Re: Cornell West book review

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Dan Scanlan wrote:
> West is particularly critical of President Bush and his
> administration, but he does not absolve the Democrats, whom he sees
> as part of the same problem. "Senators Hillary Clinton and John
> Kerry," he writes, "are contemporary paternalistic nihilists -
> contemporary Grand Inquisitors who long to believe in a grand
> democratic vision yet cannot manage to speak with full candor or
> attack the corruptions of the system at their heart."

West should get some kind of award for speaking out of 3 sides of his
mouth in a bravura fashion on the 2004 elections. Much more impressive
than Tariq Ali. Like Rashaan Roland Kirk who used to play 3 horn
instruments at once. If anybody can unravel this statement made on
Democracy Now, they are much more capable of deciphering postmodernism
mixed with Sunday Baptist preaching than I'll ever be.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/27/145200

Bush-bashing is too narrow. It is too easy. (applause) A little won't hurt
[laughter] as long as it's telling the truth. But for me, it also has to
be said in a spirit of compassion for those who are suffering owing to the
policy. I don't like the Bush-bashing that is arrogant and self indulgent
and makes you feel good about yourself as opposed to knowing what the
consequences of those policies are on the ground in Appalachia, in east
Los Angeles, in Cambridge, in New York, Chicago. But also in Iraq. Also in
Afghanistan. Also in Guatemala. Also on the West Bank. (applause) On the
ground. That's where it is. Talking about justice. Last but not least, I
want to sit down. These are simply just pillars that are requisite for a
democratic awakening and to see whether a John Kerry and a John Edwards
meets that standard. And if they don't meet that standard, then we engage
in a discourse of phrenesis, of practical wisdom, of practical judgment.
Then what other options do we have? I'll make it very clear. Where's my
dear sister--there she is. She and I traveled the country with brother
Ralph Nader, didn't we? Those were some magnificent moments. Brother
Lerner was on board, too. Why? Because there's no doubt in my mind that
Ralph Nader is a truth teller, regarding the structural arrangement and
institutional practices of the American empire and the plutocracy and
oligarchy under which we live. (Amen) And you can't be Socratic if you
doesn't respect your fellow citizens enough to tell them the truth! And
they say: What do you think about Ralph this time? I think he's still
basically right in his analysis. America hasn't changed that much since
2000. It's gotten worse. Much worse. Well how come you aren't working with
Ralph this time? He's still my brother. He's still in an exemplary
citizen. He has a right to run. I will print for him but not vote for him.
I make a different practical judgment in light of the certain situation,
but also ask John Kerry and John Edwards not to play this superficial game
of rhetoric for one constituency and rhetoric for another constituency and
not tell me what they really believe deep down in their souls in relation
to the democratic awakening and the criteria that need to be specified if
your honest vis-a-vis your citizenry. That's what I require of John Kerry
and John Edwards, you see. And at the moment, Im not excited. At all. Do
we need a united anti-Bush front? Absolutely. Absolutely. Is it good that
Ralph Nader runs around the country and speaks certain kinds of truths,
but at the same time, solicits more and more that could erode the social
base of Democratic party? Tough question. Difficult question. That's the
kind of debate we need to have as democrats. Because Ill have comrades on
both sides. I have some commerades in the convention center. Fewer and
fewer, but Ill have some in there. [laughter]