Saturday, November 27, 2010

Rage Boys of the left vs. the Kool Kidz of the culterati

This is an old piece but it's been recirculated lately because someone (Treacher?) finally noticed its conclusion:
Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
Ah, the old argumentum ad sputum -- the sort of thing that usually merits a time out these days, now that we're too civilized to spank. You might think, well, at least he's anti-communist, but the screed in general is so incoherent that it's difficult to be sure of even that much. It's called "The rally to restore vanity: Generation X celebrates its Homeric struggle against lameness", by one Mark Ames, writing obviously in the wake of the Jon Stewart rally, and it's so ornately, baroquely, ragingly incoherent, in fact, that it exerts a kind of morbid fascination all its own -- here's more, e.g.:
The problem with the Left wasn’t that they were too fixated on proving they were right, or that they didn’t make enough noise before the war about the lies that led us into that war…the problem is that the Left doesn’t stand for anything Big because it’s not guided by a vision or an Ideal. What does the Left stand for? Let me suggest a few things in people’s own personal interests in these decaying times that the Left should stand for: first, people need money. Then if they have money, they need Life. Then they might be interested in “ideals” set out in the contract that this country is founded on. Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that.... That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it. The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union—that’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks.
So maybe he's a bit of a communist after all, but at the same time an American patriot, someone who believes people need money first, even before Life with a capital L (as distinct from "life"?), but isn't too big on private property, but thinks the Constitution is a "contract", and is really big on perfect unions or Unions (this time case doesn't seem to matter, though who knows). Blah-de-blah-de-blah, you dumb fucks.

Alright. This is fun, but kind of fish in a barrel stuff. What gives poor Mr Ames' zany diatribe a little more interest is that the target he spends most of his time on is, of all people, Tom Hanks' daughter, E. A. Hanks. It seems that, a while ago, she wrote something called "Dear The Left: A Breakup Letter", the gist of which is, admittedly, a little hard to figure out but maybe comes down to the idea that "The Left" has become too preoccupied with protest posturing and has neglected substantive accomplishment. Or something.

Now, just by dint of her parentage, EA is automatically a member of the culterati, and these are the people who set the tone, so to speak, for the herds of what I've been referring to as the bien pensant, or the fashionably orthodox. So maybe, in light of that, we can start to feel a smidgen of sympathy for the Rage Boy after all. Yes, he's loopy and incoherent, and his proposals for lefty Big Ideals -- money, Life, perfect Union or whatever -- are so pathetically thin and meaningless as to be embarrassing, but you can kind of see how he might be driven to an edge of some sort just by the cutesy title alone of EA's "breakup letter". In many ways, I think Ames is a good representative of what's become of the once serious left -- having been hollowed out by the historic collapse of the socialist ideal, they're now mere husks, clinging to a kind of vague, oppositional stance but no longer with any real content or substance other than a few stray abstractions. Then, when anyone even hints that that's the case, all they've got left is rage and spittle.

Little wonder then that the Kool Kidz are looking to move on. Of course they're not serious about politics -- they're serious only about setting and/or following a style, of which political opinions are simple accessories. But that's all right. There's room on the right for fashionistas too.

11 comments:

  1. Ames may be superficial and colloquial perhaps, and a bit of a moralist---unlike Morfi, who's superficial, colloquial, and amoral, an Ayn Rand on crack. For that matter, American libertarians do affirm anti-statism, individualism and greed (not to say crypto-racism).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to worry, J -- you may not be cool, you may not even make sense, but you and Ames and the like will always have your rage to keep you warm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not exactly rage, m--you just don't understand the arguments, whether pro or con--any more than Aynnie Rand understood Kant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a little hard to understand "arguments" that don't exist, J. Name calling and changing the subject (e.g., Rand and Kant -- why not, for that matter, Lewis Carroll?) don't really count.

    Nor do mere assertions, such as that "American libertarians do affirm ... greed (not to say crypto-racism)" -- to make an argument, you need some evidence and some logic. Otherwise, such statements can and should be simply dismissed as mistaken at best, and likely malicious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There you go again, assuming you know something about logic, when...you don't know modus ponens from yr mama.

    Is normativity logical, anyway, morfi? Yr first exercise in Ethics for Aynnie Randians

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is normativity logical,

    You're the one talking about "understanding arguments" -- let's see you try to make one, is all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I make arguments all the time, as with the Rawls/meritocracy discussion. You simply don't get them. Then most machiavellian rightists understand one thing: logic, reason, fair play are bad for business. Even Socrates knew the score on that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, I "get" them -- and then I point out their flaws. Such as, e.g., making unsupported and mendacious generalizations like: "most machiavellian rightists understand one thing: logic, reason, fair play are bad for business."

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're the one making generalizations, and for that matter, making logical errors, as with this blast of fatuousness:

    In many ways, I think Ames is a good representative of what's become of the once serious left -- having been hollowed out by the historic collapse of the socialist ideal, they're now mere husks, clinging to a kind of vague, oppositional stance but no longer with any real content or substance other than a few stray abstractions

    You say this with, like, about every post, unaware of the abiding power of leftist politicians (whether one agrees or not, they still remain a force--evident in say Boxer's crushing victory over Fiorina in CA).

    Moreover Ames' point, hardly socialist, on the Preamble to the USCON does not lack for support: it's not a libertarian document primarily, but about rights, and yes promoting the General Welfare--: The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union.

    A bit optimistic for hardened self-serving libertarians (and many demos) but that's close to how the Founders thought. The AmerRev. was about liberty and justice for all (in principle, though rarely in practice) --not promoting Andrew Carnegie-style capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, you're making an attempt. To reply, starting at the end:

    a) Classical liberals -- a better name than "libertarians" -- are also about "liberty and justice for all", as was the "AmerRev", and as is America.

    b) And as is capitalism.

    c) The "USCON" is indeed a classical liberal document, promoting the equality of status of all.

    d) A phrase like "anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American" is a good example of Ames' incoherence -- what on earth does the General Welfare of a single American mean? His general health? It's your job to look after the welfare of every single American or you're not a patriot? Please.
    "General Welfare" pertains to a condition of society, and we maximize it by ensuring the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit, not the guarantee, of happiness -- it didn't and doesn't mean some quasi-Marxist notion of "each according to his needs".

    e) The phrase "more perfect union" applied to a union of states, not individuals -- the Preamble certainly didn't mean that we should all be assimilated into some Borg-like anthill.

    f) You're right, sad to say, that the left has some abiding political power, but that's largely despite it's empty fuel tank -- meaning that it's running on the fumes left over from its once socialist or socialistic, collectivist past. Evidence of that is Ames' hopeless attempt atcoming up with some current Big Ideas -- money, Life, and a perfect Union! If those are either Big or Ideas, then Donald Duck is Plato.

    ReplyDelete

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>