Send article through e-mail

printer friendly version
Search





Obama “Shift to the Center” and the Narrow Authoritarian Spectrum in U.S. Politics

The pronounced rightward drift of the American "mainstream" political and ideological spectrum is on vivid display as we begin to approach the climax of the latest corporate-crafted quadrennial presidential election extravaganza. 

 

Listen to the latest dominant media theme on the Barack Obama campaign.  From the network news and talk shows to the pages of the leading U.S. newspapers, the corporate news and commentary authorities are abuzz with the story of Obama's move from "the left" to "the center." 

 

As recently detailed by the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal,  and the New York Times [1], these are the leading facts indicating his alleged shift from the portside to the "middle" of the political spectrum:

 

* Obama's apparent embrace of the Supreme Court ruling invalidating a Washington D.C bad on personal handguns and claiming that the Second Constitutional Amendment pertains to private citizens not just organized state "militias."

 

* his declaration of his belief in the state's right to kill certain criminals, including child rapists.

 

* his decision to become the first major party presidential candidate to bypass the public presidential financing system and to reject accompanying spending limits. This violates his earlier pledge to work through the public system and accept those limits.

 

* His support for a refurbished spy bill that grants retroactive immunity to telephone corporations for collaborating with the White House in the practice of electronic surveillance against American citizens. This violates his earlier pledge to filibuster any surveillance legislation containing such immunity.

* His appointment of the corporate-friendly Wal-Mart apologist and Hamilton Project [2] economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director - something that stands in curious relation to his earlier bashing ("I won't shop there") of Wal-Mart's low-wage practices.

 

* His emphasis on how he's a supporter of "free trade," something that seems to contradict his campaign-trail criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

 

* His "tweaking" of his claim that he would meet with Iran's president (he is adding conditions)

 

* His embrace of Bush-McCain rhetoric on the supposed Iranian nuclear threat and his related promise to do "anything" to protect the military occupation, apartheid, and nuclear state of Israel from Iran (a nation previously attacked by Israel).

 

* His ridiculous call for an "undivided" Israel-run Jerusalem despite the fact that no government on the planet (and not even the Bush administration) supports Israeli's right to annex that UN-designated international city

 

* His latest weak statements on "combat troop" withdrawal from Iraq, indicating that an Obama White House would maintain the immoral and illegal U.S. occupation of that country for an indefinite period.

 

If the stories on Obama's "shift to the center" were re-written today (I am writing on Sunday, June 29th), they'd probably have to include news that Obama may well ask Robert Gates, the hard right George W. Bush's hawkish defense secretary, to stay on into an Obama administration [3].

 

There's an unmentionable problem with this "shift to the center" narrative. Obama was already positioned well to the corporate- and Empire-friendly "middle" well before all of these recent developments. 

 

He was a defender of the death penalty during his career in the Illinois State Assembly (1997-2004).  

 

He's never been a strong gun control advocate and stayed noticeably mute on guns and the gun lobby after the horrific Virginia Tech killings last year and after the terrible Northern Illinois University killings this year.

 

It's been clear since at least the middle of the primary season that if he won the Democratic nomination Obama would become the first major party presidential candidate to bypass the public financing system.  It's also been obvious that he would justify that flip-flop by claiming that he was being funded by the American people and not the corporate elite - a claim that is loaded with no small measure of deception.

 

Consistent with his "categorical" March 2008 denunciation of "any statement that disparages our great country," the former "civil rights lawyer" Obama voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act, the worst assault on domestic U.S. civil liberties in the last half-century. That legislation permitted wholesale eavesdropping on "homeland" citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism.

 

Obama's recent Jerusalem comment was over the top and had to be partly rescinded but there's nothing new in his current conservative and imperial positions on Iraq, Iran, or Israel.  He has been bending over backwards for four years to show that he is safe for the American Empire Project and our "staunch ally" Israel (and its criminal practices toward the Palestinians) in the Middle East.

 

He's long been announcing his fierce support for an aggressive U.S. imperialism in no uncertain terms before such bodies as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Wilson Center, and the Chicago Council on Global Relations and in the CFR's journal Foreign Affairs.  His repeatedly declared eagerness to embrace unilateral interventionism and a giant military ready to "puts on the ground" in "situations beyond self-defense" and to ensure the global dominance of world's supposed "last and best hope" the United States won him praise from the neoconservative foreign policy intellectual (and John McCain adviser) Robert Kagan long before the end the primaries.  During the long primary season, Obama has proclaimed is blindness to American criminality in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Proclaiming that "the American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew," he made no effort to hide his belief that "exceptional" (superior) America is entitled and duty-bound to impose its "leaders" twisted and self-interested concepts of freedom and democracy on the rest of the world [4].

 

His foreign policy team has been loaded with interventionist and imperial hawks from the start, including people like Anthony Lake (a former Henry Kissinger protégé and a leading strategist behind the bombing of Serbia), Susan Rice (a leading supporter of "humanitarian intervention"), Gregory Craig (who pushed the Clinton administration to embrace "regime change" in Iraq), Samantha Power (a celebrated academic air-brusher and deletion-specialist when it comes to the living history of U.S. global crimes), Dennis Ross (a leading Israel occupation apologist), Sarah Sewell (who helped top Iraq occupation  commander Gen. David Petreaus update the U.S. Army's counter-terrorism manual), retired General Scott Gration (an Iraq invasion veteran), and retired General James Jones, who is being considered for the vice presidential role under Obama [5]  

 

His imperial sentiments have hardly been restricted to the Middle East.  Prior to his recent supposed "move to the center" from "the left," he endorsed U.S. client and death squad regime Columbia's right to attack "terrorists" in Ecuador and the application of the reactionary "Merida Initiative" (which combines the so-called "War on Drugs" with the so-called "war on terror" to increase repressive state power in Central America). He joined neoconservatives in warning about the ridiculous specter of Iranian - yes, Iranian - influence in South America. He has accused the Bush administration of "losing Latin America" and announced his intention to continue the vicious 47-year U.S. embargo on Cuba. He (in John Pilger's ominous and accurate words) "described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua as a ‘vacuum' to be filled" [6]. 

 

 

In the openly imperial foreign policy chapter of his 2006 campaign book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama criticized "left-leaning populists" like "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" for thinking that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for daring - imagine! - to "follow their own path to development." Such dysfunctional "reject[ion] [of] the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy" along with "American" ideas like "the rule of law" and "democratic elections"  - interesting terms for the heavily state-sponsored U.S. effort to impose authoritarian and corporate-state capitalist policy imperatives on impoverished nations  - will only worsen the situation of the global poor, Obama claimed. 

 

Obama did not comment in "Audacity" on the remarkable respect the U.S. showed for "democratic elections" and "the rule of law" when it supported an attempted military coup to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez government (because of his opposition to the U.S neoliberal agenda) in April of 2002.

 

Obama also ignored a preponderance of evidence showing that the imposition of the "free market" corporate-neoliberal "Washington Consensus" has deepened poverty across the world in recent decades. Billions are forced to live in ever-more extreme poverty as Obama audaciously instructs poor and exploited states that "the system of free markets and liberal democracy" is "constantly subject to change and improvement." 

 

Those who have the time and energy to examine the overwork-plagued U.S. "homeland" might want to note the ever-escalating inequality of U.S. society and the related, ever-deepening insecurity experienced by American working people.  Such is the ugly reality of "life," even in the U.S. - home to what Obama obsequiously called "a prosperity that's unmatched in history" - under the rule of the neoliberal doctrine that big business upholds.

 

Obama's domestic economic and social policy agenda has been straight down the regressive "free trade" corporate-neoliberal middle from the start of his presidential campaign and before.  As one expression of that business-captive centrist, he appointed centrist (corporate-neoliberal) Democratic Leadership Council and University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as his chief economic adviser during the primary campaign. His health care, economic stimulus and mortgage/foreclosure crisis proposals were all positioned to the right of those of John Edwards and even the centrist Hillary Clinton, not to mention Dennis Kucinich, the only actually Left candidate in the primaries [7].

 

Obama's notion of "universal" health care has from the start fallen far short of the single-payer system supported by most Americans for decades. It leaves the leading insurance companies in ultimate charge of medical coverage and rates.  This is consistent with his role in watering down and killing efforts toward universal health coverage in Illinois - a role for which he received praise form insurance industry lobbyists [8]. 

 

It's not for nothing that Obama has attracted the $89 million in contributions of $1000 or more - just $8 million less than McCain's total take from contributions of any and all sizes. Obama's grateful top contributors include leading Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs (#1 at $571,000), UBSAG (#3 at $365,000), JP Morgan Chase (#4 at $362,000), Citigroup (#5 at $358,000), Lehman Bros. (#7 at 4319,000), the information giant Google (#8 at $318,000), the multinational corporate law firm Sidley Austin LLP (#10 at $294,000)and the nuclear energy powerhouse Exelon (#15 at %236,000) [9].

 

Such is the harsh centrist capital- and military-pleasing reality of Obama's "leftism" prior to his supposed "shift to the center." 

 

What's realty going on is that Obama is moving further right from a position that was already firmly lodged in the "realistic" and "pragmatic" center.  He never would been in a position to make this move if he had not showed his centrist safety and "dollar value" to corporate, financial, and military approval authorities years ago [10].  

 

Meanwhile, the supposed centrist John McCain is pushing further to the dangerous and extremist starboard side.  He is moving from center-right to hard-right.  He has abandoned his onetime opposition to King George II's hyper-plutocratic tax cuts and to offshore oil drilling.  Also consistent with his mission of pinning down his party's far-right base, he has dropped his previous "liberal" approach to "illegal immigration

 

Meanwhile, we know that the actual American citizenry - the purportedly self-governing masters of the United States' allegedly export-worthy "democracy" - stands well to the social-democratic and anti-imperial left of both parties on numerous key policy issues foreign and domestic [11].  The near policy and political irrelevance of this progressive U.S. majority opinion is neither new nor surprising.  It is standard and sad American political reality given the harsh imbalance between the extreme power of the Few and the marginalization of the Many that is written into the structure and practices of the United States' corporate-managed pseudo-democracy [12]. In a time when the long proto-fascistic nightmare of King Dubya and Darth Cheney would seem to have sparked progressive fires, the supposedly "left" Obama phenomenon has proved remarkably useful to the nation's corporate and imperial overlords [13]. Obama's early seeming opposition (as a state senator) to the Iraq War, his skin color, his comparative youth and charisma, and his sheer novelty have helped him seem much more "liberal" and "progressive" than he really he is [14].  Vast "progressive" swaths of the American electorate have induced to fall for the great illusion, focusing on the carefully crafted mass-marketed image more than the substance of the candidate and the authoritarian candidate-selection process and political culture that have produced him.

 

Obama is the likely winner in November. As his ascendancy to imperial power approaches, it is urgent that progressively inclined U.S. citizens peel off the layers of seductive deception to see him and the Democrats for what they really are - partners in corporate and imperial domination and Superpower authoritarianism - and not as what they wish them to be.

 

My forthcoming "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics" (order at

www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=186987)

) is not an effort to help elect the arch-authoritarian messianic militarist John McCain.  It is designed to help progressive and other citizens distinguish myth from reality in understanding the meaning of Obama. Besides giving a deep historical interpretation of Obama's political and ideological origins and essence, it seeks to help position activists and citizens to respond positively and productively to the Obama phenomenon in coming months and years.

 

 

 

Veteran radical historian Paul Street (paulstreet99@yahoo.com) is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm), Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York: Routledge, 2005); Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); and Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics (forthcoming in summer of 2008). 

 

 

NOTES

 

1.  Susan Davis, "Obama Tilts Toward Center," Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2008; Michael Powell, "For Obama, a Pragmatist's Shift Toward the Center," New York Times, June 27, 2008; Janet Hook, "Obama Moving Toward Center: Democrat Edging Away From Left on Some Issues in Effort to Woo Independent Voters," Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2008.

 

2. The Hamilton Group is a leading "conservative" (business-friendly) economic think tank.  Furman, 37, is linked closely to Robert Rubin, the top Wall Street financial mogul and former Clinton economics advisor and Treasury secretary. Rubin's regressive views on behalf of "free trade" (including the North American Free Trade Agreement, investor's rights, wages, welfare and "deficit reduction" gave the Clinton administration "credibility" in the halls of corporate and financial power.

 

3. Sara Baxter, "Barack Obama May Recruit Defence Chief Robert Gates," London Sunday Times, June 29, 2008. read at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_

elections/article4232070.ece

 

4. Barack Obama, "A Way Forward in Iraq," Speech to Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago Illinois (November 20, 2006), available online at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward _in_iraq/index.html;  Barack Obama, "Renewing American Leadership," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007), read online atwww.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html; Barack Obama, "Moving Forward in Iraq," Speech to Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, November 22, 2005, read at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/; Lance Selfa, "The New Face of U.S. Politics," International Socialist Review (March-April 2007); Stephen Zunes, "Barack Obama on the Middle East," Foreign Policy in Focus (January 10 2008), read at www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4886; Juan Gonzales, Amy Goodman, and Jeremy Scahill. "Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come," Democracy Now (February 28, 2008) read text version at www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric;

 Jeremy Scahill, "Obama's Mercenary Position," The Nation (March 16, 2008);  Robert Kagan, "Obama the Interventionist," Washington Post, 29 April, 2007, p. B7; Paul Street, "Obama's Audacious Deference to Power," ZNet Magazine (January 24, 2007), read at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11936; Paul Street, "The Audacity of Deception: Barack Obama and the Manufacture of Progressive Illusion," Black Agenda Report (December 12, 2007), read at http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=463&Itemid=1; Paul Street, "Obama's Good and ‘Proper' War," ZNet (March 5, 2008), read at http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16760.

 

 

5. Lance Selfa, "Obama's Circle of Hawks," Socialist Worker (June 18, 2008), read at http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/18/obama-circle-of-hawks.

 

 

6. John Pilger, "In the Great Tradition, Obama is a Hawk," ZNet Sustainer Commentary (June 15, 2008), read at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3524.

 

 

7. For some useful reflections, see David Moberg, "Obamanomics," In These Times (April 2008); Max Fraser, "Subprime Obama," The Nation (February 11, 2008); Doug Henwood, "Would You Like Change with That?" Left Business Observer, No. 117 (March 2008); Paul Krugman, "Loans and Leadership," New York Times, 28 March, 2008, p. A23; Paul Krugman, "Big Table Fantasies," New York Times, 17 December, 2007; Paul Krugman, "Played for a Sucker," New York Times, 16 November, 2007; Paul Krugman, "Mandates and Mudslinging," New York Times, 30 November 2007; Paul Krugman, "Health Care Horror Stories," New York Times, 11 April 2008, p. A23.; Paul Krugman, "Responding to Recession," New York Times, 14 January, 2008; Paul Krugman, "The Edwards Effect," New York Times, 1 February 2008; Ken Silverstein, "Barack Obama, Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine," Harper's (November 2006).

 

 

8. Kip Peterson 2007.  "Democrats Debate Universal Coverage," Z Magazine (May 2007), available online at http://zmagsite.zmag.org/May2007/sullivan0507.html;

; Matt Gonzales, "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out," BeyondChron: San Francisco's Online Daily (February 28 2008) read online at www.beyondchron.org/articles/index.php?itemid=5413#more;

; Scot Helman, "PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise: Data Contrast with His Theme," Boston Globe (August 9, 2007) read at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_

lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

 

9. See data from the Campaign Finance Institute at www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=191 and from the Center for Responsive Politics at www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N000096380.

 

10.  See Silvertstein, "Obama, Inc.," for an important account of the earlier and "quieter audition" that Obama passed with the nation's legal and financial authorities and power brokers before he became a national and global phenomenon with his Keynote Address to the Democratic Convention. 

 

11.  For an I hope usefulsummary of relevant data, see Paul Street, "Americans' Progressive Opinions versus 'The Shadow Cast on Society by Business,'" ZNet Sustainer Commentary (May 15, 2008), read at www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3491.

 

 

12. A recent, brilliant, and haunting reflection is Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton, NJ" Princeton University Press, 2008).

 

13. See the interesting and suggestive reflections of Juan Santos on Barack Obama and "repressive de-sublimation" and the restoration of American imperial credibility in Juan Santos, "Barack Obama and the End of Racism," Dissident Voice,  February 13, 2008.

 

14. See the fifth chapter (titled "Obama Nation: Sixteen Reasons") in Paul Street, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008, order at

www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=186987, forthcoming in August 2008).





Comments

A Ringing Endorsement
By Street, Paul

This article has elicited e-mail messages to the effect that "Obama is not perfect but he is a Democrat" so progressives should vote for him."  I'm not sure Obama is a Democrat.  I think of him more like a Rockefeller Republican - maybe I should say Goldman Sachs Republican.  He'd like to be a "high road" corporate liberal maybe but he knows were are well into a low-road neoliberal era.  The latest thing with him (on the front page of the New York Times today) is that he will get heavily into the privatization of social services through the peeling off of public wlefare programs to religious organizations. Totally nauseating, of course, but nothing is surprising at this stage.  Still, a Rockefeller/ Goldman Sachs) Republocrat beats a dangers and extremist arch-plutocratic messianic miltiarist like Mad Bomber McCain if you are going to do the ballot thing in a contested state...in my opinion.   

 

Reply to this Comment


Re: A very polite and proper book - seriously
By Ward, Tom

Paul, Sorry if I came off as critical & humorless. I've really appreciated your commentaries for years, and every time I see your name pop up, I make sure to read it. The article was very well researched and I see no bias in your research. What I meant to say was that I was concerned the particular person I was going to forward it to would focus on that language rather than the excellent points you make. Perhaps, I am too concerned about how I would come across to others if I forwarded it (as I have long hair and identify as anarchist if forced to state my politics). Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply and all the work you do!!! I find you have an amazing way of putting things together & forward your posts often. I guess I better order the book now!

Reply to this Comment


Re: Correct link for Larissa MacFarquhar essay
By Richards, Samuel

True, though Finkelstein said "there is never an excuse for incivility in the classroom; professors should seek to teach, not argue for a position. But outside the university they have the same rights as anyone else, including the right to outraged expression. [quoting from an article summarizing his speech] "Still, Finkelstein called the whole argument over civility a 'red herring,' considering 'indubitable war criminals' like Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld have been offered posts at prestigious universities." It's a difficult dilemna though in the post-9/11 world of new McCarthyism. If even objective "teaching" using verifiable mainstream facts that illustrate the plain truth about Uncle Sam's ventures results in the ostracization of faculty, what can we do? Should instructors "self-pacify" and self-censor in hopes of retaining their job (if not tenured) and wait for the hysteria to die down, or should they stand up and risk being martyred, in hope of their personal sacrifice igniting or fueling a movement? I was reading about the Ward Churchill controversy, and contrasting that with the High School Geography teacher in Colorado case (the one who was taped comparing Bush to Hitler), and I honestly wonder what I would do were I in their shoes.

Reply to this Comment


Correct link for Larissa MacFarquhar essay
By Street, Paul

Here is the correct  link for that important 2007 Larissa MacFarquhar (LM) essay ("The Conciliator") I tried to link in my last comment:   The link I gave is to some interview with LM - an interview that is much less insightful than her article.  Sam that's a nice qote from Finkelstein but while I find it true I will add my my post-9/11 teaching experience that it only takes one scared and confused (brainwashed) kid to hear you suggest that Uncle Sam might be criminally murdering people  to get a "liberal" department chair furious at you and/or  to get your name on a right wing Web Site absurdly claiming "Lefitst domination of academia." And I will add that a professor who responds to the yearning NF describes in a fearless and truth-telling way will garner remarkable passive aggression and vicious behind the scenes nastiness from senior and tenured faculty --- mostly "liberals" who resent being outshined and implictly exposed as collaborators and cowards. Sheldon Wolin's latest book Democracy Incorporated points out that the university world self-pacified in advance for the 2003 Iraq invasion.  No state repression of campus unrest was required, reflecting what Wolin calls the safe integration of the university into the corporate state.

Reply to this Comment


On Politeness and Civility
By Richards, Samuel

I'll quote Norman Finkelstein in this regard:

""My own experience has been that young people in particular, they yearn for persons in authority to speak the unvarnished truth and give expression to the moral indignation warranted by the occasion .. . . There are moments that require breaking out of constraints of polite discourse to sound the alarm that innocent people are being butchered while we speak due to the actions of our government."

There may be something to say regarding the utility (or lack thereof) of using impolitness and incivility, especially with respect to motivating otherwise apathetic people to action, but I think more often it falls into, as Paul writes, the "epic passive aggressive and falsely polite nastiness and dysfunctional fear of (and aversion to) conflict in the liberal universe" which serves to stifle critical thinking and debate rather than encourage it.

Reply to this Comment


A very polite and proper book - seriously
By Street, Paul

Thank you all. Tom Ward, the book is written for a general public and broad audience beyond the mostly already left (often quite radical) readership of ZNet.  It totally (self-) censors-out phrases "Darth Cheney" (which I have also seen Cindy Sheehan use) and such. 

Please send the book ordering link to everyone, even and especially liberals who are into the "deeply conservative" (Larissa MacFarquhar in the very polite New Yorker)  Obama right now. If I'm right (and i predicted a White Sox World Series victory in May of 2005), some, perhaps many of them won't be into him (for good reasons) in a couple of years (if not sooner) and I want to them to look at a careful critique from the Left)...a book which also spends much of its last chapter and its Afterword on defining what a "progressive' agenda for "change" would really look like no matter who's in the White House (the language is fine - fit for tea at an aristocrat's estate or brunch with A. Huffington).  Tell them I don't blame them  for voting for Obama (which will take about  two minutes plus the drive over to the high school) given the limited options, especially if they live in a contested state. 

I'm serious about what I say at the end: "My forthcoming Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics is not an effort to help elect the arch-authoritarian messianic militarist John McCain.  It is designed to help progressive and other citizens distinguish myth from reality in understanding the meaning of Obama. Besides giving a deep historical interpretation of Obama's political and ideological origins and essence, it seeks to help position activists and citizens to respond positively and productively to the Obama phenomenon in coming months and years."

I will add that the phrase "King George" appears more than once in the brilliant elite academic book (Princeton University Press) by political scientist Sheldon Wolin noted in EN # 12 and it is accurate and appropriate in that Bush II has literally repudiated checks and balances and sought to behave in accord with the principles of the Tudors and Stuarts.

Editorial comment on language and left v. liberal: All the responsbilityy for healing the cultural divisio