tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2364980587788164382.post4136836220256294900..comments2023-07-09T05:59:26.077-04:00Comments on Falstaff: Categorically speakingFalstaffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543557291381143262noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2364980587788164382.post-47116405656025361222010-12-04T16:45:17.938-05:002010-12-04T16:45:17.938-05:00One more thing: All of this is a discussion at the...One more thing: All of this is a discussion at the family dinner table. I very much admire Lambert's and Vastleft's acuity, wit and passion. On 95% of things, I'm with them -- and you, I suspect.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01543557291381143262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2364980587788164382.post-63643621533556395142010-12-04T16:06:31.261-05:002010-12-04T16:06:31.261-05:00We'll have to agree, as they say, to disagree....We'll have to agree, as they say, to disagree. At the very least, even if one were to adopt this conspiratorial frame (which attributes far too much prescience or control to humans than history would suggest any actual humans have ever possessed), one would have to acknowledge -- wouldn't one? -- that they're not doing such a great job of propping up their puppet. Do these moneyed folks want Tea Parties ascendant? Should not the choice of a puppet like Obama also have involved some thought about how to build a new and sustainable center-right frame (a la Reagan)? <br /><br />More generally, I don't think Mark C is right -- or, at least, not importantly right. I don't think the Clintons and those in Bill's administration are accurately described as "forward-thinking conservatives," and I also do not lament his and Al Gore's recognition of the enormous boon to the humans represented by globalization and digital technology, including the radical democratization they make possible. Hundreds of millions of people around the world have been able to move into the middle class because of that. Entire economies have been improved. Although we haven't yet evolved our political institutions to stabilize that and make it more equitable and sustainable, the simple fact of it is wonderful at a world-historic scale, and Bill Clinton's administration helped it by freeing the Democratic Party from worn-out Marxist tropes. They took the first steps toward a 21st century liberalism, based not on Industrial Age analysis of economic relations, but on the economic, societal and environmental dynamics of a post-industrial age.<br /><br />To me, Obama is nothing like Bill or Hillary -- either ideologically or as a leader. And lumping them together seems to me one more demonstration of the limits of purely ideological analysis.<br /><br />So... I don't believe it is "really really simple," if by "simple" one means "the universe is divided into two things: left and right." I am a critter of the left (in my own eyes, anyway -- your mileage may differ), but when I look out, I see a more complex system of systems. In that, I guess, I'm professorial, too.<br /><br />Finally, my point is obviously not that one should give Obama a pass because of his motives or identity or beliefs. I think that should be abundantly clear from everything I've written. The point of this post was that it's not accurate to ascribe "political success" to him -- much less to whack Paul Krugman for supposedly being dumb at a category level for his failure to understand this.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01543557291381143262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2364980587788164382.post-81527892299503898972010-12-04T15:27:37.950-05:002010-12-04T15:27:37.950-05:00Just back from reading comments on Krugman's &...Just back from reading comments on Krugman's "Class and Social Security. Mark C, comment 7 (http://community.nytimes.com/comments/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/class-and-social-security/?permid=7#comment7):<br /><br />"The professor, as professors are wont to do, is thinking to much. While he may be correct about the VSP's, the villagers who are blessedly unaware of how policy affects the lowly proles, he is almost certainly wrong about the Democratic Party itself.<br /><br />"The simple truth is the party was infiltrated by forward thinking conservatives decades ago through the DLC and other organizations and is now controlled by covert Republicans. And they are very close to achieving their goal of destroying a once great party.<br /><br />"It really, really, really is that simple. And the sooner liberals accept that fact the sooner we can start working on real solutions in earnest."<br /><br />You know, it doesn't matter who O is or what he really believes. He has played his part.<br /><br />(And as for black voters, they supported a man who gave a hundred million dollars to a real estate crook who let <i>black</i> people freeze in the Chicago winter, in return for contributions and a nice house. Sorry, but the attitude "He may be a crook but he's our crook" doesn't put food on the table.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02739294723464687824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2364980587788164382.post-22857080187726612912010-12-04T15:06:17.821-05:002010-12-04T15:06:17.821-05:00Sorry, but O was selected to destroy the Democrati...Sorry, but O was selected to destroy the Democratic Party, destroy the New Deal, and neutralize opposition from what we call the Left. He's a puppet. Yeah, this looks like a plan—just think back to the state of the Republicans at the end of 2008.<br /><br />Or, to be charitable, they can't be as dumb as they seem.<br /><br />What's in it for O personally? He gets to put the U.S. in its place.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02739294723464687824noreply@blogger.com