Lawrence O'Donnell: "I am a Socialist"

[Ruby the Liberal]

Video at link.

"Glenn, unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay? However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate. Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate, okay?...You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts. You love the loss of the Blue Dogs. The only way, the only way you have a chairman Barney Frank, there's only one way, that's by electing Blue Dogs. It's the only way. That's the only way you have a Speaker Pelosi."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/6/918274/-THANK-YOU-Lawrence-ODonnell!!!

I didn't know that!

[Lindsay]

1. And I am

Marie of Romania.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Social Democrat, more likely...

...but then most liberals and progressives technically are.

There are doubtless a few folks out there -- more power to 'em -- still pressing for public ownership of the means of production and distribution, but if Larry's one, then I'm an Adelié penguin.

I think he was being ironic.

[social_critic]

5. Public ownership of the means of production

Is inefficient, and leads to corrupt government. It has been shown to fail every time it has been tried. The best solution is a small dose of public ownership (sewers and waters, roads, schools, police, jails, military, libraries, and a portion of the health service). The rest of the economy works better if its privately owned.

[miscsoc]

47. The definition of socialism is pretty vague.

Most people who consider themselves socialists are not for public ownership of everything. It's one definition, but it's hardly definitive at all, if you go by actual historical usage by political actors and their supporters. I'm for a pretty large dose of public ownership. I'd define myself as a socialist rather than a social democrat, but these things are very vague. My Labour Party card says "we are a democratic socialist party" - that was a formulation devised by Tony Blair (!) - actually he was the first leader to put the word into the Labour constitution. So you can see how vague the meaning of the word is.

[tigereye]

50. always though Labour was pretty far left compared to the American left

The term socialist is so misunderstood that I don't think most folks who use the term have any idea what it means. Would Cuba or North Korea still qualify?

[miscsoc]

54. They possibly were, even under Blair

But he's still very pro-business, the only difference between Blair and your average Democrat is a few percentage points higher taxation and more generous public services.

As for Cuba and North Korea - on purely linguistic grounds you could arguably call them socialist. My socialism has very little to do with theirs and ideally would be called something entirely different but it's very hard to reform language.

[tigereye]

58. yes, all this blather about "socialism" from the right seemed so bizarre to me

I felt that most of those folks wouldn't know a socialist if they fell over one! :rofl:



(pictures old friends from the 70s-80s arguing about who was a Maoist, Marxist, what have you...)

[SOS]

59. There's a difference between China under Mao

and today's democratic socialism of Western Europe.

The latter is, imo, preferable to the current American oligarchy.

[Recursion]

44. There's a post-industrial model of socialism I like better

It means workers participate directly in the decisions about how the company is run.

[Puregonzo1188]

51. That's basically the original definition. Engles was pretty adamant

that state ownership and socialism were not synnomous. Otherwise, Otto von Bismark would have been a socialist.

[miscsoc]

55. even Engels is hardly a definitive source

I mean, arguably Bismarck was in some sense socialist. It's a word that at this point is approaching meaninglessness.

[AndrewP]

3. The amount of Democrats wetting themselves at Blue Dog losses is amazing

Try running as a hard unapologetic liberal in Western Minnesota. You'll draw 10 % tops.

You have to get victories when you can in politics.

[countrydad58]

8. Bullshit!

Economic populism will win today,just as it won FDR in the conservative deep south in the 1930s-40s! The trouble is the Ds who run in these districts are Pro big business, & socially not conservative enough to the gun nuts & Bible thumpers & dont know how to appeal to the working class! Even the racist segregationists in the south during this time were Pro New Deal!

[AndrewP]

30. Well, you may have a point...but would those who were pro-gun

and bible thumpers be labeled as traitors by many of us?

The loss of Earl Pomeroy will be devestating to North Dakota. I think many would say that he was a Blue Dog-lite.

When I see people happy that a Blue Dog goes down to a right wing nutjob, it's just utterly amazing to me. Yeah, because that will really get what you want...a guy (usually) who is MORE right wing. YAY!

[miscsoc]

48. Socialism and gun rights go together!

God made man, Sam Colt made him equal!

[tigereye]

52. yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me and never has...

similar to the arguments that friends used to make in the 80s that if Reagan won, the revolution would be forth-coming.

[stray cat]

I didn't know you were a blue dog Andrew?

[AndrewP]

28. I can never bring up that its not a good thing to lose seats without being called one...

it's almost like a reflex.

It's like O'Donnel was saying. I'm a left wing socialist Democrat. But I will not get all happy when a Blue Dog loses to a Right Wing Republican. That is a circular firing squad.

[Spazito]

4. Good for him!

Anyone who calls out Greenwald for the asshole he is gets kudos from me!

Recommended.

[HughMoran]

6. That's nice, but that exchange you posted is one heck of a slap down!

Seeing O'Donnell provide Glenn with the slapdown that he so desperately needs makes me very happy!!! :bounce:

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. This is the most animated I have ever seen LO'D

[AlabamaLibrul]

15. He was pretty damn animated during the election coverage

Cantor, IIRC.....

I DON'T WANT HIM BACK IF HE WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS!

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Really!? We had so many people (&noise) here that I missed that.

Will check the youtubes.

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. I am not finding this. Do you by any chance have a link?

A search showed it happened, but I can't find the video.

Can anyone help?

[BzaDem]

7. Yet there are some people here who think it is impossible to be liberal yet see why blue dogs

are necessary.

I think the main reason for this difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell has actually worked as a Congressional staffer, while the armchair political analysts here have not. Lawrence knows what is feasible and what isn't because he has experienced enacting legislation. Whereas many people here have a conception of what is feasible (and who is electable) that is completely, entirely, and utterly wrong.

[AndrewP]

29. It's Politics 101, and many here score an F in it.

[felix_numinous]

10. He speaks clearly and concisely

music to my ears. It is too bad we required Blue Dogs in these conservative times, but it would be one thing if they could prevent our party from being dragged to the right, but they are ineffective. it seems the voice of the 20% on the left just isn't enough against all the money on the right?

The RW cannot be dragging our party right on their ideology and good ideas, that is for sure. It is from bribery, threats or coercion.

[stray cat]

11. Its great that we lost so many blue dogs and lost the house as a result

maybe next we can lose enough blue dogs in the senate to hand that to the GOP as well!

[Larkspur]

16. The Blue Dogs lost because they ran as Republican-lite

and you know what Harry Truman said about Republicans and Democrats acting like Republicans?

[BzaDem]

17. Bullshit. The people who voted opposed government doing more, and wanted it to do less.

Nationally, 56% wanted less, while 40% wanted more. In the blue dog districts, the difference was likely double that at least.

[de novo]

56. No, they want their government to be effective.

Something which conservatives (in both parties) are largely incapable of being.

[Recursion]

20. Are you out of your mind?

Seriously.

I mean, seriously.

I know this is a forum where we blow of steam, but come on. Come on.

I literally cannot believe you actually think people like Gene Taylor or Ike Skelton would have done better if they had been more liberal. Come on.

[BootinUp]

27. Are you waking up from a 6 or 7 year nap?

The post you are questioning is the netroots meme for the last 6 years. As ridiculous as it is, it has been spread around as some kind of truth by mighty bloggers and likely brainwashed a significant number of netrooters.

[Recursion]

43. But everybody seemed so excited about people like Webb

What I remember was the netroots being ecstatic they had found some Democrats who could win in places Republicans currently held.

[provis99]

36. they lost because they weren't conservative enough for their districts.

The Blue Dogs lost because they were too liberal.

[AndrewP]

32. That would be wonderful, would it!!!!????

If we can keep defeating ourselves, maybe we can do just that! But at least we would be 100% pure!


Honestly...it's amazing isn't it?

[Puregonzo1188]

12. Interesting snippet...particularly the use of the ellipses--what's missing?

O'Donnell's "Socialist" belief in medicare for all, something that he wishes for, but understands is unattainable, because Americans are too conservative.

Except there's a flaw--the majority of Americans, like the majority of doctors, support medicare for all.

I wonder why that was omitted?

Oddly enough, when Glenn Greenwald calls O'Donnell out on this, O'Donnell back peddles on what he just said.

I can't believe anyone thinks Greenwald got "slapped down."

[Luminous Animal]

14. That's because people didn't actually listen to it. They just read the OP and

took that opportunity to smear Greenwald.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. It wasn't my attention to call out the Greenwald angle.

[Puregonzo1188]

24. I wasn't saying it was. My issue was less with the OP than with

the way the original Daily Kos piece edited the quote, as well as the number of people who think Greenwald lost this argument.

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Sorry - I misunderstood you.

Hope you are having a good weekend! :toast:

[Luminous Animal]

31. I understand and I echo Puregonzo1188 thoughts on this.

[Chatt]

13. It's ok to be a socialist

Let's not run away from the label.

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. I am a card carrying member of DSA.

[provis99]

35. socialists are as bad as republicans.

They are enemies of the Democrats, and enemies of liberals.

[Puregonzo1188]

39. Tell that to Ron Dellum or Bernie Sanders.

[miscsoc]

49. Most small s socialists are probably Democrats

I know there's a party called the Socialist Party, but I don't think that's what most people mean here. To clarify. All Socialists are socialists but not all socialists are Socialists.

[Recursion]

19. FTMFW!

K&R

[dionysus]

23. oh jesus! he ate Glen alive!!

:rofl:

[Luminous Animal]

33. Actually. He didn't. And that is not how you spell Mr. Greenwald's name.

[Puregonzo1188]

40. Not really. O'Donnel just spewed a bunch of stuff at Glenn (with two ns by the way)

and when Greenwald confronted him with facts regarding say the public option or regulation of Wall Street, O'Donnel had to back pedal, contradict his earlier statement, the one that was omitted from the above quotation, and then continued to spew his earlier points as if nothing had changed.


Greenwald came out on top.

[hfojvt]

34. yeah, he's so far left that he supported the Bush tax cuts

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/130

O'Donnell is great. He gets paid millions of dollars, and the more he talks, the more Democrats lose.

[chill_wind]

38. Thanks for the link. People should read that.

eom

[Taverner]

37. I am Too!!!!!

Say it loud and proud!!!!!

[Azathoth]

41. When the hell has O'Donnell ever espoused a socialist viewpoint?

I'm starting to think even liberals don't know what socialism is. Unless he starts talking about government/collective ownership of all the means of production (preferably with a revolutionary undertone), he ain't talking socialism. He's talking modern-day liberalism / social democracy.

[druidity33]

42. Glenn's response...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/06/o_donnell/index.html


He doesn't respond specifically to LawODo's Socialist claim but it's worth reading the whole thing, anyway here's 3 'graphs:

As for the substance of our discussion, O'Donnell -- in standard cable TV form -- basically had one simplistic point he repeated over and over: exit polls show that only a small minority of voters (a) self-identify as "liberal" and (b) agree that government should do more. There are so many obvious flaws in that "analysis." To begin with, exit polls survey only those who vote; it excludes those who chose not to vote, including the massive number of Democrats and liberals who voted in 2006 and 2008 but stayed at home this time. The failure to inspire those citizens to vote is, beyond doubt, a major cause of the Democrats' loss (see the first reason listed by CBS News for why the Democrats lost: "The Democratic Base Stayed Home"). Alienating your own base by moving to the Right via Blue Dog dependency is obviously a bad electoral tactic for Democrats, and O'Donnell's little stat does nothing to negate that; to the contrary, it bolsters that point, since the Democratic base of 2006 and 2008 stayed at home this year. O'Donnell's fixation on those who voted, while ignoring those who chose not to vote, necessarily excludes a major factor in the Democrats' loss.

But more important, voters don't think the way that cable TV personalities think. Voters don't run around basing their vote on this type of vapid sloganeering: who is a liberal? who is a conservative? who wants big government and who wants small government? It's true that the word "liberal" has been poisoned and it's thus hardly surprising that few people embrace it as their political identity. But, as I documented during the segment and O'Donnell steadfastly ignored, large majorities support positions routinely identified as "liberal," including the public option, greater restraints on Wall Street, preservation of Social Security and Medicare, etc. They can say they are not "liberal" but their specific views on substance prove otherwise.

But far more important still, what voters care about are not cable-news labels, but results. Democrats didn't lose because voters think they're too "liberal." If that were true, how would one explain massive Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, including by liberals in conservative districts (such as Alan Grayson); were American voters liberal in 2006 and 2008 only to manically switch to being conservative this year? Was Wisconsin super-liberal for the last 18 years when it thrice elected Russ Feingold to the Senate, and then suddenly turned hostile to liberals this year? Such an explanation is absurd.

I'm not sure why so many people on this board hate Glenn. He always has well reasoned and extremely well researched/resourced arguments (the column i quoted from is rife with hyperlinks at the Salon site). Occasionally i disagree with him, but only in a visceral way... his painstaking reasoning, i admit, usually sways me... or at least keeps me better informed. I read his columns regularly.

:shrug:

[Hydra]

45. Is that kind of like the guy at work

Who says he has gay friends and is ok with it, but then uses gay insults and says they need to stay home and not wear purple?

"I'm a ____, but..." is usually a good indication that the person is anything but.

But don't let me interrupt the Blue-Dog lovefest. You guys just got that rather disappointing election to explain, since all you ever had was the idea that your platform was electable.

Hint: "There are types of Republicans- Billionaires and Suckers."

Are we REALLY going for the sucker vote in order to get corp money? Because hands down, the Repubs do a better job of "explaining" why they need to steal all the money from the normal people and give it to their friends.

[walldude]

46. So liberals only make up 20% and conservatives 40%

So who are the other 40%? This notion that this is not a liberal country is moronic. The entire country was founded on liberal principles. Equality for all. Freedom to worship or not. No taxation without representation... yeah these are all Conservative values :eyes:

[tigereye]

57. it's very odd to read various opinion pieces after the election indicating how

the country had slid from espousing liberal values to conservative ones in just 2 years.

Personally, I think it was the economy and fear that created a backlash against whomever was in power, not necessarily liberals. And many of my friends think that Obama is not liberal at all, while the RW Reps mark him as a socialist. It's bizarre.

[Mimosa]

53. Most Americans confuse Socialism with Communism or Fascism

The schools and especially the media are to blame for that.