word to the wise

lately, tim wise has been furiously blogging against "the left." he is upset that something called "the left" is not as happy about obama's victory as he is. he makes a number of points, a few of which i would like to comment on.

he is offended that "the left" has been name calling obama. well, individuals on the left have done this, but not some monolith called "the left." isn't wise himself on the left? aren't his books published by left wing publishing houses? in fact, i have in my bag his latest book, published by soft skull press. aren't his lectures largely attended by those on the left? and funny, but isn't wise a guy who routinely name calls when it suits his purposes? i don't remember wise being terribly offended by the cracks made against bush, although he did point out in one of his latest blogs the "idiocy" of bringing a banner of bush with a hitler stash to an anti-war rally. supposedly, such tactics scare away people who may otherwise be interested in attending the rally, or joining the movement. please. if someone were that easily offended, they would find something else to be bothered by. furthermore, is it wise of wise to belittle this comparison when bush pushed through policies of imperial war that killed millions? question, wise; why is our bombing of iraq any better than germany's attack on poland? how is our war with afghanistan superior to invading russia? also, when someone carries a banner like this, it is a bit satirical. they are using humor to point out a profound truth. for how else, other than fascist, to describe things such as preemptive war, abu ghraib, cluster bombs, the use of terminology such as the "homeland," preventive detention, flag decals, "support our troops" bumper stickers, and so much more?

wise lectures "the left" that they can not build a movement if they are going to criticize obama, and mock his followers. well, if you are trying to build a movement outside of the current power structure, don't you have to be critical of the people within the current power structure? otherwise, what's the point of trying to build that movement? for sure, we shouldn't mock the people who voted for obama, but questioning the efficacy of voting for the lesser of two evils is certainly something that true progressives should have the right to do.

wise complains about those who trumpet "the supposedly superior morality" of ralph nader and the followers of bob avakian. well, how can those two men even be put in the same sentence? nader is one of the great americans of the 20th and 21st centuries. should people on the left stop supporting him just because mainstream society tells us to do so? does wise think obama is better on the issues than nader? in fact, very few people on the left actually supported nader. most of them voted for obama.

wise tells us it is the posturing and the name calling that the left partakes in that limits its appeal. supposedly, this is why the right has been so much more successful in attaining power. give me a break! who owns the media, tim? who runs the corporations? who determines foreign policy? it's not as if the left and the right are in this fair fight for power, and the right's superior organizing skills explain why they have ascended. in the 60's, when the left was much stronger, we had the destruction of southeast asia and the murder of our greatest leaders. this is because those who control the power structure in our society are corporatists and militarists, by definition on the right. to blame the left for their lack of power seems to me to be pretty unfair. wise surely knows that the murders of martin, malcolm, fred hampton, allende, che, evers, dozens of black panthers, and many others, have contributed to the left's political limitations. he surely also knows that zinn, chomsky, nader, parenti, and others, are shut out of the media, hence greatly limiting their ability to reach people and, by extension, to influence policy. has kissinger really organized better than chomsky? does that explain why kissinger has ascended to power, while chomsky has had to settle for being a professor? the right is winning because the system is set up for them to win. to blame the left for the fact that power lies elsewhere in our society is to do a disservice to the millions of people who are fighting against the odds in our society, wise included. this explains why wise isn't winning against imus and coulter and dobbs and hannity.

wise is angered by a comment made by fellow progressive paul street, who referred to wise as becoming "increasingly unglued" as a result of obama's victory. for proof of street's remark, just read wise's blog, where he tells us that he looked in on his sleeping child after obama won, and where he lectures "the left" on what a great thing obama's victory was. wise claims that street attacked him for saying that there are signficant differences between obama and mccain. in fact, street himself said there were differences, and even encouraged people in swing states to vote for obama. wise claims that street wrote an article in 04 detailing the differences between kerry and bush, comparing this to his supposed silence on the differences between obama and mccain. in fact, street made these differences clear, even ending his book on obama by fleshing out these "differences." furthermore, street is one man; he is not "the left." if a man on the left says or does something you don't like, that doesn't mean you should condemn the left in its entirety. wise, as a man who spends his life combating racial profiling and stereotyping, should know this. wise's attacks are filled with crass generalizations about "the left." they are petty, and uncalled for.

ironically, before obama took power, wise did a good job of pointing out obama's inadequacies, and what his rise to power had to say about race in america. now, wise has grown silent. the question is, what will it take for him to wake up? the appointment of rahm emanuel? the knowledge that karl rove instructed obama on how to defeat hillary clinton? kissinger saying that hillary would make a great secretary of state? the decision not to prosecute bush and his cronies for war crimes? further increases in the military budget? wars with pakistan and afghanistan? continued remarks about "getting bin laden" when he is likely dead?

oh tim, when will you be wise once more?