Home The Left Gives Up On Democracy... Again
Home The Left Gives Up On Democracy... Again

The Left Gives Up On Democracy... Again

While grief counselors are once again being rushed to congressional offices, the left is throwing a full blown temper tantrum. After spending two years warning about the threat of right wing extremism, MSNBC featured Ted Rall calling for a violent takeover of America. It's easy enough to write off MSNBC as a collection of television losers who exist only to cater to their own class of angry disenfranchised liberals with six figure salaries, but it doesn't end there.

Rall's Anti-American Manifesto which calls for enforcing left wing social policies through a violent takeover of America using "Al-Qaeda" like cells, got a positive writeup from Publisher's Weekly, "His revolutionary rants and belief in a green, egalitarian world are compelling, yet a stubborn truth remains: most Americans don't want to revolt". The Seattle Post Intelligencer enthusiastically endorses it. And Firedoglake, which spends so much time worried about "right wing extremism" hosted a chat session with Rall, where participants discussed field stripping AK-47's and discussing the role of "minorities" in the uprising. It's safe to say that sanity has not been restored.

The issue isn't really Rall, the Alan Grayson of cartoonists, an angry clown rehashing tired sixties tropes to senior citizen hippies who regret missing out on the Weathermen. Like much of the far left, Rall views America as an evil empire, rather than his country. And his prescription for terror comes down to promoting violence by other people in order to secure an expanded version of Lenin's "Land, Peace and Bread", or rights such as free health care, internet access, clothes (Gucci or Armani?), college and transportation. Rall himself can't decide how the revolution should happen, or even if the Tea Party is a racist protofascist movement, or a potential ally in overthrowing the system. Instead he fixates on arguing that the end is near, so it's time to step into the power vacuum.

The real issue is how quickly and easily the left abandons even the pretense of democracy, when things don't go their way. Rall taps into the left's cynicism toward democracy, justifying violence because the system is already rigged by a small group of rich white men who are "all corporationy", elections are useless and so we might as well just start blowing up police cars. But all it takes is a minor setback, an inevitable defeat in midterm elections, for their inner Bill Ayers to start whispering in the liberal ear. "Yes Billy, blow up the banks. Levitate the Pentagon. Forget Obama, he's a tool of the corporations. It's time for a populist movement led by underappreciated alternative weekly cartoonists to finally rise up against 'The Man'. The Age of Aquarius is only five minutes and five sticks of dynamite away."

But does the left want power because it's angry-- or it is angry because it wants power. The middle and upper class roots of its leaders, from Lenin to Castro to Rall, suggest that it all comes down to power. It's not the working class that wants the uprising, so much as the people who have just enough status to be close to the centers of power, but not close enough to actually control them. That is the real revolutionary paradigm. Revolutions aren't led by people who have nothing to lose, but by those who have something to gain. By the second tier that has a taste of wealth and power, but feels unappreciated and marginalized at the top.

The open collar shirt, the khaki outfits, the keffiyah, the red bandanna and the rest of the revolutionary chic gear is about the sons of the upper and upper middle class, posing as something they're not. The working class oppressed. On one level, it's camouflage meant to guile middle and upper class youth, or more optimistically, potential working class recruits that they're one of them. On another, it justifies their furious entitlement, turning their narcissistic vendettas over slights and grievances within their own class into outsized fantasies of oppression. Lenin and Castro were motivated by personal grievances, more than anything else. Rall's latest book which calls for violently nationalizing corporations seems timed with his own firing by the United Media group.

For the left, the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Let alone the mediocre. Because the goal of perfection justifies radicalism and terror. Since democracy is naturally mediocre, the left always always has cause to call for an armed takeover. At its best, democracy maintains a balance between factions and ideologies. But the left despises balance. Balance is mediocre. It requires compromise. It's just another way to marginalize talented Ivy League graduates who know what needs to be done, but aren't given the carte blanche they want to do it their way, with no restrictions or public oversight.

In the shattered worldview of the left, any limitation of their power is oppression. Losing an election is proof that the American Empire, run out of Wall Street and overseen by Rockefellers and Waltons, is keeping the little guy down. The little guy, somehow being them. The poor little guys who just want to take over, shoot everyone in their way and establish a totalitarian state that promises free internet and clothes for everybody, and only ends up offering dead end misery to everyone but the "little guys", the Vladimirs, Maos, Fidels and Kims at the top.

As Rall puts it, his side or "Us" consists of the "Hard-working underpaid put upon thoughtful freedom-loving disenfranchised ordinary people". And his others, the feared, "Thems" consist of "Reactionary, stupid, overpaid, greedy, shortsighted, power-mad, abusive politicians and corporate executives." With nothing in between. No middle ground. Just Us and Them. With that kind of polarized narrative, the left's angry old/young men have full and free license to turn their personal anger into political outrage. To create a polarized snapshot of America that is wholly rotten and evil, and call for its elimination.

Most of the left has not yet gone the way of Rall, but he has been working that side of the street long enough to know what's marketable. Had the Democrats held their own in the 2010 election, it's unlikely that Rall would have gotten a forum on MSNBC. But now, talking armed revolution channels liberal anger into fantasies of recreating the Battle of Algiers.

The ridiculously optimistic emotional excess accompanying Obama's coronation as Messiah-in-Chief is now flowing another way, like the Hudson River it is reversing itself, into anger and venom. In egotists and narcissists, there is always a thin line between love and hate. And all it takes is a little frustration, an unmet need, to turn one into the other. Their prescription for change is to spill rivers of blood in order to create a perfect system that will meet all their needs. Free internet, free clothes, guaranteed job security... hell, free everything.

Like violent children, the left is always directing its anger outward. Always on the verge of another genocidal tantrum. And always disguising it with collectivist rhetoric. We're doing it for "Us". Us being the kindly, decent, reasonable people who want to kill everyone who disagrees with us in order to get our way. That is why the left is incapable of democracy. Freedom is not in its DNA. Because freedom means tolerating what disgusts you. The left is constitutionally incapable of doing that. Its tolerance is reserved for those things that meet its approval. The rest has to go. And if it doesn't go on its schedule, then it's time to start field stripping assault rifles and building bombs.

The same left which cheers Rall shows that it can't manage to do what most five year olds on soccer teams have already learned to do. Admit that they lost. Not because the game was rigged or because the evil American Empire stole their soccer nets, or because Pee Wee soccer is controlled by Wall Street bankers-- but they lost by the rules. They lost because most Americans don't want the same things, that they want. Rather than using Al Qaeda as a role model, perhaps Rall and his readers should pause to consider whether enforcing their social system on people who don't want it can ever lead to anything other than tyranny and death?


  1. Matthew M11/11/10

    During Bush's time in office, I understood liberals animosity to him but never understood the apoplexy he induced in leftists. After witnessing the over-the-top adulation of Obama, it dawned on me that Bush irritated the leftists so much because his presence rubbed their noses in the fact they could not have what they truly desired - a fuhrer.

  2. When the Liberals - in a true sense of the word, as people standing for Liberty - speak about "democracy", they mean the Rule of Law, and the individual's Right to Vote - to participate in the governing of the society they are part of.

    When marxist radicals speak of "democracy", they mean "the people's democracy" - the "Rule of People", and the Rule of Law be damned! Plus, they get to define just WHO and WHAT the "People" is, and to speak/RULE in their name.

    It's again a matter of vague definitions and clouded thinking, of poor understanding of principles. Their arrogance makes them believe they know better. Psychology rules over them, not Reason. In short, they're childish - arrogant and stupid. Refusing to let go of their pink glasses, the fairytales they were told once, when they were little adorable children, protected from the Real World, and cared for by responsible adults.

  3. Anonymous11/11/10

    Obama in his speech to an assembly of voters, blacks, hispanics and young people said it very clear: who is against the democrats is the enemy, but the media who agrees didn't make much out of it, except for FOX. He still has 46% approval, amazing no?

  4. Will48,
    You've said it quite well, especially the part where radicals unilaterally kidnap 'the people' as a term to justify their actions against (big surprise) the people.
    Democracy is no longer a neutral term, and I can't even bring myself to pronounce that word without being filled with disgust at the actions of those who hijacked it for their arrogant, self-righteous agenda - and especially when they brainwash kids with it.

  5. Of course the revolutionary left should be negatively evaluated. Their over-heated rhetoric should inspire revulsion among moderates.

    Soon we will arrive at a tipping point when economic conditions require a rollback of government programs for the tax-supported class, a large number of Americans (approaching half the population). There could very well be riots, like in Greece or France, but worse.

    At some point, a military coup might happen and might be good.

  6. Anonymous11/11/10

    Outstanding, spot-on take down of an unusually elevated non-entity.


  7. Kevin, a military coup is never "good". Smoetimes, it is better than the alternatives. Augusto Pinochet comes to mind, as does Francisco Franko. But it is NEVER "good".

    At any rate, I find it difficult to see a military coup in America. The soldiers just wouldn't shoot, nor the officers obey. When the currency crisis hits full force, we may well see some very serious unrest. We might see localized militia violence. At worst, we will see secessionism and maybe even civil war. But a military coup seems unlikely. The culture just isn't there for it.

  8. HermitLion - thanks!

    Kevin - please review my comments on Gd and Govt few days back. As for the coup, the US refuse to take down Iranian war machine. Israel is cornered and outgunned already, their only recourse would be nuclear missiles (counter)-strike. Chaos would ensue.

    Only the US has the conventional capability to prevent this, and refuses to do so. Some speculate this is by design, to establish the martial law after the riots break out when the sweet crude hits the $1400 spot and gas at the pump costs $70. Russia would be very pleased (at first), which might be why they support Iran and sell advanced cruise missiles to Syria capable of knocking all Israel's airfields out in the first strike.

    Martial law with Brzezinski crowd at helm is no picknik. These people are cold, and are only interested in their profits.

    The only true response by the Free World to Islamist assault is NO TRADE with Muslim world whatsoever.

    But it is much more profitable to pretend that it's all Israel's fault. Sorry for going OT but I'm deeply concerned.

  9. Anonymous15/11/10

    I read that Book Salon at firedoglake that you failed to link to. Have you read the book? You could also link to the video of this author and Dylan Ratigan. Why don't you offer your readers more than an echo chamber of opinions and a screed against the left?

    Do you think the left supports those methods? It's actually the right who perpetrates homegrown terrorism from Mosque bombings, burnings, killing abortion doctors, looking for jews outside of Vad Hashem, the OKC bombing, etc..

    You seem to be so sure of yourself, knowing exactly what the left is all about.
    I'm pretty sure that preoccupation with Bill Ayers is with those on the right, as he's never mentioned on the left. The anger is actually on both sides. If you spent any time on Firedoglake you'd see that the anger there isn't directed at fellow americans like it is here. It's the breakdown of our government, failure to do what's right for us, but instead they coddle Bankers, BP, Business, keep us mired in war, and write laws and that degrade our constitution and engage in activities that degrade our cultural values, like torture, and torture apologia. That's something the right and the left share but the right doesn't acknowledge it. Rall's book is actually a call to liberals to arm themselves because if the right turns guns on the left or if the government does, we shouldn't be caught unaware and unarmed. You don't know what your talking about. He's not calling for revolution.
    ... Back to your Hate fest...

  10. Do the Weathermen ring any bells or the Wall Street bombing or any of the other left wing terror attacks?

    The OKC bombing was carried out by two men. The Weathermen were a whole lot larger.

    There's a whole lot of anger on the left, and the consistent pattern is that they reach for tyranny as a solution.

    Rall's book calls for stepping into the power vacuum first, possibly allying with the right in order to seize power. This is Weimar Republic crap.

  11. Anonymous10/12/10

    Thank you for your work!

  12. Anonymous31/12/10

    Beautiful post, great ))


Post a Comment

You May Also Like