Ned Lamont, Wal-Mart stockholder
Many liberals have lined up to support Ned Lamont's challenge to Joe Lieberman in the upcoming Democratic Party primary. Much of this support is based on Lamont's differences with Lieberman over the Iraq war.
Yet what is interesting about this election is that it highlights one of the fundamental problems with contemporary liberalism. Liberals are willing to support Ned Lamont--a millionaire capitalist who is worth, according to Time magazine, "between $90 million and $300 million", and who, it seems, owns up to $30,000 worth of Wal-Mart stock.
Rather than looking to Lieberman's faults as a symptom of a deeper problem with the Democratic Party, many liberals continue to see him as an aberration, and hope that some "better" Democrat will solve their problems. Loyalty, unfortunately, isn't always a virtue. Here we have a party that has time and time again demonstrated itself to be so utterly corrupt and bereft of ideas. It is a party that demonstrates repeatedly a stark absence of concern about corporate power and the burdensome consequences of capitalism for working people.
For what it's worth, as far as I can tell, the only candidate outside the duopoly who is running for Senate in Connecticut is Ralph Ferrucci of the Green Party.
Yet what is interesting about this election is that it highlights one of the fundamental problems with contemporary liberalism. Liberals are willing to support Ned Lamont--a millionaire capitalist who is worth, according to Time magazine, "between $90 million and $300 million", and who, it seems, owns up to $30,000 worth of Wal-Mart stock.
Rather than looking to Lieberman's faults as a symptom of a deeper problem with the Democratic Party, many liberals continue to see him as an aberration, and hope that some "better" Democrat will solve their problems. Loyalty, unfortunately, isn't always a virtue. Here we have a party that has time and time again demonstrated itself to be so utterly corrupt and bereft of ideas. It is a party that demonstrates repeatedly a stark absence of concern about corporate power and the burdensome consequences of capitalism for working people.
For what it's worth, as far as I can tell, the only candidate outside the duopoly who is running for Senate in Connecticut is Ralph Ferrucci of the Green Party.
Wow, .1% of his earnings are from Wal-Mart! Stop the presses and hang the traitor! (It's probably in a mutual fund, too).
Don't get your knickers in a twist about every silly thing (unless this was just to plug the Green Party candidate -- nothing wrong with that, but be honest about it).
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:49 PM
I disagree that it is a silly thing. It isn't the percentage of his earnings that matters; it is the hypocrisy of railing against a company that you also happen invest in--a company that progressives happen to find particularly vile in its practices.
And it is also the fact that this guy is a wealthy capitalist who is unlikely to support anything radical that will threaten corporate interests. What this says about the state of modern liberalism I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
2:59 PM
So the defense for Lamont's hypocrisy is that he is less corrupt than Lieberman? Now there's a ringing endorsement if I ever saw one. :)
I also think it is unlikely that he (or any other member of the ruling class) will gladly institute radical change to challenge his own interests as a member of the ruling capitalist class simply because he doesn't take members from his fellow travellers. Once again we have this narrowly focused binary thinking--either we must have corporate whores like Lieberman, or corporate pimps like Lamont. Maybe it is time to start thinking outside the box.
The real problem as I see it lies not with whether one Democrat is less bad than another one. Instead I think the real problem lies with the corporate ideology of the Democratic Party, and a liberalism that is loyal to that party.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
9:22 AM
Instead I think the real problem lies with the corporate ideology of the Democratic Party, and a liberalism that is loyal to that party.
So this was an ad for the Green Party. If you're going to hold the Dems to high ideals, you should start yourself with truth in advertising.
If Lamont's holdings influenced his decisions, that would be one thing. But they obviously don't -- you just don't like him by association with the Dems.
Moreover, all your opinions are to be viewed threough this narrow lens.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:51 AM
If one takes a cursory glance at my blog, it would have come as no surprise to any reader that I oppose the Democratic Party, since that theme permeates much of what I write here. I certainly do reject the governing duopoly of the capitalist ruling class, of which the Democrats and Republicans are a part. However, it is a big leap from saying that I reject the corporate ideology of the Democrats to saying that I am a supporter of the Greens (I also have my criticisms of that party as well, and in this intance I don't know enough about the Green challenger to Lieberman to be able to endorse him outright). Similarly, it is a big leap to say that Lamont's membership in the ruling capitalist class "obviously" has no influence on his decisions. Like the rest of his party, he clearly does not support anything that will challenge corporate rule in this country. His hypocrisy on the Wal*Mart question is only symptomatic of a bigger problem, not only with him, but (I believe) with the corporate liberalism of his party.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
5:34 AM
Post a Comment