Can we please retire the term "Professional Left?":

[markpkessinger]

In another thread here about the administration's proposed cuts to LIHEAP, an issue about which many of us are very deeply troubled, some folks have taken to dismissing the issue as little more than panic generated by the so-called "professional left." That term was coined by Robert Gibbs at a time when he was on the defensive about the administration's equivocation (to use the most polite term one can use for it) on the public option. The use of that term is rapidly becoming roughly equivalent to the way many people derisively refer to "political correctness" — i.e., as a means of dismissing an issue without bothering to address it on its merits. It is as At a certain point, both terms become a matter of the tail wagging the dog. I submit that it is just as meaningless and juvenile — and about as constructive — as Sarah Palin's constant references to the "lamestream media." Can we at least, when discussing issues with our fellow Democrats, recognize that we are all discussing issues we deem to be important, even if we disagree on the importance of a particular issue relative to other issues, and address one another's arguments instead of engaging in the intellectually dishonest tactic of dismissing legitimate arguments by smearing their proponents with a term that is intended to be pejorative?

[EOTE]

1. Sounds good to me.

The only thing more disgusting than hearing people like Gibbs use that term is hearing people who claim to be liberal use it.

[JoePhilly]

2. You fail in your first sentence ... with this phrase ...

.... "some folks of the "Defend President Obama No Matter What" school have taken to dismissing the issue as little more than panic generated by the so-called "professional left."

By calling those you disagree with the "Defend President Obama No Matter What school" you commit the same sin you rail against.

There are those who will support Obama no matter what, and some who will attack him no matter what. When we look at the paid media, which do you see more of? Do you see large parts of the media acting as part of what you call those who "Defend President Obama No Matter What" school", or, do you see more people, right and left, who attack his every decision.

I struggle to find any "professional" media outlet that supports him "no matter what" ... find "professional" people who attack him daily, from the right or left, is incredibly easy to do.

The PAID MEDIA (professional media) is on Obama all the time.

The SAD thing is that the broader media takes the attacks from the right, combines those with attacks from the left, and then uses the aggregate to claim that Obama is "too far to the left".

[ReggieVeggie]

4. Attacking him no matter what?

Were they attacking him when they voted for him? There are people who are entirely disillusioned by Obama. They don't want to be criticizing (attacking) Obama. They're forced to.

On the other side, there are those who will defend Obama's actions no matter what. There is no equivalence.

[JoePhilly]

8. Key word ... "professional"

[markpkessinger]

7. Fair criticism -- I apologize

You're right -- I shouldn't have used that phrase either and I apologize. But if anything, it underscores my point about how destructive the use of such phrases is to discourse. I used it in anger at seeing what I saw as legitimate arguments being dismissed by the use of term "professional left." The unfair use of one pejorative leads to the use of another in response, and any real discussion of the underlying issue gets lost in the back and forth.

[JoePhilly]

13. Great response ... and I mean that seriously ..

I think if I was to describe my position ... it would be "anti-knee jerk".

I never thought Obama would be perfect because I knew he was not perfect, and I knew that Congress (even with lots of Dems) was very FAR from perfect.

And so with that, when I hear the phrase "professional left" ... what I think of is "people paid to make every day have a new controversy". Those who get paid filling the 24/7 news cycle with the latest outrage (right or left).

Its not DU, or progressives, or your average blogger per se (although they do get pulled into it) ... its those who are working endlessly to keep the electorate fighting mad and using each an every opportunity to do it because that is their job. It is an industry (for the right and the left). People get rich doing it.

My view, we should continue the policy debates, and avoid the "knee jerk" where we can ... and I will also admit that I "knee jerk" from time to time. Or, I may respond to some one else's "knee jerks" with a "knee jerk" of my own.

But hey ... no one is perfect. :shrug:

[markpkessinger]

9. I have deleted the offending phrase

In response to your fair and valid criticism, I have deleted the offending phrase from the original post.

[tekisui]

11. I had at least one prominent poster tell me yesterday that they would

defend the Administration, no matter what.

[fishwax]

3. I agree with you about "professional left," although I don't think

some folks of the "Defend President Obama No Matter What" school

that's the best way to add credibility to your argument.

[markpkessinger]

6. That's a fair criticism -- I apologize

You're right -- I shouldn't have used that phrase either and I apologize. But if anything, it underscores my point about how destructive the use of such phrases is to discourse. I used it in anger at seeing what I saw as legitimate arguments being dismissed by the use of term "professional left." The unfair use of one pejorative leads to the use of another in response, and any real discussion of the underlying issue gets lost in the back and forth.

[markpkessinger]

10. You are right -- the phrase has been deleted

Thank you for pointing it out. The phrase has been deleted from the original message.

[fishwax]

16. cool

:toast:

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. word(s) of the year

[patrice]

12. I agree that too much can be made of labels and that DOES hurt issues.

Too little can also be made of labels and that also can hurt issues.

To me the key is active awareness not only of the issues, but, as in the example your bring up, whom you are dealing with.

In addition to whatever issue you're talking about, LIHEAP in this instance, an issue that should not be made too little, nor too much, of, there is another issue, relevant to the label "professional left" that should not be made too much, nor too little of, in how anyone uses or doesn't use that particular label. That issue is the fact that, as in all things, whatever it is that the word "Left" refers to, there are variations in that referential set.

On the "Left", you have everything from internet warriors who get all buzzy and ego-inflated about ideologies and political base-building, but have LESS actual skin-in-the-game on certain "Leftie" issues than others do, to people who almost never even have ever seen the internet, don't know one ideology from another, are often "republican" or apolitical, and whose lives are entirely, deeply and profoundly bound up in and affected by "Leftie" issues. I, for one, wish to keep myself and others aware of the distinction between these two groups: one whose primary and almost SOLE motive is political numbers and effects of various kinds, like base-building, and the other whose primary and almost SOLE motive is, NO MATTER HOW, to survive.

I think this is a useful distinction, because I can damn-well bet that the latter group, and those who work with and for them directly, if we polled them about LIHEAP would say to us something like, "I/we don't care whether the government or a private charity pays for our heat. We just NEED to be warm." And if that statement is not true, if, in fact, they'd say "It's okay to be cold, just as long as we don't have to take private charity. I/we won't take heat unless the government pays for it, because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be" - if this WERE the case, I can damn well tell you that, were I one counted amongst their number, I sure as hell would prefer that you let me/us make that decision, rather than a bunch of political base-building ideologues on the internet.

That's the difference between the "professional left" - those making a living or a reputation off of conflict that establishes something called "the Left" and the rest of the Left - those who are either directly living Economic In-justice or trying to help those who are. Ask the latter group how much they are okay with hurting those who are already hurt in order to make a political point, before you go deciding how expendable they are and I will give up the label "the professional left".

:rant:

[Bluenorthwest]

14. So your argument is that the Chruch should see to this?

Kind like the GOP says? Where in this cut is a promise from other groups to fill the gap? There is none. So your argument is specious. The burden was not shifted, it was dismissed.

[patrice]

18. Personally, I'd rather the government fulfill it's obligations to the ALL people. There's

a difference between how things should be and how they are and unless I'm one of those who CAN directly come up with alternatives, so that the poor are not made to suffer for our cultural bullshit, to change what is into what should be, if I can't make that happen, I'm forced to do the best, no small limited useless challenge that, with what is happening in ongoing processes, without EVER giving up sight, as things change, of opportunities for how things SHOULD be.

That's one of my problems with the professional left: there's one whole helluva of a big dark chaotic abyss between where we are and where they IMPLY they want to take us, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," there's a chasm filled with all sorts of stuff that will change whatever it is that they are telling us their goals are. THEIR goals are to be "the Left", solutions are secondary to being "the Left", so they are NOT being up front about what the material, concrete and deadly effects of their current political proposals are. That's what the word "professional" means in their label; they job is to be "the Left", not to actually DELIVER anything that actually works for anyone any time soon.

So be it. There's a useful process oriented function in being the "professional left"; let them do their base-building thing, but only if they are honest about it, just as long as everyone UNDERSTANDS what they are REALLY about and, at this point in the game, they can't afford to be about anything but themselves, being "the Left", they CAN'T, and therefore do not have the luxury of, actually delivering real world solutions and IF they were the authentic Left, dedicated to the people instead of political power displays, they WOULD be up front about that.

[markpkessinger]

15. Good points, but I disagree in part with your example

You bring up some very good points. I'm not sure I entirely go along with your example concerning LIHEAP, however. You are probably right that those who rely on the program don't care, in the final analysis, who pays their heating bills, only that they get the help they need. But I'm not sure they would find the question of whether that aid came from the government or a charity to be an insignificant one. Charities, themselves being subject to the charity of donors, can experience wide fluctuations in their ability to provide specific assistance when and where it is needed. A government program has the benefit of funds being budgeted and allocated, and hence available, when and where they are needed irrespective of the charitable instincts of donors who may or may not give, or who may or may not give to that particular charity.

[patrice]

19. The President scared me from day one with talk of "faith-based" initiatives. I don't think those hav

e gone away, but, also, don't know too much more about what economic model design differences we might see in those. Public-Private cooperation, with protections for different kinds of private equity, and incorporating various economic classes, seems like a good idea for Boomers. I know there was some trouble there right after the President affirmed "faith-based" initiatives and I don't believe any/most of that got sorted out. Though Justice did say that they could discriminate on the basis of "faith" not very long ago, I'm sure there ARE other issues. My guess that the trade off for dealing with the issues that you brought up was something like government oversight above and beyond the usual stuff like CMS, HOPEFULLY through clear, manageable professional standards. The whole thing seems to have dropped into a black-hole, but (and I did spend the last 3 years working in a secular not-for-profit long-term care resource) I really don't think it has gone away. Here in Kansas our governor is trying to hand over the legal identification of Discrimination to a politically elected office. Personally, I believe this is a measure to prevent the sorts of lawsuits that mainstreamed Special Education 30(?) years ago.

The poor NEED their own advocates, activists, and community builders and the professional Left is in waaaaaaaaaaay too political a position to be capable of doing that any time soon.

[Zax2me]

17. I always considered it a slur.

And thus disregard it as such, always.