Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The New Populist Left














As I posted below, using the generic term "liberal" for Okie Funk/Dr. Kurt is technically incorrect, according to the purpose statement in the upper right margin of his blog "Providing Populist and Liberal information and ideas...".

While there is virtually no information about Populism or liberalism on his blog, it's very easy to figure out what Okie Funk is AGAINST ...the war, the Imperialist Bush Presidency, the neoconservative whatever, the Miltary-Industrial Complex and the threat of the Christian right are his major targets... (aside from rightwing Democrats lately...lol) but never do you get a glimpse of what Okie Funk is in FAVOR of. In the "ideas" department he is severely lacking for a college professor.
He supports and obviously votes Democrat (providing he votes) but Democrats are not far enough to the left to suit this liberal populist.
Populist Liberal...Liberal Leftist ...Leftist Populist... hmmm let's see if we can find examples in the wide world of sports where Leftist liberals and Populist parties combined.

Leftists and Populists Combine, Pose Threat To Democracy

April 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "The results of the latest and most comprehensive study of public opinion in the Americas concludes that Latin America is drifting toward the political left and experiencing a rise in populism.

The power shift away from government institutions and toward charismatic leaders who claim to know "the will of the people" could weaken democracy in the region, according to the study."

But how can the Left and Populists agree you ask?

"While leftists certainly have held power in the past, never before in Latin America have so many countries been governed by presidents of the left, even though the variation of leftist ideology is great, running from Presidents Lula in Brazil and Bachellet in Chile, both of whom support free trade and close ties with the U.S., to Chavez in Venezuela, who openly espouses socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-U.S. doctrines," Seligson said.

At the same time, populist governments are on the rise. What unifies these governments is "not their left-right orientation. Rather it is a core belief that the institutions of classical liberal democracy, especially the legislature and the courts, are anachronistic, inefficient and inconsistent with their own interpretation of the 'will of the people.'"

The result, Seligson said, is "populist leaders propose instead to listen to 'the people' and to personally carry out their will, while isolating the 'rejectionists,' usually running roughshod over fundamental democratic guarantees of civil liberties, especially free expression and the right to due process".... (and are) "...willing to follow the sharply leftist and strongly populist lead of Hugo Chavez.

Another article about the new Left and Populists describes the term Populist like this

Latin American Leaders Reinvent the Left

"The term (Populist) has come to mean short-term pandering to the masses at the expense of the long-term good for all. Similar policies left many Latin American nations deeply in debt and doomed to boom-and-bust economic cycles."

And finally we cut through all of the mumbo-jumbo to the bottom line definition in terms of the New Populists and Latin America from the Venezuelan News and Analysis website...

"Any moderately intelligent person knows that there is actually no significant difference between populism, marxism or socialism."
So are we to believe that Okie Funk is demanding to rebuild the Democrat party in the image of Hugo and Fidel?

We can only speculate, but two things are for sure... Okie Funk/Dochoc/Dr Kurt isn't demanding to rebuild the Democrat party in the image of the current Democrat party nor in the image of the Republican party or anything else we would recognize as pro American... that is certain.

It's time Oklahoman's new the truth about Dr. Kurt Hochenauer and the Leftist Populist movement.

I was able to find this nugget tucked away in the diaries over at Blue Oklahoma where DocHoc (Dr Kurt) posts on a regular basis along with regular posts at the Daily Kos.

"What we need now is a new populist movement in Oklahoma, a movement that will sweep out the new dregs of disguised fascism and restore democracy and opportunity to our state."

Glad I could be the one to clear this up, but it was a lot easier when I could just call him a moonbat.

Here is a link to the Midwest Populist Party of America... isn't it odd though that Okie Funk doesn't have any links to any populist info sites considering this is one of the main purposes of his blog?

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Dave said...

Populism is crap. The idea of a leader personally implementing the "will of the people" is not only laughable but it is terrifying as well. There are times that "the people" (i.e. the masses) are wrong and the last thing this or any other country needs is mob rule.

Two songs came to mind while reading this post. The first is “1944” by Down By Law. In this case I’m only going to share one line from the song: “cause every fascist, left or right, has a f'ed-up set of rules.” The other song is “What Are You For?” by ALL. In this case I’m going to share the song’s entire lyrics because I think they are fitting:
“Tell me how did you get so cynical and suspicious minded?
If you look for something wrong long enough I'm sure you'll find it
Save your psychic self-defense
'Cause I don't care what you're against

What are you for?
I want to know, why don't you tell me so?
What are you for?
Quit giving me negative what makes you want to live?

They shoved shit down your throat and told you that
It smells like roses
But it was just too hard to swallow, then you got
Halitosis
Save your evil, save your breath
'Cuz I don't care what you're against

What are you for?
I want to know, why don't you tell me so?
What are you for?
Quit giving me negative what makes you want to live?

You're tired of being pushed around
Want to tear the system down?
Hey bro - let's go!
Just quit your bitchin' about the situation

It's not that tough and it's not enough to point your finger
And I don't know why you should listen to me 'cause I'm just a singer
Your open mouth don't make you tough
I see you and I'll call your bluff

What are you for?
I want to know, why don't you tell me so?
What are you for?
Quit giving me negative, what makes you want to live?
What are you for?
What are you for?”

10:58 PM  
Blogger RD said...

I'm glad you commented on this one dave... in my research, I found David Horowitz' definition of liberal (the generalization) and "true liberal" which I found very interesting.

I think your "handle" Oklahoma Lefty is not quite accurate in the true sense of the word "Leftist". From what I know about you, you are left of center (true) but not a Leftist in the literal meaning.
You do fit Horowitz definition of a "true liberal" however... and thats a compliment.
IF you are Left-handed and that is all you mean by the term "Lefty", thats a different matter altogether and means you're just wronghanded not wrongheaded.(lol-kidding)

I just thought it was interesting and I thought of you when reading it. There is a link to his definition at the bottom update in my post "Let the unraveling begin".

11:18 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

I actually wrote a post a long time ago explaining the Oklahoma Lefty name. You can read it here.

I have always considered myself a liberal in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. dictionary definition; also the first couple of paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on liberalism fits my outlook). In the current political environment I am probably better described as a centrist or a liberal libertarian (I like both) than a liberal (if by liberal you mean the folks with the MoveOn mentality).

12:18 AM  
Blogger RD said...

I used "true liberal" (Horowitz definition) due to your being open to discussing opposing views... all views, which is an essential and critical element in classic true liberalism according to David who knows a thing or 2 on the subject.

How can one say they are taking a liberal approach to any subject while doing so with a closed, predetermined opinion based on a template of one-sided conditions?
One can't.

Liberalism, (the term and the political position) have been "borrowed" (cough, cough) by real leftists, communists, extremists, populists, gypsies, tramps and thieves.

Conservative-ism on the other hand has not been taken over, bought, stolen, controlled by people like Ronpaul... or the kkk, or the new improved Nazi's.
Neocons are not neo anything... but are the result of the events leading upto and following 9/11/2001 in terms of recognizing, discussing, forming a plan and acting on Islamic fascism , massive weapons development, the middle east, national security interests and the worlds oil supply.

Following 9/11 had Bill Clinton actually stood by the words he spoke and signed into law before leaving office, (regime change in Iraq to change the face of the middle east) he would have been considered a neocon... but instead he's a "liberal".

The problem with liberal Democrats like the Clintons is that instead of considering all views... they actually adopt all views, depending on the size of the crowd and the latest poll, i.e. populists.
They rely heavily on their charisma, persona and image while claiming to represent "the will of the people".
Combine that with Hillary's socialist leanings and ZAP, you've got "Liberal Populists".

Of course Hillary and the largest campaign staff EVER assembled is going to spend the next year trying to convince us she is a middle of the road, mainstream, regular gal who prays every day and hunts terrorists by night.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Redstater who remains anonymous,

Is this because you are afraid? You spend so much time personally attacking Hochenauer that me thinks you have a big ole crush on him.

3:31 PM  
Blogger RD said...

So says the anonymous person.
lol
I just LOVE it when these cute little moonbats drop by.

If by "crush" that you mean I have been crushing his ideas, crushing his claims and methods...crushing his credibility and facts or lack thereof... sure okay have it your way.
BTw- you just got crushed too!

thank you for your intelligent, but not so much, input.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

There are people who believe that the GOP has been taken over by the Religious Right and to some extent they are correct. When I used the term neo conservative I was referring to the group of Republicans that include Cheney, Rove, etc. Some of these guys are/were part of the Partnership for a New American Century and are the folks in the GOP who helped President Bush in his rise to power. I’m not saying this in a positive or negative way, just stating the facts of the situation.

I’m going to need to do some research on Horowitz…I haven’t read much (if any) of his stuff.

7:28 PM  
Blogger RD said...

the GOP and Christianity go way back long before neocons.
The left began attacking christians in the 60's and 70's and drove them to the GOP in many cases, it was not a matter of taking over, it was a natural progression.

There is a big difference in winning people to your side on the field of ideas and purchasing a political party as Soros and moveon claim to have done.
Zell and Joe would say their party left them... and I would say it has left you as well.

Nobody hijacked anything from me or Ronald Reagan... it's the same party essentially that i voted for in the 1970's with few changes in basic philosophy. Granted 9/11 changed some things, like nation building for example.

Please do read up on David Horowitz, I truly believe you may appreciate where he is coming from and his respect for open debate.

8:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home