Regarding the "authoritarian left", Steve Diamond is not an idiot.

i didn't have the time or the knowledge about how to check this out.

i am glad you did.

you put the matter in PRECISELY the right context:

diamond is a labor lawyer. he is writing about what he knows and has experienced, e.g., labor elections.

from what he writes, i's guess that authoritarianism has NOT died in parts of the labor movement.

for me, the whole point of the weblog world is -ideas.

at its best,

minus strenuous efforts to enforce socially correct behavior, including socially correct expressions of personal opinion,

the weblog world involves SHARING a very wide range of ideas.

hey, admin -

why not invite diamond to post here?

doubtful?

think hits.

If you have an argument to present, you should do that. Throwing up a quote and telling people to go read isn't very enlightening or enabling of a meaningful discussion. Put the quoted text into some broader context; flesh it out with more than just a simple claim.

No good trying to change the subject of what I've said previously. I have said nothing at all, any where, ever, about any "No Quarter’s comment streams." The specific essay I did comment on, here, is IMNSHO neither well-considered nor even remotely adequately sourced. What it is is an intentional deceit. That, exactly, is my problem with it - and with those who repeat it.

Calling me out by name in the opening line is also, ah, not inclusive; If I am somehow important to whatever point you're trying to make, by all means reference me with a link to whatever it is that irks you, but don't start an essay by calling out an individual by name unless you're looking for direct conflict. If you were, too bad; I have no interest whatsoever in a one-on-one discussion. If the transaction is not broad-based, inviting to everyone, it is not a good use of my time.

I am well aware of Steve Diamond, and his work, and have already read that essay thank you so much anyway. He is a local fixture and a longtime presence around the SF Bay Area, where I live. I'll have more to say about Diamond in another post.

Did I say "idiot"? Well, so I did. A typo, to be sure; my apologies for any offense, and let me restate my opinion:

And this is nothing but some idiot fantasizing...

should have read

And this is nothing but some idiotic fantasizing....

Just so I'm clear to all.

FYI, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Man and boy, I've been actively fighting authoritarianism from all sides for more than 40 years. I know it when I see it, and I know bullshit when I see that too. You all throw around authoritarianism like it was commonplace; you need to be more cautious, and more accurate, about wielding that big a word.

You, and Diamond, are running about a step and a half behind in this year's political game. I'll discuss his political analysis work in a larger context of disinformation and misinformation, because that's where clarity can most likely be achieved. Maybe you'll be able to see what's happening then; maybe not.

You've put forth here two misdirections: the No Quarter comment thread claim and the Diamond column on Obama, Ayers and labor politics. I have not made any comment on No Quarter, have no interest in expanding on Diamond here. I will, however, be back as promised on his Obama is in the thrall of leftist authoritarians foolishness. You can have at me then if you so desire.

After reading Diamond's post I am very interested in your take.

The resurfacing of 60's radicals and their beefs with each other is fascinating.

But there's also the context of the election and the fact that the Right will use anything (especially remote association with scary bomb-wielding hippies) to defeat the Dems.

To cg.eye's point, Diamond does seem to have some creds. But to your point, he does seem fixated on this concept of the authoritarian left.

The really weird thing about this is that all of us were pretty sure we'd be dead long ago. It is like some strange flashback, seeing ghosts. Or evil zombies.

the autoritarian impulses exhibited by Obama have nothing to do with a left-wing political philosophy, just as Bush's authoritarianism has no ideological basis.

Its simply narcissism and megalomania being pursued in the most convenient political context. For Bush, it was "Republican" politics, for Obama, its "Democratic" politics.

Diamond is trying to impose an "ordered" system of political thought on a phenomenon whose "order" can only be explained by theories of aberrant psychology.

Obama really is the democratic version of Bush -- someone of very limited skills who consistently falls upward thanks to external circumstances -- for Bush, its his family name, for Obama its his race and Affirmative Action/"diversity".

bringiton sez:

"I am well aware of Steve Diamond, and his work, and have already read that essay thank you so much anyway. He is a local fixture and a longtime presence around the SF Bay Area, where I live. I’ll have more to say about Diamond in another post."

i have the good fortune not to know any of this,

so,

i was spared any ad hominem thoughts about what a character mr.diamnond is.

from my less informed viewpoint, he wrote an article, "who sent obama?".

i found that article very interesting to read;

it offered a view into obama's leftist background.

i posted a reference to that article at corrente.

i want to know more about obama. i don't care if it helps or hurts obama in the election; i am not going to self-censure to achieve political correctness or "unity".

further,

as good as your posts are, bringiton,

and they are very good, very well worked out, very thoughtful,

it's not up to you to set standards for how people post or how they comment.

each of us has a style,

or, at any one time,

simply our own way of presenting info here at corrente.

it seems a bit, shall i say, "authoritarian" of you

to criticize cg.eye thusly:

"If you have an argument to present, you should do that. Throwing up a quote and telling people to go read isn’t very enlightening or enabling of a meaningful discussion. Put the quoted text into some broader context; flesh it out with more than just a simple claim."

in a nutshell, bringiton, you have employed here an apparent concern for "good argument" as a weapon to dismiss the thought of an opponent in an argument.

not cool.

understood, sir.

"meta" is a frame of mind.

prof

santa clara univ school of law

steve diamond

I'm pretty sure the GOP will not point out that Neo-Cons = Trots. Heh.

Diamond is Associate Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.

Santa Clara University is a perfectly fine Jesuit school, the oldest established institution of higher education in California. It is not part of the public University of California system.

Just fuckin let it go already.

Sweet Baby Jesus.

And I'm not even sure what the fuck you two are bitchin about. Probably doesn't even matter.

If Al Green doesn't cure you, nothing will.

thank you, bringiton

and i mean that most sincerely.

while i was swimming a bit ago, it came into my head that i might have read "santa clara" but had written "santa barbara".

redlasso is hatin on me now.

Al Green - Jesus is Waiting Live.

I want to apologize for my comment on the last thread in which Diamond came up. I should have indicated that I intended to post about what I found in his posts, to elaborate on my assertion that what he was doing was essentially propaganda.

I have no knowledge of him other than what I read, and I think he was not able to make any kind of case that Obama has been influenced by authoritarian radicals from the sixties, many of whom may also have changed their own views, and along the way, he makes some very questionable assertions, for instance eliding Chavez with the Zapatistas, which is an entirely different phenomenon from Chavez, and very much about the indigenous uprising against globalization that is taking place around the world, which I'll talk about in a later post.

There was a division of liberalism that also tilted toward the right, during the sixties, and a lot of it was in the union movement, which generally supported the Vietnam War, and was highly suspicious of the student movements, in no small part, because of the damage done to unions, by being identified as harboring communists. I have no disagreement with Diamond's history of the Soviet style of the American Communist Party, or the dangers and limitations of fellow-travellerism.

I suspect that Diamond is writing from this perspective, but the style of analysis he is using is specious, or so I hope to indicate in a post.

Shystee, of course the right is going to use the Ayers connection, and they are going to be doing a version of what Diamond is doing, but the rightwing did the same thing to the Clintons in 92, trying to show that a student trip to the Soviet Union by Bill was suspicious,for instance. I doubt there is a Democratic candidate any of us would want to support who wouldn't be vulnerable to those kinds of attacks from the right.

the defense from Obama supporters is not going to be what a wonderful, erudite, brilliant man Bill Ayers is.

I can think of a lot of ways to defend Obama from charges that he's some sort of radical outside the American mainstream. Waxing poetic about how wonderful Bill Ayers is isn't one of them.

I don't expect this defense from Obama (I expect more of the you-can't-hold-me-accountable-for-what-another-man did or believes defense). But his supporters are, in many ways, Obama's worst enemies.

As I've said before, I've always thought that they started with Wright because he's the guy it's easiest to get people to believe Obama agrees with. Father figure, mentor, pastor for 20 years. Then they will work out from there. Next will be Ayers, with the idea it's easier to believe Obama agrees with Ayers because of Wright. Then we'll get to Khalidi (who will be made to look much worse than he is). They've also been working like heck to pull Farrakhan in.

I'll say this, for a guy with so little national experience, Obama has collected quite the assortment of friends and acquaintances.

He doesn't have any meaningful relationship with Ayers. Look, Bill and Bernadette Ayers were welcomed back into Chicago society because the Ayers family is wealthy and has clout. That has nothing to do with Obama. Over the years they have made a life for themselves that is not radical and not outside of the mainstream of American society, except to the extent that someone like David Horowitz would have Americans believe that everyone in academia is an un-American radical. Please note that Michael Berube was listed as one of the 100 most dangerous professors in America.

The notion that Barack Obama has to take a position on the Weathermen of the sixties is odd to say the least. If pressed, I'm sure he'll make clear that he doesn't sanction that kind of violence.

What really bothers me is the creeping toleration for rightwing tropes that keeps peeping out through comments and even some posts.

As for rhetorical tells, I would have thought the general tendentiousness of his writing, the marshaling of history, the parade of names, none of which is ever linked in any solid way to Obama.

If so, I think we agree. If I was unclear in my comment I apologize. But I don't expect Obama to take any position except the one you laid out, which I think is the right one and the one he has already taken.

However, I've already read one WSJ op-ed, which I've been trying to find but can't (suspect it's now behind their firewall), in which a liberal Obama supporter went on and on about how wonderful Bill Ayers was (hmm, wonder why the WSJ printed that one?). That was essentially her defense on this. And, as I said, it's a stupid one and one I don't expect Obama himself to make.

As for the rest, I was merely describing what I expect the attacks to be, not endorsing them. How effective they will be depends, IMO, on what the defense to them is. On this front, I have more confidence in Obama than his supporters, who seem to be in denial that these kinds of attacks could ever work on their guy (ironic given how many of them spew the right-wing crap aimed at Clinton so easily). I may find Obama's defense skills to be generally weak, but at least he understands the need to mount a defense.

For the record, I worry way more about the Exelon connection than the Weatherman. I don't worry that Obama thinks blowing shit up is an okay means of political protest. I do worry about him selling out my interests to large corporations.

i am having a lot of trouble relating to your writing.

for one thing, as i read, i keep sensing a subtext of anxiety on your part.

for another, there is something about it i deeply distrust. i'm not sure what, but

it may be because i'm getting the feeling that you think and write through a very dense ideological/party lens.

one example:

" What really bothers me is the creeping toleration for rightwing tropes that keeps peeping out through comments and even some posts." that's the anxiety.

a little toleration for purposes of discussion bothers you, leah? we must stamp out the diamond article?

why, instead, leah, don't we just trust readers to read it and make up their own minds? must we warn them away?

for the life of me i cannot see anything especially objectionable about diamond's "who sent obama article?"

the following quote i find bewildering to the point of making me wonder if it is not deliberate obfuscation, but i suspect it is not:

"...As for rhetorical tells, I would have thought the general tendentiousness of his writing, the marshaling of history, the parade of names, none of which is ever linked in any solid way to Obama."

diamond's writing was certainly intended to prove a thesis, but calling it tendentious seems silly. tom paine was tendentious.

"the marshalling of history"? well, he is telling a historical tale.

"the parade of names"? well he is linking obama to a part of the chicago power structure.

"none of which is ever linked to obama" is factually incorrect.

then there's

"..but the style of analysis he is using is specious..."

the STYLE of analysis diamond is using is SPECIOUS? he appears to me to be doing nothing more than writing up a simple history of chicago politics. what is specious about that style?

your using all these loaded terms, leah, makes me think that you are a lot closer to being a rhetorical "propagandist" than diamond.

then there's this:

"He doesn’t have any meaningful relationship with Ayers. Look, Bill and Bernadette Ayers were welcomed back into Chicago society because the Ayers family is wealthy and has clout. That has nothing to do with Obama. "

i suspect the first part of that statement - "He doesn’t have any meaningful relationship with Ayers." - is false,

if it is true that bill ayers was associated with the anneberg challenge grant.

the second part "look, bill and bernadette..." is a glaring non sequiture.

all of this points to me to some pretty anxious and muddled ideological thinking on your part. but if i'm wrong, it won't be the first time.

about this:

" haven’t seen any sign that Obama is any better at pushing against these sorts of stories than Kerry was against the Fonda-at-the-rally (a photoshopped lie) or The Metals (true enough: he could have made that a CAUSE) or The Swiftboat Veterans (another lie)"

i think one reason senator kerry did not push back, or did so ineffectively, is that he really did not know who he was,

he did not FEEL what was right to do and say;

he had his campaign advisors tell him what he should say.

i hope obama isn't like that, but i fear he is.

for me, one of the central questions about senator obama is:

does he know who he is? does he have values that are core to himself?

his long-time history with the rev wright suggests to me that he may not.

obama may turn out to be a chameleon democrat, changing preference and policy to suit the political background surrounding him at any one moment.

All I can say is that he better hope he stays the media darling because if they ever truly go after him, this isn't going to cut it. Whether what they go after him on is real or bullshit, this kind of answer usually puts more blood in the water.

(via Talk Left)

for those of us who can make up our minds for ourselves,

there is this new article from prof diamond:

rezkowatch.