Always the Clintons, or Liberal Acquiescence and Adulation

The election nonsense has died down somewhat, but you can still trust Dennis Perrin to excoriate the gullibility of the liberals, their endless need to adulate political figures—from the appropriate party, of course. From Shadows Start To Fall:

Liberals gotta have an idol to polish, and will move from pedestal to pedestal to find one. Joe Lieberman and Nancy Pelosi were former faves who libs conveniently rejected. Al Gore still resonates, as do the Clintons (always the fucking Clintons). Obama sits atop the marble staircase, countless polishers working ’round the clock. It’ll take a full-scale depression or social meltdown to tarnish his rep. Then again, when you embrace someone like Joe Biden, your tolerance for corporate shills must remain high to overcome the cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you’re a sucker for private power. Whatever carries you to the midterms.

I’m also amused by the so-called “distress” some progressive Dems have shown over Obama’s cabinet appointments. Where are the antiwar voices? Where are the populist lefties? Hoo haw. This scenario’s been played so many times that no script is required. Everyone knows their lines. The PDA-types wring their hands, while “pragmatists” like David Corn counsel patience and reserve. But in the end, it doesn’t matter what worried liberals think or say, as the final scene is already written. Whining is the sound liberals make before they submit to their rulers. Obama understands this better than anyone.

This in turn reminded me of Arthur Silber’s extensive writings on the topic of Democratic compliance. And so if I may quote Silber at length, as usual, in Once More into the Land of the Blind:

As I’ve noted before (with regard to the vacuous, narcissistic bloviating of that great political thinker, Markos Moulitsas), the Washington Democrats know you will continue to vote for them no matter what they do.

When you approach the negotiating table and tell your opponent you’ll give him everything he wants before you even sit down, exactly how successful do you think those negotiations will be from your perspective? Yet this is precisely what the liberal and progressive bloggers do time after time after time — and then they profess amazement when the Democrats act in ways opposed to those same bloggers’ views. And note this is not even about all voters’ views, just the views of some of them. Since you’ll vote for them anyway no matter what they do, why the hell should they care? Sure, you’re “alienated” for the moment — but who are you gonna vote for in November 2008, hmm? They already know the answer to that question.

The ruling class does not care about you or your views. The MoveOn denunciation is an aspect of the performance put on by one part of the ruling class for the benefit of another part. They may criticize each other in certain predetermined ways and within certain narrowly circumscribed limits — but you may not criticize any of them in ways that go beyond what the ruling class as a whole has decided is acceptable. Wesley Clark has told you that explicitly. Your role — and your only role — is to vote for them as required, and then to shut up. Almost everyone in the ruling class has identical beliefs, but they are usually more adept at hiding them from the unfortunately necessary voters (necessary for the moment, at any rate).

But, you might wonder, aren’t there any principles at all that deeply matter to them? The answer to that is indisputably: No.

It has become increasingly apparent to me that a grotesque pragmatism, rather than principle, is the primary motivator of most liberals. Even Obama’s nauseatingly squirmy position on gay marriage is merely “interesting,”* not cruel or deceptive; no, the real problem is homophobia among blacks or the general population, never our anointed presidential candidate. (I thought this of all issues would galvanize liberals, seeing as how even the most politically apathetic types were stirred to show their support for gay marriage in California; yet they are mysteriously silent on Obama’s open opposition to it.) Besides, how could a presidential candidate speak out in favor of gay rights and still win? Oh, right, Clinton. (And for all this, Clinton endorsed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after he was elected. If that was the turncoat behavior we got from Clinton, what can we really expect from Obama?) Nevertheless, we have to be practical. And though Obama failed to speak out decisively against the war in Iraq, we were (and still are) supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt on his peaceful intentions, because who were you gonna vote for…McCain? With that prolife blowup doll of a VP? No way, dude! And after all, there wasn’t a single candidate who wanted to end the war! Oh, right, Ron Paul. Well, he didn’t have a chance. Gotta be realistic.