Filed under: Author - ACG, Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Equality, Feminism, Gay rights, Join or Die, Liberalism, Political symbols, Politicized Science, PUMA
What’s in a name? For the judges of the 2008 Weblog Awards, who saw fit to designate “The Confluence” as one of 2008’s “best liberal blogs,” apparently not much. Confluence is part and parcel of that pernicious mind-virus known as PUMA-ism, a pseudo-political ideology group of angry people and hangers-on whose only goal, since June 21, 2008, has been to slander Barack Obama at any price – even to the point of backing John McCain, embracing theo-conservative Sarah Palin as a feminist based on nothing but her genitalia, and attempting to stage a last-minute palace revolt at the DNC. What really takes the cake, though, is that all of these deliberate attempts to “divide and conquer” the Democratic Party occurred against the express wishes of Hillary Clinton – the PUMAs’ putative inspiration and beneficiary – but, curiously, fit neatly in with Republican symbology throughout the election. No, dear friends – Confluence is not a liberal blog, because PUMA-ism is not liberal. I’ll explain.
Liberalism is a philosophy premised on the idea that, absent some objective indicator to the contrary, more inclusion and greater liberty is always best. At its core, liberalism requires appeal to reason – stripped bare of emotion, bias, or empty appeals to tradition – as the foundation of public policy. Liberalism’s converse, then, is not conservatism but dogmatism. If certain political positions are “liberal,” they are only so because a rational, liberal approach to politics tends to generate these positions.
Because liberalism relies upon reason, it follows that a “liberal” will recognize that politics is antecedent to policy. The dogmatic, bleeding-heart, no-compromise left-winger is no liberal if she does not pursue her goals rationally. To refuse to acknowledge that policy requires politics, and politics requires compromise, is irrational – and therefore illiberal. In short, liberalism imports the flexibility to implement its agenda – in parts, if necessary.
The point is this: if liberalism is a philosophy built on a rational approach to policymaking, it must also require a similarly rational approach to politics. Confluence fails this test. By pursuing an intellectually vacuous approach to politics, and embracing instead dogmatic inflexibility and hero-worship, Confluence has long-since abandoned any thought process that could remotely be described as “liberal.” Devoting one’s entire internet career to duping women into casting protest ballots against their political interest is not rational, and it is not liberal.
It may be that in the paragraphs above I described progressivism, or pragmatism, or pragmatic liberalism, or something else entirely. Maybe – as Riverdaughter, their founder, argues – liberalism requires nothing more than the embrace of enumerated policy goals, like equal rights for gay men and women, and reproductive justice. But even by this embarrassingly shallow rubric, Confluence falls far short. If liberalism is to mean anything at all, it must mean the active pursuit of these policy goals, in words or deeds. But Confluence has spilled comparatively little ink on actual substantive liberal issues. The lion’s share of their content, instead, is best equated to a series of playground taunts against Barack Obama and his supporters. And Confluence’s entire existence amounts to only one deed: the active opposition of the first viable liberal candidate in eight years, and the short-sighted embrace, instead, of a candidate and a party that has systematically opposed minority interests for the past decade. That Confluence’s claimed eventual goal was the election of the perfect, idyllic liberal candidate is no defense: the blog’s all-encompassing, baseless hatred of Barack Obama long-since squeezed that goal out of the picture.
A liberal is known not by her words, but by her deeds. By subordinating reason to an obsession with a single candidate, and letting the goal of a freer America disappear under a tide of borderline racist, exclusively anti Obama rhetoric, the Confluence and indeed all PUMAs ceased being liberals and became narrow anti-Obama partisans long ago. To conclude otherwise would be to reduce the word “liberal” to a pleading requirement.
On January 5th, VOTE AGAINST “The Confluence”
Don’t let the PUMAs split the vote! May we suggest “Crooks & Liars”?
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
As this post points out, political designations are often in the eye of the beholder.
Example: …theo-conservative Sarah Palin…
Although Palin has not done anything in her position as governor (and the book-banning charges as mayor have been thoroughly debunked, as Ames knows) to indicate she has any ‘theocratic’ intent for her policies, the fact that she belongs to a fundamentalist church with odd practices gives Ames and others the incentive to apply that label. As Ames also knows, in a court of law that kind of leap in logic would be quickly over-ruled, but in the court of public politcal debate and a liberal climate that is openly hostile towards even the hint of strong religious conviction…the label becomes an easy fit.
So with that in mind, while Ames and others may not agree with the liberal designation for The Confluence…it’s clear that someone else does. So goes political terminology these days.
Comment by Mike at The Big Stick January 2, 2009 @ 12:03 pmPart of the problem – semantically – with the term liberal is that we have so little true political liberalism left on the national stage these days. The knee jerk response seems to be that, if you disagree with a Republican on anything, you must be a liberal.
But it just isn’t so. True liberalism has certain core beliefs it operates from, just as true conservatvism does. So Ames is correct that these sites are not liberal, in that they do not support core liberal beliefs. Instead, they exist to fight against certain people, regardless of the beliefs involved. Confluence is not about advancing liberal thought or a liberal agenda. It is a site about destroying people who aren’t Hillary (though I still think Hillary was their straw man to hide a stronger interest in conservative social issues).
So labels do matter, especially when they are applied incorrectly.
Comment by Philip H. January 2, 2009 @ 12:30 pmI still don’t understand why you put up with Sarah, PC. You’re an intelligent, rational conservative, who builds his arguments on reason; Palin’s an anti-intellectual conservative who bases her arguments on her red telephone line to Jesus. As to whether or not Palin is herself “theocratic,” again, I think it’s because she hasn’t really had a chance yet. Put her on the national stage – and give her a year to learn the vocabulary – and we’ll see abortion rights gutted, gay rights another red shirt to rile up the base, etc., etc. Thankfully, I won’t have the pleasure of proving you wrong.
Comment by Ames January 2, 2009 @ 12:46 pmthis very issue — confluence as a liberal-blog nominee — is dominating the comment thread on the FAQ page …
http://2008.weblogawards.org/docs/weblog-award-faq.php
here is a comment from the contest administrator, kevin aylward:
Is “The Confluence” exactly the same as the other blogs in their category? No. Hillary Clinton supporters spawned a movement in parts of the Democratic party to rebell against the system and the nominee. Also, it should be noted that there were conservative bloggers who supported Obama. For us to ignore some of those blogs just because other blogs or readers don’t like them wouldn’t be fair. We’ll leave it to voters to sort out the winner.
In previous editions of The Weblog Awards we’ve had complaints about the conservativeness or liberalness of various finalists, so this isn’t really that different. If they’re not your cup of tea there are 13 other finalists in that category – more than enough to choose from.
Some blogs are hard to categorize, The Confluence is one of them. We’ll take the feedback and use it to sharpen our focus and try to do an even better job next year.
For this year what’s done is done…
and here is a comment from the queen herself … riverdaughter …
Anyone who is questioning The Confluence’s bona fides as a “liberal blog” is invited to read our Credo . Post for Riverdaughter of The Confluence, who can’t seem to log in here:
The Credo has been at the top of our site since the inception of The Confluence. The Confluence was founded on liberal principles and this is what sets it apart from some of the other blogs in our category that were based on the thoughts of individuals. We are a liberal blog.
Once again, we would like to thank those who nominated us. We are honored to be included in this category with so many other noteworthy and excellent blogs.
Sincerely,
RD
in my opinion, this miscategorization is as much about sloppy and lazy marketing (on the part of contest administrators) as it is about misunderstanding the gradations and meanings in the political spectrum.
i think they ought to open a category for best collection of pathological incoherence.
it would be the only case where confluence would have even one iota of support from me.
Comment by didionsmommy January 2, 2009 @ 11:59 pmFrom Ames: I still don’t understand why you put up with Sarah, PC. You’re an intelligent, rational conservative, who builds his arguments on reason…
Exactly…and that’s why i base my position on what she has done. She’s been a governor for awhile now. No ‘theocratic’ moves. To the contrary I’d say she has been extremely pragmatic as governor and at times been downright liberal (taxing oil companies and distributing checks to the voters is the kind of wealth redistribution scheme that Democrats tell their kids about in bedtime stories). But even if Palin had been Michelle Obama smart she would have had two fatal strikes against her for liberals…she’s an evangelical and she’s a conservative. So that’s why you make the leap from reason to wild speculation.
While liberals like to play chicken little with the notion of a theocracy…we are so far from that being a reality that it’s fairly laughable. Bush was the best chance that the few wacko theocrats that are really out there ever had and exactly nothing happened. But the spectre remains and so you guys take a page from the Karl Rove playbook and use the fear angle.
Look at it this way Ames…Obama’s record on guns is really deplorable. He supported a LOT of anti-gun legislation in Illinois. I mean, it’s one of the few areas where liberals really have no defense because the evidence is so overwhelming against him. But if I say, “Obama is a gun-grabber and opposes the 2nd Amendment” you will tell me that we misunderstand his record and that guns aren’t high on his priority list and I am silly for stockpiling ammo and 15 round magazines. But then you ignore Palin’s record of never supporting any kind of ‘theocratic’ legislation and say that because she goes to a certain kind of church you know her true intentions.
Which one of us is being ‘reasonable’ and which one isn’t Ames?
Comment by Mike at The Big Stick January 3, 2009 @ 11:18 pm[...] “The Confluence” as one of the “best liberal blogs of 2008.” Critically, neither Confluence nor PUMA-dom are liberal – they’re Obama conspiracy theory agglomerates, nothing more – and we suspect Weblog Award [...]
Pingback by Best Liberal Blog? Vote DOWN “The Confluence,” Starting Today January 5, 2009 @ 3:04 pmYou may suggest Wonkette.
Comment by WIDTAPw January 5, 2009 @ 9:08 pmJust did!!!
Comment by Ames January 5, 2009 @ 9:10 pmThe Confluence is a cesspool. It’s not even a political blog really. They rarely discuss issues. Basically, it’s an I hate Obama because he has a penis blog. 90% of the time, they don’t even talk politics but some inane drama in their lives. It’s really a glorified sewing circle. At least NQ-USA discusses issues. The writers at the Confluence are largely older women with little formal experience in politics and most lack advance degrees (Dakinat is the exception).
I read the PUMA blogs during the Fall campaign thinking that they might make a difference (they didn’t) and I’ve read them since the election because I find them so damn amusing and sickening. I also read Free Republic. Free Republic is more liberal than the Confluence at times and certainly more knowledgeable. They at least know who is who in politics. They are rank amateurs and embittered hypocrites.
Comment by nrelement January 6, 2009 @ 12:39 amPUMA’s current goals are to pass the ERA, pass victims rights legislation (Louisa’s law) and ensure that Hillary Clinton is not sec of state in name only. BO is appointing males to represent the US as special envoys in Iraq and Afghanistan where Condi Rice has started networks of women fighting for equal rights. PUMA recognizes that the first thing men will sell out is women’s equality. BO is right now having a head covered female supporter of Hamas, a thug theocratic oppressor of women, pray at his inaugural with the gay hating Christian.
Instead of continuing to lie about your political opposition like some stupid teenager, you ought to be glad PUMA exists instead of kissing the feet of a misogynist leader who may or may not betray you. If there is no one who will hold him accountable there is no doubt he will betray you. Respect the function of PUMA in a democracy.
Comment by Greenconsciousness January 18, 2009 @ 12:33 pmBy the way, define Liberal and or the core liberal beliefs you speak so grandly about.
Most second wave women I know, who you refer to as embittered hypocrites and with the traditional contempt of classism as women with no degrees, are women who marched with people in Selma and were part of the civil rights, anti war and hippie movement. It was the unrelenting oppression of them as women which converted them into feminist from these movements. As such they became true radicals seeing the roots of their oppression in the patriarchal norms, traditions and institutions which shaped their lives. It was these women’s work in affirmative action and equality in employment that did more for blacks than their own leaders did in the 80s and 90s. I think of them as liberals and radicals. But here you rant about them not being liberals and present no definitions and no examples of their non liberal politics.
Tisk, Tisk, and with all your advanced degrees….
But I think of the left as misogynist as the right. And you are proving it by the comments on this thread. It is not just that you show you do not respect women — there is real woman hating – mother hating here.
Comment by Greenconsciousness January 18, 2009 @ 12:46 pmGreenconsciousness here is a case in point. It opens with window dressing about what PUMAs goals are, and then launches straight into “Obama is having a head-covered female theocratic thug….” and straight into the abyss it goes, stopping briefly to take the required swipe at “the blacks”, as well as setting up the woman vs black dichotomy as if all women were white and all African Americans were men that has become the hallmark of PUMA thinking. And then it ends where it always does: since opinion on the PUMA movement ranges from amusement to ignorance to mocking hostility, that just shows how misogynistic we all are. Even if we’re women – we’re just trying to engratiate ourselves with the boyz. Clearly. It’s all formulaic by now.
Ultimately I think you’re splitting hairs trying to categorize a lunatic fringe movement. I can understand not wanting to be associated with them, but if they want to call themselves liberals, then okay, they’re liberal by whatever standard that means to them. It’s very reminiscent of the Larouchites in the 70’s: they claimed to be leftists, and while the rest of the left did everything they could to distance themselves, it was ultimately fruitless. But then again, so were the Larouchites. And there were considerably more of them.
Comment by Jessie January 18, 2009 @ 7:42 pm[...] consider themselves Democrats, and liberal ones at that. We disagree. To understand why, observe one PUMA comment to this site: PUMA’s current goals are to pass the ERA, pass victims rights legislation (Louisa’s law) and [...]
Pingback by PUMAs, Party Politics, and the Primacy of Goal-Centered Activism January 19, 2009 @ 6:07 am