resolution last time, made a pro-lifer Senate Minority Leader, and are about to make an NRA member DNC Chair.

When was the last time a figure who dissented from the Republican platform on a significant issue achieved a position of prominence in the national party?

[joe]

Ironchef, social conservatives are ok with you "hurting" yourself with porn, weed, and gay sex? I don't think so.

[Julian Sanchez]

"When was the last time a figure who dissented from the Republican platform on a significant issue achieved a position of prominence in the national party?"

When Arlen Specter became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. Though the general point is valid, I think--there's no less line-toeing at the GOP.

[joe]

A weak thread on which to hang a "pox on both their houses."

[james]

Joe, don't forget the fact that the #2 man in the GOP supports gay marraige. Line-toeing indeed!

[joe]

Or, compare the grovelling that Specter had to do to get that chair, to the open arms with which Reid was welcomed.

Where's the Democratic "Club for Growth," running candidates agains heretic Dems in the primaries?

[Eric the .5b]

Not to be mean, but isn't your response, Joe, nothing more than "But Republicans are worse!"? 🙂

[Eric the .5b]

(Well, OK, mixed in with "You're all brainwashed drones while I make a real effort to understand enough of your beliefs to smirk at", but that's par for the course...)

[joe]

Actually, in this case, my argument actually IS "Republicans are worse."

Now the LP - THERE'S a party that demonstrates openness to dissent from the party line.

[Eric the .5b]

my argument actually IS "Republicans are worse."

Funny, all the conservatives who say you guys are worse seem to be pretty serious, to.

In terms of the ability to gracefully accept dissention, I'm really not sure which side is worse, overall. Individuals vary, and I really don't care much about it. If the Democrats or Republicans were fervently devoted to a platform in much closer agreement with my leanings, I'd like them better than if they were big-tenters predominantly opposed to me.

As for the LP... I honestly don't know whether you're joking or not. (Or whether you think many people even here really care.) I guess it depends on what context... I watched their convention on C-SPAN in 2000 and was amused to see the platform committee (I think) sidetracked into a completely serious debate on whether someone could sell oneself into slavery. And they were terribly nice to the remarkably kind-hearted-seeming Objectivist nominee with absolutely no delegate support.

[John]

If the Democrats are so open to debate, how come former Pennsylvania governor Casey, a real new-deal Democrat who happened to be pro-life, wasn't even allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention? The most popular and powerful figures inside the Republican Party outside the President are John McCain, Collin Powell and Rudi Gulliani, hardly Pat Robertson rightists. If Democrats don't want to be associated with Micheal Moore and the free Mumia types, then stand up to those people and criticize them. It wasn't the Republicans who had Michael Moore sitting in Jimmy Carter's box at the convention. Its not the Republicans who give nutcases like Ramsey Clark a respected hearing. The staff at National Review is a lot more intellectually diverse than the posters on sites like [H]atrios and Kos and Democratic Underground. If there are all these enlightened liberals out there who don't agree with people like George Soros, where are you and would you please step forward and reclaim the Democratic Party?

[Super Prole]

Hey, let's get back to the coming dictatorship of the proletariat. When's it coming and who's going to give it to me? (I've got some ability but I've got beaucoup needs so start shoveling the cash my way.)

I don't care who gets me the ill-gotten gains, I just want to know when I get to live at the exploiters' expense.

And, yes, I do plan to become as bad and hypocritical and maybe even as evil as the worst Bolsheviks and CHICOMs.

If that doesn't happen I'll settle for "Free minds and Free Labor".

SP

[dhex]

"Its not the Republicans who give nutcases like Ramsey Clark a respected hearing."

this is true: they have an entirely different set of nutcases to give respect to.

[Phil]

Its not the Republicans who give nutcases like Ramsey Clark a respected hearing.

No, they give nutcases like Richard Scaife a respected hearing.

If the Democrats are so open to debate, how come former Pennsylvania governor Casey, a real new-deal Democrat who happened to be pro-life, wasn't even allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention?

Because he wouldn't endorse Clinton for the candidacy, and made it clear that he would not. He also told Ron Brown at the time that, if he spoke, he intended to oppose the party platform from the podium; there may be a time and a place for such dissent, and the party nominating convention probably isn't it. The whole "Casey wasn't allowed to speak because he was pro-life" thing is a canard.

[joe]

McCain, Guiliani, and Arnold ARE the most popular figures in the GOP - at least, among the public at large.

Let me know when one of them, or anyone who dissents on abortion, the war, tax cuts, or gay rights, achieves a leadership position within the party.

[John]

They are a hell of a lot more likely to obtain a leadership position and have a hell of a lot more influence than anyone who dissents within the Democratic Party does. They are also popular among the rank and file, which is more than I can say for any Democrat who dissents. More importantly, even if what you say is true Joe, all that means is that the Republicans might be as oppressive as Democrats. It says nothing to defend the Democrats from the charge. "You too!!!" is not an argument.

[Martin A. Knight]

McCain is popular with the Press. Guiliani and Schwarzenegger are popular with the population at large. There's a difference.

And considering that Kos is agitating for someone to take out Lieberman in 2006, I think we have a perfect example of the Left's own Club for Growth. Let's not even go to MoveOn.org, EMILY's List, the NEA, etc.

PS: Count the number of pro-life Democrat Senators versus the number of pro-choice Republican Senators (barring partial birth abortion. Reid is as pro-life as Hillary Clinton when it comes to voting).

As for pro-choice Republicans becoming party leaders, what about Alan Simpson? What about RNC co-chair Jo Ann Davison?

We may challenge our squishes during Primaries (that's what primaries are for), but we don't chase them out of the tent ... that's why all the biggest blue states have Red governors.

[The Sophist]

Dadanation,

I am so thankful that the Democratic Party has people like you in it. May you be fruitful and multiply.

"Conceptual recasting of the truth" -- I love it! You're absolutely correct that the canards spouted by the likes of Michael Moore and John Kerry need to be fought by true Democrats devoted to the truth. We don't need to be constantly relying on falsehoods, distortions, Dowdification of facts, and the like to... oh wait... nevermind. You meant GOP lies -- yes, yes. Those lies of which we have no evidence, but I'm sure repeating it often enough will give it the appropriate weight nearing truthful appearance.

Harry Reid is indeed a smart, careful and decidedly focused organizer of Senate Democrats. I loved how he organized the verbal lynching of Condoleeza Rice, for example, even having the imagination to make sure that a former kleagle of the KKK (Byrd) oppose her becoming the first-ever black female Sec.State in our nation's history. I feel confident that the African-American community will approve of his organization.

Thank you again -- please keep up your good work. I look forward to a 70/30 majority in the Senate for the GOP after the 2006 elections as long as the Dems continue down this path.

-TS

[Mike G]

Be sure and read part 2 on Corn's site. It has some more hilarious quotes from the site that Miller has staked his teeny rep on. I'll give you one clue: Corn is not the only mole in the ministry...

[NARCISO]

yOU KNOW, international answer, mike ruppert, & co; are probably better agent provocateurs/moles than david; who is trying to stake out a less
hysterical but viable progressive case. Denying
what Osama has admitted on two different tapes
as well as thousands of exhibits of diffferent
kinds is not helpful to the cause. The previous
treatment of allegations involving the CIA, the
revised Christic Theory, wasn't helpful either.
the late Gary Webb, had to retract on at least
half a dozen occasion the clear allusion that
he made that the CIA purposefully sold the drugs
to destroy the black community. The truth was a
little different; according to the CIA and Justice
Inquiries, but that doesn't matter. Mr. Palast
began his Florida 1868/2000 inquiry by deliberately conflating the DBT/Choice Point
contracts under different administrations, forgetting the rationale for. . .forget let them
crash and burn, Donald Segretti couldn't have done
better