Alas, he never gives us a clue as to who he thinks this liberal elite is or what it should be doing. In fact, here's the title of the piece you're quoting from:

Chris Hedges: The Liberal Elite has Betrayed the People They Claim to Defend

Hedges says this:

Because the traditional liberal elite divorced itself from the issue of justice to embrace for the last few decades issues such as gender equality, multiculturalism, identity politics, all of which I support. But while they busied themselves with these activities, the working class was being destroyed through NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs, the stagnation, in essence reduction of the minimum wage.

Again, I'm not clear on who "the traditional liberal elite" is. Perhaps he includes members of Congress, but who else? In any case, I've never gotten the feeling that Hedges gives a flying fuck about women's rights or racism. And what the fuck is the "liberal elite" supposed to do about NAFTA?

There is in this country, a lot of activism on the left for raising the minimum wage and for instituting living wages. And I'm sorry that Chris doesn't feel that GLBT rights or abortion rights are a priority. I do.

I think Hedges is accurate on some points and wildly off on others. He talks about how coal miners hero was once Mother Jones and now it's Sarah Palin. He blames this on the "liberal elite", but this plays into racism and multiculturalism that he's so dismissive of. In addition, this is a different country demographically from what it was a hundred years ago. The white flight from labor isn't the fault of the liberal elites. It's far more the result of racism and sexism.

I agree with Hedges about the problems but I think he shifts far too much of the blame on this liberal elite and Obama.
One thing I noticed is that as usual, Hedges doesn't even mention REPUBLICANS and the right and things like ALEC and the Koch brothers. They're a significant part of the problem, but he never, ever mentions it. Why?

eom

they play us against each other as pawns in their game

and immigration reform, for instance, does pertain to labor rights. Natural allies. How is working for marriage equality playing people off of each other? And abortion rights, btw, have a fuck of a lot to do with women in the workplace- not that men here on DU in general give a fuck and neither does Hedges. How is working to retain our constitutional rights a fucking distraction? Do tell.

And why oh why does chris blame it all on the "liberal elites" and not even mention republicans as part of the problem? He's less harsh about the tea party than he is the "liberal elites".

Maybe he realizes that they have always been aligned against progress.

Maybe he's lamenting the demise of the traditional structures that used to be aligned TOWARD progress.

Maybe he's trying to re-light the Democratic Party's lamp rather than curse the Republican Party's darkness.

When we have supposed "democrats" supporting drone murder of US citizens, endless invasions, gitmo, unlimited domestic spying, etc. we do need to push back from the left,. the rethugs are just too far gone to even try righting their ship.

I remember debating a friend of mine who is from a similar background but who is conservative (I'm a lefty, but I find that's rare among many working-class people I know). He was railing against all the identity politics stuff and I said I agreed with him in many ways...although those issues are important, class is at the real dark heart of the matter, imo.

Once I explained to him my point of view, he actually agreed with me. He didn't run off to join the Democratic Socialists or anything, but we had a moment of common ground with each other. I think if the Democrats and mainstream liberals weren't so terrified to speak bluntly about class issues and, here's the rub, actually advanced policies that rebalance the off-kilter economic structure in this country, they might start identifying a slab of common ground that working people of various stripes can recognize they share.

eom

to only address issues that often DON'T have a common ground (gays, god, guns) is a technique of distraction. First, it's a way for the Dem leadership to say they are still fighting for Dem values while they ignore the HUGE dem values of the past. That points to our main issue, IMHO, which is that the Dems have gone too far right and don't even believe in core dem values that we used to stand and fight for. So Hedges is correct.

And why should he address what Pubs are doing? It's a given that they are totally radical and right wing. Hedges is trying to shake up the Pubs' opposition, such as it is.

Most working class I know are lefties.

It's the upper middle class and the ultra rich who are generally righties.

I'd say my experience seems to be just the opposite of yours:

The liberals and Democrats I know here are from wealthier backgrounds (there are certainly some real reactionary wealthy people here, as well, but the UU Fellowship I attend, for instance, is mostly made up of more upscale types as is the Democratic Forum), and many of the working people I know are either apolitical, lean right, or are conservative.

Because of my political, social, and work activities, I flit among the various class strata here and base what I say on my interactions and observations over the past decade since moving here.

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America is a non-fiction book by American Pulitzer Prize journalist Chris Hedges, published in January 2007


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fascists:_The_Christian_Right_and_the_War_on_America


Empire of Illusion; Not For The Squeamish


http://shoqvalue.com/chris-hedges-empire-of-illusion-not-for-the-squeamish/

He's done plenty to call out the republicans but I feel that he thinks they are beyond redemption and sees the crippling fascist cancer of the republicans taking control of the democratic party.

he does very, very little to call out repubs. I can post 10 chris hedges pieces railing against the liberal elite who, btw, he has stated are beyond redemption, to each one where he criticizes repubs.

It's his thing.

that to speak of repugs or conservatives is a complete waste of time because they have never done anything to improve life for the common citizen. We all already know that. They do not change and to speak to the problems the republicans cause is simply stating the obvious.
Anything that has changed for the good has come from the progressive side of things and that they, we, us, have dropped the ball because we have lost focus on the core issues. Not all of us but enough of those that have the power (liberal elite) to actually effect change.
I think you are missing the point of what he is saying because you are responding by defending "your Team".
My bottom line is that we are being played by both sides in order to maintain the power structure as it is. We do need to make them afraid of us again.
How? I haven't a clue.

and it's mostly we liberals that are his readers.

because liberals do have the will to change things.
See definition of conservative.

I do agree that his solutions are off base in a lot of ways (acting as if third party is an option) but I'm not terribly concerned about his critical stance, because for a lot of the radical left, we have failed ourselves and not achieved what we could have (particularly after Bush; which if Nader's theory of it must get worse before it gets better is true, should've ushered in something special, which it didn't).

sees the world not with neo liberal eyes.

I think we have a different mind set that is waking up
those that are asleep.

Holding things sacred is not recommended, nothing is above criticism. Criticism helps us learn and grow.

Not sure why you are having trouble with the term "liberal elite" it is rather well defined;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite

He is talking about the millionair members of congress and the government, the media, etc. who purport to understand and represent the working class, and yet have not been or, have not been for a very long time, in this class.

"what the fuck is the "liberal elite" supposed to do about NAFTA",. er, not have VOTED for it!

"Hedges gives a flying fuck about women's rights or racism." ok now you are just attacking his character with no basis,. sacred cow retaliation? I come back to it,. nothing is sacred, all is open to criticism when needed.

words in the American political lexicon (closely followed by 'conservative').

Were Hedges to have blamed the 'Democratic elite,' I think you would have far fewer problems with his analysis. Remember it was Democrat Clinton who gave us NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and repeal of Glass-Steagall, all policies which have arguably contributed to the further obscene concentrations of wealth in this society, concentrations last seen in the Gilded Age (and which 'Democratic elites' have done little or nothing to reverse).

I have read articles where he doesn't, so I'm not going to jump to any conclusion on that one. Every article doesn't need to be about the bad old republicans. We know about them. They aren't hiding from us.

BUT I do have a question, and I've wondered about it for a while. Exactly what members of the 1% (and Buffet is iffy, he plays both sides of the fence) do we have standing up for us like the republicans have the Kochs and the Adelsons and the Thiels and Rowlings (NOT of the J.K. variety).

I count discount Bill Gates as one of ours because he's been right there supporting the worst policies of this administration. His drive to help dismantle the public school system should tell everybody what an opportunist he is. And his reputation for giving all this money to charity it just bull. He give money, all right, BUT he has always had an agenda and there are always strings attached to his donations.

***From 2007, but Gates MO and propaganda machine haven't changed. And neither has his demand for control of whatever he invests his money, i.e. the dismantling of the public school system. But he can well afford his 'charity'.***

But the LA Times investigation reveals the Gates Foundation’s humanitarian concerns are not reflected in how it invests its money. In the Niger Delta — where the Foundation funds programs to fight polio and measles–the Foundation has also invested more than $400 million dollars in companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These oil firms have been responsible for much of the pollution many blame for respiratory problems and other afflictions among the local population.

The Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds stakes in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most AIDS patients around the world can afford. Other companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes; supporting child labor; and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care.

Overall, the LA Times says nearly $9 billion in Gates Foundation money is tied up in companies whose practices run counter to the foundation’s charitable goals and social mission. And that number may be understated–the Gates Foundation has not provided details on more than four billion dollars in investments it says are loans.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/9/report_gates_foundation_causing_harm_with

***
So, who are these Liberal Elites that are on our side? Soros? (I was being semi-sarcastic.) Who? Because it sure seems us plebs are on our own.

That's exactly how I have felt for quite a while now.

who could fund a bunch of liberal think tanks, radio/TV stations, news shows, etc., like the RW has done for 30 years? We're way behind in the propaganda effort, folks. We're SO behind that now, 30-40 years later, even the liberal elite has begun thinking like talking-point-spouting wingers! See how that happened??? If you inundate the airwaves, the papers, and the internet with RW ideals, everyone adopts them! That's the nature and effect of propaganda, which is why propaganda is effective! So where's our propaganda?

Part of the problem was the liberal ideal that if we just 'educated' people on a one-on-one basis and taught them critical thinking, why, everyone would naturally be liberal and democratic. We've always had a problem trying to appeal to the emotions in people, because we feel that that is a deceptive way to get people to our side (and there is some truth to this). Now, all this time later, we still can't get into our heads that emotions have to be involved -- propaganda works -- and no matter how distasteful it is to us to appeal to emotions, we are probably going to have to do it to have any success at all.

He's OK but a product of the system.

(as someone else pointed out) the republicans have been doing for so long funding 'think tanks' or centers for proposing policy like AEI or the Heritage Foundation?

I like Schumer. But he's not exactly who I meant.

on the NSA crap

he tells you exactly who they are. He offers that it was Bill Clinton that ushered in a great deal of what he sees terribly wrong with America. I agree with him! NAFTA and the Dems that went along with it was truly the opening of the floodgates in regard to abandoning many of the core principles of the party. Clinton showed the powerful Dem elite that power was within their grasp if they simply played ball with the plutocracy and most have eagerly adopted the third way. Obama certainly has trod the same path as Clinton in that regard.

As far as mentioning the Republicans and the Koch brothers, you are dead wrong!

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=chris+hedges+koch+brothers&oq=chris+hedges+koch+brothers&gs_l=hp.3...13180.14165.1.14663.6.6.0.0.0.4.449.2103.2-1j4j1.6.0.chm_pq_signedout%2Chmss2%3Dfalse%2Chmmql%3D2...0.0..1.1.20.psy-ab.KgfPIfpEloI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49641647%2Cd.aWc%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.NyLNrjc7wJY.O&fp=820fb4b99d58b214&biw=1024&bih=653

crime to catch a Clinton within 500 miles of Washington D.C.

None of this mess we find ourselves in would have been possible without Bill Clinton's pandering to the monied corporatists in this country.

Other than calling them fascists, of course.

Ideology has become a sort of affectation or social plumage. On the right that affectation is manifest in libertarian ideology. On the left identity politics makes money for those who make a living at it, but the practice of it by the rank and file isn't profitable at all. So people who claim to be liberals, (there ain't many) wind up expressing emotional solidarity with any number of culturally oppressed groups and then telling their accountants to squeeze another 1% out of their investments no matter what. Do you really think teabaggers were the only people flipping houses and buying esoteric investments during the housing bubble?

People need resources to live. That need has been turned into a product to be sold to them. People also need to be recognized as people who are unique and have unique desires and goals. That has become a product too. The marketplace of ideas has been turned into a weapon to be used against us. When we stop behaving like ideological consumers and start behaving like citizens the tide will turn. Unfortunately, I expect that we won't start doing that until we run out of money to pay people to tell us what we want to hear.

I have an idea of who is talking about having worked for and with some of them for a few years. It is eye-opening to see up close who is talking about. Yes, they have a few issues they either don't care enough about to get excited about as Republicans do, or they actually do support them, which they use to align themselves with the Democratic Party, but when it comes to money, war, Wall St and a few other issues, it's hard to distinguish them from Republicans.

Hedges has no doubt met them up close and yes, he knows what he is talking about.

I know exactly who he is talking about:
those who believe that Saving Wall Street is more important than saving Main Street.


[font size=4]Now THIS is bi-partisanship.
Better get used to it![/font]

how totalitarian they are in their culture. It would make sense that once they gained political power, like they have, that this culture would be extended to our government.

The only way to break this is for workers to form cooperatives that are run democratically, that would be the culture within the companies. The more those cooperatives are able to take over the industry and function of the corporations, the sooner will they be defeated and hopefully die.

I've been saying this now, literally, for decades. We DO have choices and that is to become more self-sufficient and cooperative with those around us. I actually did a LOT of work on this a few years back as I tried to start something in my own neighborhood. I couldn't get the cooperation I was looking for but that doesn't negate the original intent.

Some of the ideas were:
- have year-round gardens and share produce (we don't have long-term freezes here),
- share resources such as power tools, lawn tools, household tools (I have a ban saw, you have a carpet cleaner)
- have weekly block/neighborhood pot lucks
- service the neighborhood elderly by helping with yardwork, housework and rides
- forming a Neighborhood Watch (NO GUNS!)
- developing a barter system (you help me with laying this floor and I'll help you in setting up your garden)
- conduct free seminars by neighbors with expertise in particular areas (how to prune your citrus tree, home canning)

Just stuff like that. Didn't mean for this to be so long-winded but I think it's an idea that shouldn't go away AND is easily adaptable to any area AND is easily expandable.

OK, I'll stop now.

People just have to get together and the possibilities become endless. Start with what's doable like barter and trade and go from there. Apparently, The Mondragon Cooperative in Spain started during the worst of Franco"s dictatorship. So it can be done even in an unfriendly political climate.

I remember how shocked I was to hear someone talking about how even the placement of paper clips in his desk drawer was regimented in his company. No pictures of family on the desks. It is beyond sick.

I think your idea has a lot of promise.

My immediate supervisor would go through my desk and rearrange things. I kept notes about stuff I might forget for my own use and he would rewrite them and correct them. I started writing them in Spanish and he had a hissy.

Employee owned businesses are the only way (in my mind) that capitalism can continue to exist in the future. I have considered incorporating a business with employee ownership built into the charter. I have worked for multinationals and the average employee is not getting anywhere. They just continue to exist paycheck to paycheck to spur company profits and executive bonuses. If everyone in the company is putting in effort, everyone should benefit from the company doing well.

During a recent period of unemployment I needed to liquidate a lot of my (very small) stock holdings. I do not think I will replace those when I have the ability. I do not want to support Capitalism as it exists in this country and purchasing stock in privately owned corporations is contrary to this thought.

Being good on social issues is meaningless when economically you do the same shit as the other guys.

As an African American, I'd like to know.

Why doesn't he just call it what it is: fascism.

This is exactly where we are:

HEDGES: The forces arrayed against us, the security and surveillance state knows the moment anything is going to be organized. They've essentially shut down all public space for any kind of serious dissent because they don't want to see a resurrection of the Occupy movement. We are the most surveilled, monitored, eavesdropped, controlled, watched population in human history, and I speak as somebody who covered the Stasi state in East Germany. We are kept in a state of perpetual fear that we could lose our jobs so many people in this country now are living at subsistence level. To lose their job is catastrophic. We are seeing the corporate state dismantle programs that once provided benefits like unemployment payments or social programs to the poor, to the elderly, to students, to make us even more frightened and more easily manipulated. I mean, there's a kind of awful logic to what they're doing. And, you know, it is--those forms of repression are quite effective. We have shifted, I think, from a democratic state to a species of corporate totalitarianism.

So what can be done about this? We'd have to quit buying things from them. That would mean living a very basic life. Connect with farmers somehow, so they can get food to the rest of the country - it would be tough in the suburbs, pretty much impossible. Turn off the TV - turn off the internet too for the most part.

and the Democratic Party has been asleep at the wheel since Bil Clinton. That is an unfortunate truth.

known as Third Way today and who we always called Republican Lite, like the Republicans have been taken over by the Tea Party. So we have two parties still, but politically one is center right and the other extreme right. Anyone who is left and even moderately left is derided as been a Birkenstock wearing, liberal hippie by both parties.

and secondly, if he thinks we are the most survellied population since East Germany he is unfamiliar with London.

"The ring of steel is the popular name for the security and surveillance cordon of nearly half a million cameras surrounding the City of London, installed to deter the IRA and other threats.[1][2] The term was borrowed from an earlier stage of the Troubles when the centre of Belfast was fortified against attacks; this fortified perimeter was known as the ring of steel.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_steel_(London)

Great thread
on dialogue of what is what.

Chomsky exhaustively connected his remarks to details from news articles and other documents. So the fact -- that Chomsky never had any definite programme, but merely functioned as an economic-political-social critic, with an outsider's PoV -- was offset by the fact that reading Chomsky was extraordinarily informative: he pointed out the news stories that disappeared, and compared them to the acceptable fictions that replaced them; one learned from Chomsky how to read the news with a certain eye for predictable misrepresentations, and one often learned useful facts that had vanished down the memory hole

The problem I'm currently having with Hedges is that -- although I'm frequently inclined to agree with him philosophically -- his comments tend towards broad-brush philosophical conclusions, largely detached from the concrete and detailed discussion of particular events. And in my experience, philosophical discussion is generally an obstacle to successful movement building: one should be able to promote an analysis almost entirely through detailed discussion of particular events, the facts of which can be verified, rather than resorting to broad-brush philosophical comments, which can only be regarded as opinion

"We have shifted, I think, from a democratic state to a species of corporate totalitarianism."