Che the Annoying T-Shirt Boy

So, a Barack Obama volunteer office in Houston displays a Cuban flag emblazoned with the famous Che Guevara image. Obama has softly opposed the flag but many think he should be far more forceful.

Ah, Che. Is there a more ironic case of commoditization? Or a more pathetically ignorant? Che was a brutal man and even if you are a passionate socialist, you can’t morally support Che’s murderous methods. And yet his image pops up everywhere, particularly among a certain class of too-cool-for-thou lefty “intellectual.”

Everyone needs their heroes and the associated myths. Why a certain group of leftists reach for Che when there have been plenty of wonderfully admirable liberal icons throughout history is beyond me. I guess the more admirable historical figures lack the revolutionary chic, dangerous aura and international fame necessary for a bad-ass t-shirt. Because, really, isn’t Che’s image all about posing? It says “I’m a liberal but not the wussy kind, so, like, watch out, man!”

In this sense, the real Che has almost nothing in common with Che the liberal t-shirt boy. What Che Guevara did and what he believed are only tangentially related to his current popularity. Sure, it would be nice if those who unfurled his image weren’t so easily sucked in by the modern consumerist culture that strips symbols of their meaning and repackages them in easily digestible formats. BUT, their choice to display Che is indicative of nothing more than historical ignorance and ideological gullibility.

Pointing out that ignorance is appropriate but expecting anyone, particularly a presidential candidate, to issue harsh condemnations is a little ridiculous. The image is harmless and those who display it aren’t dangerous radicals, they’re just annoyingly pretentious. And if Barack Obama castigated every supporter who was annoyingly pretentious he’d have no time to campaign.

Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up

I thought I had Barack Obama figured out. I thought he was no more liberal than Hillary Clinton but far more likely to bridge the divides in this nation. But, if that’s what I am seeing, why are America’s leftists seeing something entirely different? A day after Obama gets the MoveOn.org arch-liberal seal of approval, there’s this Christopher Hayes piece in The Nation, encouraging the left to rally behind Obama.

What struck me hardest was the way Hayes tries to write-off Obama’s conciliatory tone in the exact same way I and other independents have tried to justify Obama’s liberal record.

But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of "unity" that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the "bickering" and "divisiveness" in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what's wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.

In its totality, though, Obama's rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists' story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d'être of Obama's candidacy.

In Obama, Hayes sees the progressives’ Reagan, a man so rhetorically gifted that he can bring along lots of people who would otherwise never agree with the agenda. Hayes believes Obama’s persuasion is honest (remember, progressives think the rest of us just need to be educated and we’ll all renounce our capitalist, imperialist, cultural chauvinist ways), but there’s a fine line between changing minds and tricking voters.

So who is Barack Obama? Is he a man who will bring us all to the table and, in effect, temper the worst urges of the left and right OR is he a man who will promote a leftist agenda while patting the rest of us on the heads and saying he really does care what we think? We can only guess. And that’s incredibly frustrating.

For now, I give up trying to decipher this man. I still think he’s a better choice for Democrats than Hillary Clinton, if only because she represents so much that is wrong with modern politics. But there’s little chance I’ll vote in the Democratic primary when it gets here in March. If Obama pulls off the improbable upset, we’ll have the much brighter lights of the general election to shine on him. Then, maybe we can base our judgments on who he actually is rather than who we hope (or fear) he is.

"Liberal vs. Conservative" Misstates the Conflict

In response to Dennis Sander’s call for a conservative Euston Manifesto, Callimachus declares that there cannot be such a manifesto because there are no conservatives. We are all liberals now.

I completely agree that liberalism is the vastly dominant ideology of America and the rest of the West. George Bush, for all the spite he generates from the left, is a liberal. After all, only a liberal would believe so completely in mankind’s inalienable right to freedom. Only a liberal would try so forcefully to change the world.

Liberalism is the American philosophy. We yearn for change. Yes, there is and has always been an element of “let’s keep it the way it’s always been,” but from the loyalists to the segregationists, those people have continually ended up on the losing side of history. So, yes, Callimachus is right, we’re all pretty much liberals in the grand definition of liberalism.

But I think Callimachus is mistaken when he says the dichotomy has collapsed and, to paraphrase, we’re all just factions of the same philosophy fighting it out in the mud pits. The dichotomy is not and hasn’t for a long time been liberal vs. conservative. The dichotomy is collectivist vs. individualist. And that conflict is alive and well.

Why is there an odd convergence of rhetoric between many Western liberals and radical Islamists? Well, for one, both ideologies are fundamentally collectivist, believing in the community as superior to the individual. How about the American Right and Evangelical Christians? Both are fundamentally individualistic, whether it’s focusing on one’s personal relationship with God over community ritual or focusing on the free market over government control.

As with all labeling attempts, it’s impossible to put any one person 100% into any one category. But I think we are very much in a period where those who primarily desire a collectivist culture (whether that culture is based on Islam or socialist-tinged democracy) are facing off with those who primarily desire an individualistic culture.

One could easily argue that multi-culturalism is a modern addition to collectivist theory, a natural extension of the belief that we’re all better off the more we shun hierarchy and incorporate our whole community into one equal group. And one could also argue that much of the War on Terror is a product of the individualistic desire to place the protection of one’s own interests and livelihood above all other concerns.

Sure, you could pick this viewpoint apart, but there is truth at the bottom. I could go on and on with examples of collectivism on the left versus individualism on the right. But this is a blog post and brevity must be served.

I will conclude with the thought that there need not be such intense conflict in this dichotomy. Both collectivism and individualism have much to offer. Perhaps the struggle of our times is to find a way to balance the two without, in the process, sacrificing our greater liberal principles.

Even After Win, Purge Attempts Continue

The Washington Post has a very interesting article on how the leftwing of the Democrats are continuing to attack moderate party members in an effort to purify the party. The article focuses on the left’s campaign to take out California representative Ellen Tauscher, head of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Never mind that the New Democrats increased from 47 to 60 congressional members after last year’s election. The leftists in the party not only believe they are the future, they believe the future has no room for would-be allies who don’t march in lockstep.

As far as I’m concerned, the current appeal of the Democrats is their diversity of opinion. Too often the Republicans seem like some bizarre collective consciousness—groupthink masquerading as ideology. I’d hate to see Democrats go the same way. But, apparently, that’s exactly where the leftists are trying to take the party.

The Lefties Are Going to Have to Make Room for the Centrists

Bull Moose’s triumphalism over the Lieberman win is well worth the read. I’m with the Moose. It does my heart good to see the leftwing blogosphere embarrassed by Ned Lamont’s loss. All they succeeded in doing was making their hated foe Joe Lieberman more independent and potentially more powerful. Now that the Senate looks to be so closely divided, Lieberman will often cast decisive votes.

Good work leftwing. Well done. Nothing demonstrates political wisdom and sanity quite like focusing a great deal of your effort and money on taking down a member of your own party.

But, as annoying as was the Ned Lamont campaign, it probably helped the Democrats. The leftwing was so engaged in that race that they didn’t have the manpower or resources to go out and screw up the chances of other Democrats. Lamont was the pretty shiny object that distracted the lefties just enough to allow the more mature members of the Democratic party to stage an historic victory.

Am I too harsh? Too cruel to the Daily Kos’ of America? Maybe. But I won’t be letting up. The Republicans lost not just because of Iraq or a few scandals but because they abandoned much of the center. They thought they could win by just appealing to a narrow base. They were wrong and I don’t want the Democrats to make the same mistake.

The leftwing deserves a voice in the coalition. They just shouldn’t command total control. Those of us in the middle would be wise to make sure Democrats are hearing our voices too. After all, it was independents, not the liberal base, who swung this election for the Democrats.