On Fauxgressive Rationalizations of Selling Out to Powerful, Moneyed Backers - Yves Smith/FDL

[WillyT]

On Fauxgressive Rationalizations of Selling Out to Powerful, Moneyed Backers
By: Yves Smith - FDL
Sunday June 5, 2011 6:00 am

<snip>

I'm surprised that my post, “Bribes Work: How Peterson, the Enemy of Social Security, Bought the Roosevelt Name” http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/03/how-the-roosevelt-institute-sold-fdrs-legacy-to-pete-peterson/ has created a bit of a firestorm within what passes for the left wing political blogosphere. It has elicited responses from Andy Rich of the Roosevelt Institute, Roosevelt Institute fellow Mike Konczal, as well as two groups only mentioned in passing in the piece, the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

They all illustrate the famed Upton Sinclair quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” And so it is not surprising that all of them engaged in straw man attacks and failed to engage the simple point of the post: if you have a clear purpose and vision, you do not engage in activities that represent the polar opposite of what you stand for.

These “the lady doth protest too much” reactions reveal how naked careerism has eroded what little remains of the liberal cause in the US. Despite the fact that the left, as does the right, has a moral stance underlying its political positions, operatives on the left have been willing to sell out, not just to make the occasional compromise, but on bedrock principles. Here the fish has rotted from the head; this posture reflects the corporatist-in-sheep’s-clothing stance of Obama filtering through the Democratic party infrastructure.

What has happened with Roosevelt, and to a lesser degree with EPI and the CBPP, is blindingly obvious to those who are paying attention. For instance, Randy Wray wrote on the Roosevelt site:

Sorry but Pete Peterson has NEVER funded any open discussion of deficit issues. He has ALWAYS stacked the deck. While some months ago New Deal 2.0 did allow a modicum of dissent from the deficit hysteria, it has closed ranks with the conventional wisdom, made conventional by the massive funding provided by Pete Peterson’s billions of dollars.

The notion that students who rely on Peterson’s billions will come up with a reasoned position on the deficit, while all anti-Peterson discussion is sidelined from New Deal 2.0 is–shall we say–”quaint”.

<snip>

Much Much More: http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/05/on-fauxgressive-rationalizations-of-selling-out-to-powerful-moneyed-backers/

Fauxgressive... I like that... pretty sure I'll be using it in the future.

:kick:

[Luminous Animal]

1. That is a very good article. I loved the last few paragraphs.

Thanks!

[WillyT]

3. Anytime !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[Lorien]

2. K&R

[WillyT]

4. Kick !!!

:kick:

[Mojorabbit]

5. k n r. nt