I think it is more a sign of latent election year jitters. I think the Dems are more worried about Nov than advertised. Also in his official statement, Rangell priases Hugo and doesn't see him for what he is.
The cult of personality is actually an integral part of leftism.
That, and the assumption that the opinions of your opponents' are the unconscious result of class and money, never of thought and reason, pretty much sums up the Left. I think the idea that the world runs on unconscious motives explains why leftist arguments tend to the ad hominem: thought is considered a surface phenomenon with no validity in itself.
I'm just amazed that Rangel hasn't filed a plagiarism action against Chavez. Hugo the Dum didn't say a word that Rangel hadn't previously spouted in one form or another.
As to the Dems being not as optimistic - they've never had a reason to be optimistic. Their fundraising has been good but they just don't have enough good targets available.
He called Bush the "devil". He denounced the U.S. imperialist regime and railed against the CIA's covert plot to supplant him. Then, after Sean Penn was finished speaking, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had a few choice words for Bush as well.
What a breath of fresh air! What a treat it was to finally see someone stand up to the Bush junta and its imperialist masters who think they can pile huge sums of cash onto Third World countries and get something in return. Granted everything he said has been said before by a Democrat leader or progressive celebrity, but never so passionately and unapologetically blunt. What courage it took for Chavez to come here and voice his patriotic dissent against the government, when you can be imprisoned or shot as an Enemy of the People for doing the same thing in Venezuela. And you'd deserve it to, you CIA stooge!
The Right-Wing Noise Makers will probably dismiss his entire speech as the ranting of a megalomaniacal lunatic with googly eyes and delusions of grandeur, but the veracity of every word out of Chavez's mouth is confirmed in Chomsky's brilliant book. Need I remind my readers that not only is Noam Chomsky a superhuman sex machine, but he's also possesses godlike intelligence. He's a tenured Professor at MIT, has made a fortune penning lucrative books slamming the evils of capitalism, and he gives long, turgid lectures that any self-respecting intellectual would be afraid to admit they don't understand. He's brilliant! BRILLIANT! Brilliant people never lie, and there's no such thing as an intelligent lunatic. I'm living proof of that. . via Mika blamebush
Skook, But how much farther can it go? The dimwitted Chavez holding up Chomsky's book at the UN wasn't exactly a gesture of intellectual vigor. Where is the left's new wunderjind? Guys like Krugman and DeLong can't even light matches, let alone carry a torch.
We won't be able to attend the burial because there are enough lefties still among us to prop up the corpse but materialistic historicism is brain dead.
Covetuousness, envy and greed appear to be insufficient to carry a movement whose members can't be bothered to reproduce any farther forward.
Rick, I've just been reading an essay by Jim Kalb that attempts to answer your question:
The future thus remains unclear. It is conceivable that libertarianism or some non-universalistic view will give rise to a new public moral philosophy for society as a whole. If not, it is likely that such views or religious and other non-subjectivist philosophies will nonetheless play a role in our social life that will eventually become more important than that played by liberalism. Although in public life the victory of liberalism has been complete, there are millions of dissenters doing their best to live by other views. As we have seen, liberalism is not sufficient on its own to sustain an ordered existence. As liberal societies fall into chaos and tyranny in the coming years the more ordered and comparatively successful ways of life non-liberal views make possible are likely to make them and the communities that adhere to them grow in importance. Which outlooks and ways of life will eventually predominate can not be predicted; in an age of uncertainty and disarray like the present each of us can only follow what seems best to him.
Thanks for the link - an interesting piece. I don't rate libertarianism much higher than the liberalism which he describes because it fails to answer the 'Am I my brothers keeper?' question just as poorly. Ignoring the question is little better than claiming "we are all responsible" while standing around with your hands in your pockets.
I'm not at all pessimistic about the future but I sure agree with Skook that it's going to be tiresome for a while.
I think it is more a sign of latent election year jitters. I think the Dems are more worried about Nov than advertised. Also in his official statement, Rangell priases Hugo and doesn't see him for what he is.
ReplyDeleteThe cult of personality is actually an integral part of leftism.
ReplyDeleteThat, and the assumption that the opinions of your opponents' are the unconscious result of class and money, never of thought and reason, pretty much sums up the Left. I think the idea that the world runs on unconscious motives explains why leftist arguments tend to the ad hominem: thought is considered a surface phenomenon with no validity in itself.
I'm just amazed that Rangel hasn't filed a plagiarism action against Chavez. Hugo the Dum didn't say a word that Rangel hadn't previously spouted in one form or another.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Dems being not as optimistic - they've never had a reason to be optimistic. Their fundraising has been good but they just don't have enough good targets available.
You Go, Hugo!
ReplyDeleteHe called Bush the "devil". He denounced the U.S. imperialist regime and railed against the CIA's covert plot to supplant him. Then, after Sean Penn was finished speaking, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had a few choice words for Bush as well.
What a breath of fresh air! What a treat it was to finally see someone stand up to the Bush junta and its imperialist masters who think they can pile huge sums of cash onto Third World countries and get something in return. Granted everything he said has been said before by a Democrat leader or progressive celebrity, but never so passionately and unapologetically blunt. What courage it took for Chavez to come here and voice his patriotic dissent against the government, when you can be imprisoned or shot as an Enemy of the People for doing the same thing in Venezuela. And you'd deserve it to, you CIA stooge!
The Right-Wing Noise Makers will probably dismiss his entire speech as the ranting of a megalomaniacal lunatic with googly eyes and delusions of grandeur, but the veracity of every word out of Chavez's mouth is confirmed in Chomsky's brilliant book. Need I remind my readers that not only is Noam Chomsky a superhuman sex machine, but he's also possesses godlike intelligence. He's a tenured Professor at MIT, has made a fortune penning lucrative books slamming the evils of capitalism, and he gives long, turgid lectures that any self-respecting intellectual would be afraid to admit they don't understand. He's brilliant! BRILLIANT! Brilliant people never lie, and there's no such thing as an intelligent lunatic. I'm living proof of that.
.
via Mika
blamebush
Follow my link to blamebush and then follow the link to Chomsky's "brilliant book". I'm still chuckling.
ReplyDeletetruepeers:
ReplyDeleteI thought about Sean Penn too. Do these folks read off each other's notes?
Skook,
ReplyDeleteBut how much farther can it go? The dimwitted Chavez holding up Chomsky's book at the UN wasn't exactly a gesture of intellectual vigor. Where is the left's new wunderjind? Guys like Krugman and DeLong can't even light matches, let alone carry a torch.
We won't be able to attend the burial because there are enough lefties still among us to prop up the corpse but materialistic historicism is brain dead.
Covetuousness, envy and greed appear to be insufficient to carry a movement whose members can't be bothered to reproduce any farther forward.
Rick, I've just been reading an essay by Jim Kalb that attempts to answer your question:
ReplyDeleteThe future thus remains unclear. It is conceivable that libertarianism or some non-universalistic view will give rise to a new public moral philosophy for society as a whole. If not, it is likely that such views or religious and other non-subjectivist philosophies will nonetheless play a role in our social life that will eventually become more important than that played by liberalism. Although in public life the victory of liberalism has been complete, there are millions of dissenters doing their best to live by other views. As we have seen, liberalism is not sufficient on its own to sustain an ordered existence. As liberal societies fall into chaos and tyranny in the coming years the more ordered and comparatively successful ways of life non-liberal views make possible are likely to make them and the communities that adhere to them grow in importance. Which outlooks and ways of life will eventually predominate can not be predicted; in an age of uncertainty and disarray like the present each of us can only follow what seems best to him.
TP,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link - an interesting piece. I don't rate libertarianism much higher than the liberalism which he describes because it fails to answer the 'Am I my brothers keeper?' question just as poorly. Ignoring the question is little better than claiming "we are all responsible" while standing around with your hands in your pockets.
I'm not at all pessimistic about the future but I sure agree with Skook that it's going to be tiresome for a while.