If msnbc is so liberal, why aren't there more minorities represented there?

[jseaman0]

Msnbc is supposed to be more left wing while cnn is supposedly more moderate. IMO cnn leans to the right most of the time and to the left sometimes. But CNN does at least have minorities on their shows while Msnbc doesn't have hardly any.

[ComradeAV]

Msnbc is supposed to be more left wing while cnn is supposedly more moderate. IMO cnn leans to the right most of the time and to the left sometimes. But CNN does at least have minorities on their shows while Msnbc doesn't have hardly any.

Actually only Keith Olbermann and rachel maddow are liberals. They are nonetheless apologists to the capitalist system and for the most american exceptionalists. But the reason is, the msnbc management is connected to NBC , which is highly conservative. So most people in the news org. are either very conservative or moderate. The only reason KO and RM saty is because of the ratings they have, which has saved the organization. But there are some minorities, such as cenk ugyur, who is a turkish-american.

[28350]

MSNBC is not a liberal network. It is a network that caters to liberals. It's owned by General Electric, which is a pretty conservative corporation, as corporations go.

[Lucretia]

Msnbc is supposed to be more left wing while cnn is supposedly more moderate. IMO cnn leans to the right most of the time and to the left sometimes. But CNN does at least have minorities on their shows while Msnbc doesn't have hardly any.

I think you're confusing multiculturalism with leftism. Let's say MSNBC hired Alan Keyes back and recruited Geraldo to replace Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. These changes would make the network's on-air staff more multicultural, but it sure as hell would not make it more left leaning.

[ComradeAV]

MSNBC is not a liberal network. It is a network that caters to liberals. It's owned by General Electric, which is a pretty conservative corporation, as corporations go.
yes , you are very right. But even if it was liberal, it wouldnt make too much of a difference. There really isnt anything radically different about what KO says. He just makes fun of the far-right, while just supporting Obama and being an apologist for the system. At best he is a good satirist, who make fun of reactionary tea baggers and glenn beck.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Mainstream news channels serve no purpose other than for comedy value.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

MSNBC is terrible. I don't know if you consider LGBT a "minority" (unless you were talking about race?), but if so, the station has one minority host (Rachel Maddow). Ed Schultz really makes me cringe, and he supports the current union bureaucracy (saw one statistic show AFL-CIO gave him $27,000 in 2009?) Don't know if you would count him as a minority, although organized labor basically is a minority (total U.S. workforce unionized: 12%)

MSNBC caters to people who believe in abortion, freedom of religion, LGBT rights, and bare-minimum state intervention when it comes to economics. Besides that, the only difference between FOX and MSNBC is how much one station yells, cut people off*, and makes shit up on the spot.


* MSNBC, mostly Keith Olbermann, never invite right-wingers to their shows. At least Maddow has some balls and debates people. Olbermann is too rehearsed.

[Prometheus Unbound]

MSNBC is terrible. I don't know if you consider LGBT a "minority" (unless you were talking about race?), but if so, the station has one minority host (Rachel Maddow). Ed Schultz really makes me cringe, and he supports the current union bureaucracy (saw one statistic show AFL-CIO gave him $27,000 in 2009?) Don't know if you would count him as a minority, although organized labor basically is a minority (total U.S. workforce unionized: 12%)

MSNBC caters to people who believe in abortion, freedom of religion, LGBT rights, and bare-minimum state intervention when it comes to economics. Besides that, the only difference between FOX and MSNBC is how much one station yells, cut people off*, and makes shit up on the spot.


* MSNBC, mostly Keith Olbermann, never invite right-wingers to their shows. At least Maddow has some balls and debates people. Olbermann is too rehearsed.
His "friendly" interviews have always bothered me. It seems that he uses them to present his guests in the best possible light, the views of whom he very obviously agrees with. I'd rather watch Hannity or O'Reilly invite a radical just to bash him/ her than two liberals agree with each other for ten minutes

[scarletghoul]

Msnbc is supposed to be more left wing while cnn is supposedly more moderate. IMO cnn leans to the right most of the time and to the left sometimes. But CNN does at least have minorities on their shows while Msnbc doesn't have hardly any.
Liberal isnt the same as leftist, and most socialists oppose liberalism. Liberalism is a capitalist ideology that is fully compatible with racism and stuff.

[DuracellBunny97]

Alan Keys is about the only one I can think of, and hes an idiot, so I suppose minorites aren't terrifically represented, but I still watch MSNBC even though there is a clear liberal bias. I think the liberal bias of television media is totally over blown by conservatives who consider fox news a shining becon of hope in this crazy leftist world. Seriously, if you think CNN is liberal, you're retarded.

[thesadmafioso]

This is certainly an issue of false equivocation here, as once does not have to be racial to be liberal or vice versa.

And to all those who have decided to devolve the topic into one of bashing MSNBC for not being far enough to the left, I would like to point out Lawrence O'Donnell and his political standing. He is a self proclaimed socialist, be it a pragmatic one, but he still calls himself a socialist. That certainly has to count for something in a discussion like this. Yes the network as a whole could be more to the left than it currently is, but you have to take into account the political nature of the American people to a certain extent and view the networks content through that lens. Making comments that compare MSNBC to FOX are simply uncalled for and factually dead wrong.

And here is a link to the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell where he comments on his politics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/lawrence-odonnell-calls-h_n_779909.html

[TC]

They still have the first and only lesbian news anchor (and, arguably the first publicly open glbt news anchor if Anderson Cooper is thought not to count, since he is gay but refuses to comment in public on it). It will be a long time if ever before you see one on Fox News: lets face it, while institutional oppression cuts primarily against race (and in other intersections, gender) personal prejudice cuts primarily against minorities of sexuality.

But you also miss the point. Demographics including minority status and class status are significant contributory factors to people's politics, but they are still just that, contributing factors not decisive factors. The mere presence or absence of minorities when you're talking about a tiny group of people isn't meaningfully indicative of that groups politics - there were plenty of racial minorities in the Bush administration and the RNC Chairman is black but this hardly means the support the interests of racial minorities politically. Thomas, the only black member of the u.s. supreme court, is easily the most reactionary of the justices and the one who works most consistently to undermine the interests of racial minorities - more black people who happened to be like him on the supreme court would hardly indicate a better deal for black people or more liberal politics.

[Ocean Seal]

Because liberals don't care about who gets shitted on by the status quo. They look to maintain it. They cry crocodile tears when something bad happens, but they let it happen again and again. That's their appeal.
Imagine a man getting kicked in the shin and falling to the ground.
Conservative: Get up you lazy ass, and get a job. Capitalism is wonderful, you're what's wrong with it.
Liberal: Aww you fell :crying::crying::crying:. That's really too bad. Capitalism sure is bad, but its the only system that works so I won't help you because I'm not an extremist socialist who takes things into his own hands.
Comrade: Let me help you because I know that it could have just as easily been me down there in pain. What's important is that we don't abandon one another when one of us is doing more poorly than another. Capitalism is bad, but it can be changed. You comrade recover and do the same if you see a fallen man. Together all of those who have fallen, or in danger of falling will take down those who repeatedly kick us in the shins (the corporate govt).

[Obzervi]

Because their target audience is white liberals?

[Lucretia]

This is certainly an issue of false equivocation here, as once does not have to be racial to be liberal or vice versa.

And to all those who have decided to devolve the topic into one of bashing MSNBC for not being far enough to the left, I would like to point out Lawrence O'Donnell and his political standing. He is a self proclaimed socialist, be it a pragmatic one, but he still calls himself a socialist. That certainly has to count for something in a discussion like this. Yes the network as a whole could be more to the left than it currently is, but you have to take into account the political nature of the American people to a certain extent and view the networks content through that lens. Making comments that compare MSNBC to FOX are simply uncalled for and factually dead wrong.

And here is a link to the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell where he comments on his politics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/lawrence-odonnell-calls-h_n_779909.html

Lawrence O'Donnell is full of shit. It should be clear based on the context in which he made his bogus proclamation. He was arguing with Glenn Greenwald (a Salon.com blogger) on election night a couple of months ago about the meaning of the 2010 midterm elections. Greenwald was arguing that, since the "moderate" (more pro-corporate) Democrats suffered a disproportionate share of the election-night losses for the Democrats, that the election was not a repudiation of welfare liberalism. O'Donnell disagreed. Claiming he was a "socialist" who was to the left of "mere liberals" (yes, he used those words, and in a very sanctimonious, nauseating way), he then went on to argue that his political sympathies did not blind him to the fact that the election was a repudiation of liberalism. He was implying that the Democratic party had made a political mistake by moving too far to the left, and was paying a price. In other words, he was reinforcing the establishment's conventional wisdom that Obama needs to govern more from the right.

O'Donnell can call himself what he wants. We will know him by his positions on the issues, not by what he chooses to call himself. As somebody who wants Obama to govern more from the right, he is clearly not even a liberal in his actual political commitments. At least the CPUSA, though it is not a communist or revolutionary socialist party, is calling for Obama to govern more from the left!

[NGNM85]

Liberal isnt the same as leftist, and most socialists oppose liberalism. Liberalism is a capitalist ideology that is fully compatible with racism and stuff.

Liberalism predates capitalism.

While there have been notable Liberals who were, at least by today's standards 'racist', this has more to do with cognitive dissonance on the part of those indivuals. The underlying principles of Liberalism are, fundamentally, incompatible with racism.

[the last donut of the night]

Liberalism predates capitalism.

While there have been notable Liberals who were, at least by today's standards 'racist', this has more to do with cognitive dissonance on the part of those indivuals. The underlying principles of Liberalism are, fundamentally, incompatible with racism.

You know, as much as you have wet-dreams for liberalism, please get it in your head that:

a) Liberalism is most certainly a capitalist ideology, being formulated by the early bourgeoisie of the 18th century,

b) Most formulators of the liberal ideology were racists and racism pervades liberalism today, as it always has (being a ruling-class ideology) and,

c) Stop making apologies for reactionary ideologies. Liberalism is the ideology that defended the slavery of my ancestors in the name of progress, kept them shackled in the name of science, and when they rebelled, liberalism suppressed them in the name of non-violence and some bullshit ideal of unity and friendship. It's not cognitive distance -- it comes directly from the ideology and its rulers. Get that straight.

[thesadmafioso]

Lawrence O'Donnell is full of shit. It should be clear based on the context in which he made his bogus proclamation. He was arguing with Glenn Greenwald (a Salon.com blogger) on election night a couple of months ago about the meaning of the 2010 midterm elections. Greenwald was arguing that, since the "moderate" (more pro-corporate) Democrats suffered a disproportionate share of the election-night losses for the Democrats, that the election was not a repudiation of welfare liberalism. O'Donnell disagreed. Claiming he was a "socialist" who was to the left of "mere liberals" (yes, he used those words, and in a very sanctimonious, nauseating way), he then went on to argue that his political sympathies did not blind him to the fact that the election was a repudiation of liberalism. He was implying that the Democratic party had made a political mistake by moving too far to the left, and was paying a price. In other words, he was reinforcing the establishment's conventional wisdom that Obama needs to govern more from the right.

O'Donnell can call himself what he wants. We will know him by his positions on the issues, not by what he chooses to call himself. As somebody who wants Obama to govern more from the right, he is clearly not even a liberal in his actual political commitments. At least the CPUSA, though it is not a communist or revolutionary socialist party, is calling for Obama to govern more from the left!

As I previously stated, pragmatism should not be confused for rightist politics. He was merely stating a political reality, and recognizing the fact of its existence. I know the context of his statements as well, and that does not change matters much as I accounted for such when I used this instance as an example. The Salon blogger was making a terrible argument based around the fallacy that gerrymandered districts are equatable to the survival of liberalism in the mid terms. It is quite obvious to most anyone with the slightest working knowledge of American politics that the liberal caucus was going to survive the midterms regardless of prevailing political trends, as its more liberal members come from more liberal and thus safe districts. What O'Donnell was pointing to was the electoral results of the moderate districts that were toss ups or that went Republican, which clearly did show a slight shift to the center in the voting population. You seem to be ignoring the substance of his argument here, you have said nothing to really refute his arguments. The fact that he is arguing for a moderate shift to the center for political purposes says nothing about his actual ideology, and perhaps if you would apply a bit more thought to this you would realize that there is a difference between ideology and political action.

And as for where he stands on his issues, you could easily call him a socialist. Yes, he is more of a European style social democrat, but it is still a start regardless.

[Princess Luna]

Rather the news network is Conservative , Liberal , or Socialist i will not listen to any news network that edit stories to suite their political agenda , and "wins" arguments by not allowing the other person to speak like both Fox News and MSNBC does.

[thesadmafioso]

Rather the news network is Conservative , Liberal , or Socialist i will not listen to any news network that edit stories , and "wins" arguments by not allowing the other person to speak like both Fox News and MSNBC does.

Seriously? Fox news has an entire array of incredibly conservative extremists lined up every night to argue with perhaps the odd pseudo liberal who they handpick so as to provide their hosts with the most incompetent and docile cannon fodder imaginable. Their hosts have been known to make violent threats at guests who do not allow them to cut them off mid sentence, and have a reputation which is more than justified of bending the truth so as to make an argument. This list could go on for much longer but I think that you get the basic point here. And then you have MSNBC, which has its morning show full of conservatives that are actually conservative. Their hosts spend most of their shows just trying to fight back the wave of idiocy and the many lies which are thrown out into the public forum by Fox. They actually conduct interviews in a reasonable and civil fashion, and any missteps made in their interviews are eclipsed by those made by Fox. This is just complete nonsense, I am fairly sure that John Stewart tried to make the same point with his rally in Washington earlier this year, and that he was rightfully torn apart for it, as it was blatantly incorrect. You cannot try to compare two cable news networks simply because they each have an ideological slant. And even then, the ideological slant itself is hardly a point of comparison as MSNBC is slightly to the left of center if not in the center itself while Fox is well into the far right.

[Red Commissar]

Well, disregarding what we already know about mainstream media, I think this topic presents an interesting question. To the "public", they generally classify Fox as "right" and MSNBC as "left". What I find interesting about this classification though is that while Fox is rightfully classified where it is, it seems with MSNBC it's mostly on the point of some of their staff (Olbermann, Maddow, etc.) who are more loud and I guess serving as a loud pundit for the left that guys like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh fills for the right.

More over this is a relatively recent development of the past decade. MSNBC wasn't really even part of the picture before then.

I have seen going on different forums and even in public environments some of those one would consider to be conservative go into a rant and mention MSNBC as a part of the "far-left" conspiracy as they put it.

But really, it is amusing for a channel to be considered as so in the mainstream spectrum, while MSNBC does lack the "multiracial" component that those on the right often associate with left-wing views (which they will sometimes derogatorily label as "politically correct"... nevermind that concept isn't even being used in the right form by them). I guess it does illustrate in a way the attitudes of their viewers who will probably be, by and large, urban and suburban white liberal (psuedo-)intellectuals and political junkies who probably won't be as demanding for the appearance of their pundit in so much as what comes out of their mouths.

[gorillafuck]

You all need to define liberalism when you talk about it.

[NGNM85]

You know, as much as you have wet-dreams for liberalism, please get it in your head that:

I could also say something about your dogmatic, reductionist perspective, but I’ll demure, for the time being.


a) Liberalism is most certainly a capitalist ideology, being formulated by the early bourgeoisie of the 18th century,

No, it’s essentially pre-capitalist. However, if the founders of classical Liberalism were alive today, and philosophically consistent, they’d probably be socialists. Early on Madison wrote about protecting the ‘minority of the opulent’, but later on he starts to express concern that private power represented a serious threat to democracy, so did some of the other classical Liberals.


b) Most formulators of the liberal ideology were racists and racism pervades liberalism today, as it always has (being a ruling-class ideology) and,

Many of the classical Liberal thinkers of the day would be considered racist by today's standards, but they were unusually progressive for their time period, some more than others, of course. Thomas Paine stands out. Accepting slavery was more of a tactical decision, because they couldn’t get the broad-base support, it especially alienated the southern states. Many of the leading lights of the American revolution were very critical of slavery, many released their slaves, some, like John Adams, never owned slaves. If it had been strictly up to Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, etc., slavery probably would have been abolished, outright. However, clearly there was an antipathy or a skepticism about this ‘peculiar institution.’ Moreover, philosophically, the fundamental Liberal notion of the equality of man is kind of a tough fit with slavery. It’s important to note this was a very radical idea at the time. Up until then, the prevailing wisdom was that nobles and royalty were just innately superior, with the royals being ordained by god, himself.


c) Stop making apologies for reactionary ideologies.

(Classical) Liberalism was in no way reactionary, it was, actually, the opposite.
You’re misusing the word, or you’re using it in some non-literal sense.


Liberalism is the ideology that defended the slavery of my ancestors in the name of progress, kept them shackled in the name of science, and when they rebelled, liberalism suppressed them in the name of non-violence and some bullshit ideal of unity and friendship.

That’s inaccurate on a number of levels. The real problem is that it’s becoming increasingly clear you have some fundamental misconceptions about classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment.


It's not cognitive distance -- it comes directly from the ideology and its rulers. Get that straight.

Cognitive dissonance, or, what Orwell termed ‘doublethink.’ It means simultaneously believing in two, fundamentally contradictory ideas. It's a phenomenon typically seen in 'true believers', or 'the party man.'


You all need to define liberalism when you talk about it.

This has been done before, to no avail, but I’m game.

[Lucretia]

As I previously stated, pragmatism should not be confused for rightist politics. He was merely stating a political reality, and recognizing the fact of its existence. I know the context of his statements as well, and that does not change matters much as I accounted for such when I used this instance as an example. The Salon blogger was making a terrible argument based around the fallacy that gerrymandered districts are equatable to the survival of liberalism in the mid terms. It is quite obvious to most anyone with the slightest working knowledge of American politics that the liberal caucus was going to survive the midterms regardless of prevailing political trends, as its more liberal members come from more liberal and thus safe districts. What O'Donnell was pointing to was the electoral results of the moderate districts that were toss ups or that went Republican, which clearly did show a slight shift to the center in the voting population. You seem to be ignoring the substance of his argument here, you have said nothing to really refute his arguments. The fact that he is arguing for a moderate shift to the center for political purposes says nothing about his actual ideology, and perhaps if you would apply a bit more thought to this you would realize that there is a difference between ideology and political action.

And as for where he stands on his issues, you could easily call him a socialist. Yes, he is more of a European style social democrat, but it is still a start regardless.

O'Donnell thinks Obama should govern even more from the right than he already has. I don't care what he chooses to call himself. He's not a socialist in his politics.

[thesadmafioso]

O'Donnell thinks Obama should govern even more from the right than he already has. I don't care what he chooses to call himself. He's not a socialist in his politics.

Once more you seem to be mixing political pragmatism with ideology. If you cannot reconcile these two very different variables, I would suggest that you stay away from the grit of actual governing. Political reality dictates what is plausible and what is not in the realm of governing, and this inevitably leads to compromise between ideological purity and action. And in the discussion which I cited, he wasn't speaking specifically towards President Obama, his comments were more geared towards the current state of the American political climate and how it is not as open to liberal politics.

[the last donut of the night]

I could also say something about your dogmatic, reductionist perspective, but I’ll demure, for the time being.


Gee, thanks.

[quote] No, it’s essentially pre-capitalist. However, if the founders of classical Liberalism were alive today, and philosophically consistent, they’d probably be socialists. Early on Madison wrote about protecting the ‘minority of the opulent’, but later on he starts to express concern that private power represented a serious threat to democracy, so did some of the other classical Liberals. Uhm, by Madison's time the thirteen colonies and Britain were developing, early capitalist societies, complete with wage labor. Being early capitalist societies, they still contained some feudalistic aspects to them -- small artisans, for example -- and slavery (while not feudalistic created a similar, although capitalist system in the south) and small landowners (although in New York there was a basically peasant system working under the patroons) made the colony's economy not entirely wage labor. However, the country's elite was already well-tied to capitalist development -- shipowners, merchants, and factory owners in New England and slaveowners tied to cloth production in Britain -- and that gave rise to liberal ideology. Some of the liberal thinkers in America did talk about the "monied" elite against the masses, but it stopped there. It wasn't a revolutionary ideology because it wasn't materialistic and did not explicitly mention wage slavery and the bourgeoisie's power. Furthermore, it's not like they really acted on it, am I right?

[quote] Many of the classical Liberal thinkers of the day would be considered racist by today's standards, but they were unusually progressive for their time period, some more than others, of course. That's an old, worn-out argument. It's basically defunct for the following reasons:

1. They were not "unusually progressive". In fact, a lot of them had no time bothering with the common notion that Blacks were animals, or that it was dandy for whites to stream across the borders to kill Indians for land. As an example, in the Declaration of Independence, the "founding fathers" blame the English king for stirring up slaves and Indians against whites in the thirteen colonies.



Accepting slavery was more of a tactical decision, because they couldn’t get the broad-base support, it especially alienated the southern states. Why do you keep on justifying the acts of old rich white men over slaves' right to liberation? You make it seem like the poor old Northern elites had to cave in on their abolitionist ideas to get the South working with them and then work for a better future overall. But it was never like that. They didn't give a fuck, and the minority that did compromised pretty easily. And the slaves didn't get shit in the end -- so why is this OK to you?

PS: This is standard liberal ideological talk -- compromising in the face of oppression for some better future that never comes about.



Many of the leading lights of the American revolution were very critical of slavery, many released their slaves, some, like John Adams, never owned slaves. How does that matter? They were still racists that aided to deteriorating black people's lives and the genocides happening out west.


If it had been strictly up to Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, etc., slavery probably would have been abolished, outright. However, clearly there was an antipathy or a skepticism about this ‘peculiar institution.’ I highly doubt that. It was in their interests as elites to keep slavery firm in place -- their riches depended on it. And history's not really about "what ifs", is it?



Moreover, philosophically, the fundamental Liberal notion of the equality of man is kind of a tough fit with slavery.It sure is, so what did all those nice guys who talked about earlier do?

They just made Blacks into 3/5th human!


It’s important to note this was a very radical idea at the time. Up until then, the prevailing wisdom was that nobles and royalty were just innately superior, with the royals being ordained by god, himself.Actually, it wasn't that radical for the time. At least in the thirteen colonies, where much more radical ideologies were common among the urban poor. They took some language from liberalism, but they often acted in much different ways, in ways liberals weren't so fond of. You can check Zinn's A People's History of the USA for this.



(Classical) Liberalism was in no way reactionary, it was, actually, the opposite.

You’re misusing the word, or you’re using it in some non-literal sense.Well, that simply isn't true.



That’s inaccurate on a number of levels. The real problem is that it’s becoming increasingly clear you have some fundamental misconceptions about classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment.Are you denying the fact that a lot of Liberals if not siding with slavery, defended white supremacy when it was abolished? Because it most certainly happened.



Cognitive dissonance, or, what Orwell termed ‘doublethink.’ It means simultaneously believing in two, fundamentally contradictory ideas. It's a phenomenon typically seen in 'true believers', or 'the party man.'So blame not the ideology, but the people -- amazing cop-out, man. Again, you sound like a lot of liberals trying to exclude racism and reactionary ideology from capitalism: "It's not capitalism's fault! It's just bigoted people! We have to fight against ideas, not economic and social systems!"

[Lucretia]

Once more you seem to be mixing political pragmatism with ideology. If you cannot reconcile these two very different variables, I would suggest that you stay away from the grit of actual governing. Political reality dictates what is plausible and what is not in the realm of governing, and this inevitably leads to compromise between ideological purity and action. And in the discussion which I cited, he wasn't speaking specifically towards President Obama, his comments were more geared towards the current state of the American political climate and how it is not as open to liberal politics.

Listen, this is a very simple disagreement we're having. Neither of us needs to resort to this "you are just too simple-minded to understand the distinction between ideology and pragmatism" line. (In fact, I understand it very well, and know that it is almost always a way for people to pretend they have noble intentions that they are pragmatically having to disregard on a temporary basis, when in fact they never believed in their professed ideals to begin with.) You are talking about whether a person has socialist ideas, and I am talking about whether somebody is practicing socialist politics. If you want to be strict about definitions, Teddy Roosevelt had "socialist" ideas insofar as he supported progressive income taxation which sought to combat the worst excesses of the market economy. That did not make him a socialist, nor did it make his politics socialist. Somebody might in the abstract desire a world in which the means of production are under democratic control, but if he is engaging in a form of politics that is working at cross-purposes with that ideal (on the basis that in reality it could never actually happen because, say, human nature), then that person is not a socialist. It's like saying that somebody really does believe in the freedom of speech, but gosh darn it, we're in a war, and we for practical reasons just can't afford to allow dissent. According to your model, that position is a civil libertarian -- after all, the person intensely wants to protect freedom of speech in the abstract!

While Lawrence O'Donnell might identify in the abstract with the goals of socialism, his politics in reality are not socialist. He desires Obama, already far from being a socialist or even a Keynesian liberal, to govern with an even more conservative agenda. I am shocked that anybody on this board would disagree with this. Pragmatism is the establishment's way of dressing up its reactionary agenda as "unfortunate" concessions it feels "awful" at having to make.

[thesadmafioso]

Listen, this is a very simple disagreement we're having. Neither of us needs to resort to this "you are just too simple-minded to understand the distinction between ideology and pragmatism" line. (In fact, I understand it very well, and know that it is almost always a way for people to pretend they have noble intentions that they are pragmatically having to disregard on a temporary basis, when in fact they never believed in their professed ideals to begin with.) You are talking about whether a person has socialist ideas, and I am talking about whether somebody is practicing socialist politics. If you want to be strict about definitions, Teddy Roosevelt had "socialist" ideas insofar as he supported progressive income taxation which sought to combat the worst excesses of the market economy. That did not make him a socialist, nor did it make his politics socialist. Somebody might in the abstract desire a world in which the means of production are under democratic control, but if he is engaging in a form of politics that is working at cross-purposes with that ideal (on the basis that in reality it could never actually happen because, say, human nature), then that person is not a socialist. It's like saying that somebody really does believe in the freedom of speech, but gosh darn it, we're in a war, and we for practical reasons just can't afford to allow dissent. According to your model, that position is a civil libertarian -- after all, the person intensely wants to protect freedom of speech in the abstract!

While Lawrence O'Donnell might identify in the abstract with the goals of socialism, his politics in reality are not socialist. He desires Obama, already far from being a socialist or even a Keynesian liberal, to govern with an even more conservative agenda. I am shocked that anybody on this board would disagree with this. Pragmatism is the establishment's way of dressing up its reactionary agenda as "unfortunate" concessions it feels "awful" at having to make.

Teddy Roosevelt also spoke of his desire to throw Eugene Debs in jail for any reason at all due to his politics, I can't exactly see someone like Lawrence O'Donnell doing anything equatable to such, regardless of historical context.

I really am at a loss at understanding how you can honestly try to make pragmatism out to be a tool of the the 'establishment'. Yes, the American political and economic status quo has a lot to do with the more conservative tendencies of the American populace, but there is no real conscious effort being made by anyone to confuse pragmatism with the existence of such. Simply put, pragmatism is a means through which one can reconcile their ideology with a desire for practical progress. Your critique of O'Donnell hinges entirely on his suggestions for short term political action, and you cannot judge the politics of any individual with such inadequate criteria. His ability to realistically base his suggestions for political direction does not in any substantial way separate him from his ideology, as he is just implementing it in the only manner which is possible under the current context.

Practicing direct socialist politics is not an achievable goal in the confines of American politics, O'Donnell realizes this fact.

[Lucretia]

Teddy Roosevelt also spoke of his desire to throw Eugene Debs in jail for any reason at all due to his politics, I can't exactly see someone like Lawrence O'Donnell doing anything equatable to such, regardless of historical context.

Yes, and while O'Donnell calls himself a socialist, he also supports Obama's atrocious healthcare plan, and routinely defends Obama from what he considers "unfair" attacks from the "left." This is exactly why I brought Roosevelt up as a historical corollary to Lawrence O'Donnell. Both might be considered "socialists" on the basis of picking out a single statement, or isolated position, and ignoring the rest of their politics. When their politics are viewed holistically, there is absolutely no question that neither O'Donnell or Roosevelt are socialist. It's truly stunning to see you argue otherwise about O'Donnell on this thread.


I really am at a loss at understanding how you can honestly try to make pragmatism out to be a tool of the the 'establishment'.

Do you not follow American politics? "Pragmatism" has been Obama's justification for adopting all sorts of right-wing perspectives he no doubt came to office fully intending to implement despite his soaring campaign rhetoric. The healthcare give away to corrupt and monopolistic insurance companies is a classic example. Obama negotiates in a closed-door meeting with health care executives and gives away without a fight the public option (supported by a majority of the American population), then claims that the public option was not in the final bill because he unsuccessfully "fought" for it and pragmatically had to accept that it wasn't feasible.


Yes, the American political and economic status quo has a lot to do with the more conservative tendencies of the American populace, but there is no real conscious effort being made by anyone to confuse pragmatism with the existence of such.

Nobody here is arguing that Americans are class conscious and ready to fight for a socialist revolution. Of course most Americans are to the right of Karl Marx, and socialist parties need to take that into account. But it's one thing to acknowledge that and let that effect how one operates politically. It's another thing entirely to call for a sitting president to adopt more conservatives policies, and to criticize people who want Obama to adopt more leftwing policies, which is what O'Donnell has done.


Your critique of O'Donnell hinges entirely on his suggestions for short term political action, and you cannot judge the politics of any individual with such inadequate criteria.

Actually, this statement is completely false. I am judging O'Donnell's actions on the basis of how a real socialist would pragmatically go about furthering left-wing goals in the current political climate. Aiding and abetting the sitting president, and calling for him to be more right wing might be pragmatic in some unspecified sense. But it certainly isn't pragmatic from the perspective of a socialist.


His ability to realistically base his suggestions for political direction does not in any substantial way separate him from his ideology, as he is just implementing it in the only manner which is possible under the current context.

Clearly no socialist's or socialist group's political program is going to perfectly reflect their end objectives. Reforms have to be fought for, and yes, sometimes compromises have to be made, as long as the end result and intention is to move us in the direction of socialism. Nobody is denying that, which is why you're really attacking a strawman here. What you'll see I am arguing is that O'Donnell's political practice -- what he says on his show -- could not be interpreted by any reasonable person as trying to advance us to the goal of a socialist society.

Do you disagree? If so, how do you think criticizing the left for criticizing Obama moves us in the direction of socialism? How do you think calling on the sitting president to implement more right-wing policies moves us in the direction of socialism?

Answer: it doesn't, which is why O'Donnell's claim to be a socialist is bullshit.

[Robocommie]

Debate about O'Donnell's actual politics aside, I at least like him for saying this:


"Unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals ..."That just makes me smile.

[NGNM85]

Gee, thanks.

If you just want to trade barbs, I am (at least) equally capable.


Uhm, by Madison's time the thirteen colonies and Britain were developing, early capitalist societies, complete with wage labor. Being early capitalist societies, they still contained some feudalistic aspects to them -- small artisans, for example -- and slavery (while not feudalistic created a similar, although capitalist system in the south) and small landowners (although in New York there was a basically peasant system working under the patroons) made the colony's economy not entirely wage labor. However, the country's elite was already well-tied to capitalist development -- shipowners, merchants, and factory owners in New England and slaveowners tied to cloth production in Britain -- and that gave rise to liberal ideology.

Classical Liberalism was the product of a complex convergence of sociocultural phenomena that we refer to as ‘the Enlightenment.’

I said they were ‘essentially’ precapitalist, we can pick ‘essentially’ to death or we can focus on the big picture. That’s the reason why Paine and Jefferson didn’t write much about private power, they wrote about religion and government, because the private tyrannies we know today, didn’t exist. As these institutions took shape people like Madison became concerned, that they were ‘substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty’, creating ‘a real domination of the few under the apparent liberty of the many.’ That business had ‘become the praetorian brand of government,-at once it’s tools and it’s tyrant; bribed by it’s largesses, and overawing it by clamors and combinations.’ That’s pretty reminiscent of how modern economists characterize the US, where corporations act as a ‘virtual parliament.’ Consider another classical Liberal, Adam Smith, on the dehumanizing effect of waged labor;

‘The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues.’

That’s pretty close to Marx.


Some of the liberal thinkers in America did talk about the "monied" elite against the masses, but it stopped there.

Actually, most of the founding fathers were the monied elite, and tended to want to preserve that part of the status quo. Like John Jay said; ‘The people who own the country ought to run it.’ Or like the earlier Madison quote, I believe I mentioned earlier, about protecting the ‘minority of the opulent’ against the poor masses. Although, as you mention, there were also statements to the contrary. It was complex, which is part of the problem, here.


It wasn't a revolutionary ideology because it wasn't materialistic and did not explicitly mention wage slavery and the bourgeoisie's power. Furthermore, it's not like they really acted on it, am I right?

Those concepts didn’t really exist, yet. I mean, a number of people understood it, instinctively, but not in a formalized way. Again, capitalism was just coming together at the time.


That's an old, worn-out argument. It's basically defunct for the following reasons:


1. They were not "unusually progressive".

For their time period, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, Smith, etc., were substantially ahead of the curve. Classical Liberals endorsed and popularized radical new ideas like equality under the law, secularism, democracy, and the scientific method.



2. In fact, a lot of them had no time bothering with the common notion that Blacks were animals, or that it was dandy for whites to stream across the borders to kill Indians for land. As an example, in the Declaration of Independence, the "founding fathers" blame the English king for stirring up slaves and Indians against whites in the thirteen colonies.

That accusation is included in the Declaration of Independence, yes.


Why do you keep on justifying the acts of old rich white men over slaves' right to liberation?

I’m not justifying, I’m trying to explain. You’re oversimplifying things. Being a product of their age doesn’t excuse their failings, but it begin to explain them.


I highly doubt that. It was in their interests as elites to keep slavery firm in place -- their riches depended on it. And history's not really about "what ifs", is it?

The southern states were economically dependent on slavery, but the northern states weren’t.


Are you denying the fact that a lot of Liberals if not siding with slavery, defended white supremacy when it was abolished? Because it most certainly happened.



So blame not the ideology, but the people -- amazing cop-out, man. Again, you sound like a lot of liberals trying to exclude racism and reactionary ideology from capitalism: "It's not capitalism's fault! It's just bigoted people! We have to fight against ideas, not economic and social systems!"

Again, Classical Liberalism essentially predates capitalism so it shouldn’t be surprising that it comes up short on that subject. It was a product of it’s age.


They just made Blacks into 3/5th human!

Actually, this is often misunderstood. First, they didn’t make Blacks 3/5ths human, they made slaves 3/5ths human. This did not apply to free African-Americans, who were, in law, (But not in practice.) virtually equal to white Americans. Most blacks could not vote, initially, but neither could most whites, as voting was often tied to property ownership, it varied from state to state. This decision was a compromise with the Southern states. The South was displeased because they had to pay taxes on slaves (3/5ths of the taxes due for whites.) however, this also increased their representation in the House as this was based on population, which, unfortunately, had a self-reinforcing effect.


Actually, it wasn't that radical for the time. At least in the thirteen colonies, where much more radical ideologies were common among the urban poor. They took some language from liberalism, but they often acted in much different ways, in ways liberals weren't so fond of. You can check Zinn's A People's History of the USA for this.

I read the People’s History when I was in high school.


You make it seem like the poor old Northern elites had to cave in on their abolitionist ideas to get the South working with them and then work for a better future overall. But it was never like that. They didn't give a fuck, and the minority that did compromised pretty easily. And the slaves didn't get shit in the end -- so why is this OK to you?



PS: This is standard liberal ideological talk -- compromising in the face of oppression for some better future that never comes about.


How does that matter? They were still racists that aided to deteriorating black people's lives and the genocides happening out west.


There are several problems here. First, is the reductionism. Now, we have to reduce things to be able to communicate, and to be able to understand, but you’re reducing things to the point where key information is being lost. Second, you have an extremely one-sided perspective. Lastly, you’re conflating philosophy and individuals who at least claim to subscribe to it, although, in actuality, just a select few. If you were to conflate Communism as a philosophy with the historical personalities who have claimed to be Communists you’d generally get a pretty ugly picture. I’m not going to dissect this any more because we’re getting really off the rails, but here’s a really good, basic primer on the Founding Fathers and slavery from the Encyclopedia Britannica;

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

[griffjam]

MSNBC is not a liberal news channel. It is a corporate news channel that attempts to appeal to liberals.