Monday, November 27, 2006
One Man's Descent Into Madness
Dobbs’s rabidness provokes his critics. Not long ago, the Times columnist Thomas Friedman told a law-school audience, “And then you have a blithering idiot like Lou Dobbs, in my view, who’s using the platform of CNN in a news frame. . . . This is not news. And so we have a political class not making sense of the world for people and that’s why the public . . . is so agitated.” The Economist said that one might expect “CNN’s flagship business-news programme . . . to strive for economic literacy,” but, instead, Dobbs greets “every announcement of lost jobs as akin to a terrorist assault”; The Nation accused him of “hysteria and jingoism”; the Southern Poverty Law Center said that Dobbs “failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism” in his reports on anti-immigration groups like the Minutemen; one Hispanic group urged Time Warner to take Dobbs off the air.
In his new book, Dobbs says of Friedman, “His name calling would bother me more if he were anything more than a tool of international corporatism and a card-carrying member of his own Flat Earth Society.
Read the whole thing.
I don't understand why it seems strange to people that you can be pro-business and a nationalist at the same time. I mean the democrats couldn't have won without the backing of some very nationalist corporations. I don't believe the corporations were just playing both sides, I think there are corporations that actually want America to remain as it was. I can understand you guys going after these corporation, but I can't believe you don't think they exist. Do you personally think that this was just a populist (nationalistic) election without corporate blessings?
Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Someone once said that the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism is that Nationalism blames enemies of our past defeats while Patriotism praises ourselves for our future victories. Dobbs is very other-oriented and defeat-oriented. I don't like that. (Pat Buchanan has fallen into the same trap.)
I think the 2006 election was decided by two factors:
1. Perceived corruption in the Republican Party
2. An unpopular war
I think there were nationalists/protectionists in both parties, and that neither got much mileage out of it.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, December 01, 2006
When The Nation and the Economist are agreeing on something, it's time to pay attention.
Posted by: Michael | Thursday, March 01, 2007
We Americans are lucky as a people that populism is so despised where it matters. It is too seductive to be powerful.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, March 07, 2007