White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is, in my opinion, a consummate political operative. I have enough respect for his skills that I believe that his statement on “professional leftists” was well thought out. It was clearly intended to appeal to people's passions, rather than promote rational thought. Much of the resulting discussions of Gibbs' statement were most definitely emotional, though some people in the media and on the internet used logic.
I thought it was good that, during this same time, one of my very best friends on this forum posted some valuable information about propaganda. In our current culture, many people consider all things that are forms of propaganda in a negative sense. We are all familiar, for example, with our politicians calling any negative statements from foreign leaders “propaganda.” And, indeed, it is propaganda – just as any positive statements that foreign leaders make about our country are “propaganda.”
Propaganda is simply a systematic attempt to shape the public's perceptions and opinions. The word comes from the Latin words “propagare” ( to propagate) and “propages” ( a slip or cutting from a vine). Some of my favorite political/social activists have been talented in the art of propaganda, including the Minister Malcolm X.
In his day, political mouthpieces lounging in the comfort of plush Washington offices often called the fiery Malcolm X as a “demagogue.” In our culture, people tend to think of that term in the context of someone who appeals to prejudice and hatred. The most obvious examples of this are those right-wing “christian” leaders who peddle prejudice and hatred for cash. These are professional demagogues.
Malcolm, on the other hand, lived a Spartan life-style. He was not seeking material wealth or comfort. Yet he was a demagogue. As he pointed out, the word is from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “agogos” (a teacher who leads). In its original form, the word demagogue literally meant a champion of the common people.
I believe that Mr. Gibbs' use of the word “professional” merely reflected his mind-set: for a professional is one who does something for money. Both politicians and prostitutes are professionals. In Robert Gibbs' mind, as in the minds of all politicians and their employees in Washington, DC, money is always the central reference point. Thus, Mr. Gibbs is incapable of considering the possibility that those who raise concerns and/or objections about the administration that he works for, are doing it for anything not directly connected to dollars and cents.
I support President Obama, although I most definitely object to many of his policies. However, I am not a professional leftist. Rather, I am an amateur leftist. I recognize that in our culture, the term “amateur” is frequently used in a negative way. We have likely all heard someone who attempts something and fails referred to as an amateur.
However, the word amateur comes from the Latin root “amator,” which translates literally to a “lover, devoted friend, and/or enthusiastic pursuer of an objective.” The French version amateur means the same basic thing.
In this case, though I fully believe that Mr. Gibbs intended to say exactly what he did, he definitely owns the error. Those people on the left – including democrats and many others – are not voicing their concerns or objections because the seek financial gain on any individual basis. Instead it is because they sincerely believe that in too many ways, this administration is furthering some of the Bush administration/ multi-national corporate policies that are bankrupting our country. In my opinion, for example, the on-going US policy in Afghanistan is not only politically and financially wrong, it is also morally bankrupt. And no one is paying me to say that, nor could anyone pay me not to say it. Hat is a concept, unfortunately, that Robert Gibbs cannot understand.
Peace,
H2O Man