Weighing in Verbosely on the First Presidential Debate
Published by Quin September 28th, 2008 in Governmental Failures, McCainery, Obamarama, Politics, Remember NovemberWell, I just watched the debates myself. Via YouTube. The easiest YouTube to find was via Fox News’s feed, which was annoying because they so often did closeups or split-screens of the candidates and never did wider shots– so I couldn’t judge for myself if it was true, that McCain was supposedly never able to look at Obama in the eye. But even regardless of that, McCain came across shifty; Obama, self-assured. Which just means, if Obama was saying evil things too, then they were doubly dangerous, because he was able to present them as though they were reasonable.
Now, as anyone who reads my posts knows, I’m critical of Obama/Biden. More than McCain/Palin, actually– everybody with half a brain already knows how evil the Republicans are; I just want people to assess more rigorously just exactly how much of a lesser evil the Democrats really are– if indeed, they are a lesser evil at all. Anyway, if you’re an Obama fan, I urge you to look at my analysis and tell me where you think I’m being unfair. Maybe I’ll see the light. If I did, I can tell you I’d be much happier in general right now.
Let’s just review some of the things Obama said in the debate. (All emphasis mine, of course.)
We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball… So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.
Wait– Iraq’s a clusterfuck… and so the lesson to be learned is that we should never hesitate to use military force??? Maybe we’d have a better chance of using our military wisely next time if we hesitated just a little bit more.
Now here’s Obama praising Bush and McCain’s Glorious Thrusting Surge:
Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
Actually, this is not even nearly so bad as when Obama went on Fox News recently to declare that the surge had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”.
Or, as Juan Cole put it in his recent assessment, “The level of violence at this moment in Iraq is similar to what prevailed on average during one of the 20th century’s worst ethnic civil wars! It is still higher than the casualty rates in Sri Lanka and Kashmir, two of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world.”
But nice of Obama to internalize Bush/McCain talking points so well. I’m sure he’s run the numbers and it’ll win him more votes, so that’s all that matters, right?
MCCAIN: …And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.
OBAMA: That’s not true.
MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral…
OBAMA: That’s not true.
This was actually pretty funny. That’s right, Obama, get all righteously indignant. You and McCain are going to prove all us naysayers wrong! Golly, we’re gonna WIN in Iraq! Hooray! I can’t wait to see what “winning” even means.
Oh wait, Obama already told us:
We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they [the Iraqis] have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we’re going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.
Indeed, what an elegant solution. It seems only right to ask the Iraqis to pay for their own reconstruction. In the same way that, if the mafia burns down my house with my family inside, and then sells the remains of the furniture for scrap, it’s only decent to give me some of the profits. Funerals cost money, you know.
But the war can’t just END! Think of all the poor war profiteers who have to feed their poor starving stock portfolios! No, we have to bring the war to Afghanistan and Pakistan next! But wait, maybe I’m wrong about his intentions in Pakistan?
Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said. And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out…
This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops. And we’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
So… not attacking Pakistan. Just crossing its borders without its permission, trying to kill some folks and maybe hitting some innocent civilians in the process. In a nuclear-armed country that has expressly asked us not to do this, please. And which by doing so, threatens to help destabilize an already teetering government. With a population of 175 million people. And (repeating myself, I know) nuclear weapons.
Or in other words, Obama is just following in Bush’s footsteps yet again. Way to go, Senator Hope and Change!
In the last bit of this edition of “Imperialist Idol”, Obama once more insists on reinforcing the dangerous, and dishonest, framing of Iran as a nuclear threat:
Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East. Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions.
Well, at least Obama is following in the footsteps of previous Imperialist Idol Bill Clinton here. You know, who used those same kinds of sanctions against Iraq, which worked so well. (At least, if by “so well”, you mean causing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children– don’t worry, it was worth it!)
I only actually watched the first 6 of 11 segments on YouTube– after that, I just read the transcripts. But every once in a while, I’d lose my place, then read for a bit and discover that I thought I’d been reading Obama when it was actually McCain, and vice-versa. I’m not kidding. This really happened a couple of times. When I was just reading their words– not knowing who was speaking– I couldn’t tell the difference between them. It’s Coke vs Pepsi. Marlboros vs Camels. Blancs bonnets et bonnets blancs.
Obama always took great pains to say he agreed with McCain on every major point of substance. Then, he would give some minor policy detail on which they differed. But over and over and over, he just reaffirmed the same talking points as McCain, the same frames. Oh well!
During this economic meltdown under the watch of a member of the very family that also helped get us into the S&L crisis in the 80s, I have to say that my patience with the whole “the two parties are just alike!” narrative has come short. Al Gore *was* better than Bush, and Obama is better than McCain. What you want is what can’t happen in a democracy, which is for a politician to somehow turn the entire country’s opinions on certain subjects around. It doesn’t work that way. Activists have to change the minds of the people first, and then the politicians come around.
That’s because they work for us. I think people expecting politicians to stake out leadership by taking positions considered politically extreme forget the basic reality that they work for us. And the public is simply not in a place to accept that the country’s military is more about imperialism than defense.
Demanding the impossible of politicians is a way for leftists to shirk their responsibilities. It’s our job as concerned citizens and activists to change people’s minds. And the politicians will follow.
Frankly, one of the reasons Republicans really are worse than Democrats is that they lie to get into office. They say, “I’m X,” and what they are is Y. Centrist Democrats, like it or not, get elected honestly.
Amanda, I really appreciate your response. I know that the majority of readers here probably disagree with me whenever I write one of these Democrat-critical posts. And that’s fine and good. It’s part of why I’m still writing here. I want that disagreement, and the conversation which can follow! My political worldview has changed enormously over the last year, and I recognize it might continue to evolve as I learn more and more. Likewise, I hope others would be open to change as well. I’ve been frustrated by the fact that, for whatever reason, I seem to have trouble getting people who disagree with me to take me on in any substantive way. So thanks for stepping up.
And even though you’re growing impatient with the whole “the two parties are the same” narrative, I hope you’ll still be patient with ME.
Now, on to what you wrote.
“During this economic meltdown under the watch of a member of the very family that also helped get us into the S&L crisis in the 80s…”
This economic meltdown we’re having, it’s true, happened under the Republican watch. But its causes are fully bipartisan.
“Al Gore *was* better than Bush, and Obama is better than McCain.”
Until quite recently, I believed that Al Gore would have been incredibly better, too. And I remember how right I *knew* I was about this fact. And so I say what I am about to say with a little bit of trepidation, knowing that I seriously run the risk of never being taken seriously by you or many other readers of this blog again…
But. Here goes. (taking a deep breath)
I now have real doubts as to whether it’s safe to assume that Al Gore would, in fact, have been a much better president than Bush.
*GASP!* (The room goes silent. Everybody looks around at each other, some with eyebrows raised. Somebody in the back titters, nervously.)
Ahem. Yes, well, that’s a whole new can of piranhas I’d be opening up there. I think rather than getting into why I think this here, I’ll turn that into my next post. It deserves a full explanation, and if I’m going to hang myself, it’s more fun to do it in full public view.
“What you want is what can’t happen in a democracy, which is for a politician to somehow turn the entire country’s opinions on certain subjects around. It doesn’t work that way. Activists have to change the minds of the people first, and then the politicians come around.”
To a certain extent I agree with this. I hope you recognize that I’m not writing what I do to change Obama’s mind about anything. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t read this blog. It is to change the minds of the people that I write. Right now, people’s minds are overrun with election fever. They won’t listen to much else; because after all, this is The Most Important Election Ever. (And despite the snark implied by my capitalization of the term, I recognize that it quite possibly truly is.) This being the case, people are more inclined to listen when you are talking about the objects of their focus– namely, the horses in the race, or rather donkeys and elephants
Why attack Obama? Because he is the Sacred Cow, and all Sacred Cows should be questioned. That’s one way to get people to really question their own beliefs… and from that, to change.
“Demanding the impossible of politicians is a way for leftists to shirk their responsibilities.”
The kinds of demands I have are only “impossible” because so few people are demanding them. Haven’t you yourself written in the past about the importance of widening the Overton window on the Left? (Apologies if I’m getting you mixed up with another blogger about this.) That window ain’t getting any wider unless some of us Lefties start asking for bigger things. Continuously validating a Center-Right candidate like Obama with our support and votes GUARANTEES that that window will just keep on closing.
“Centrist Democrats, like it or not, get elected honestly.”
Presuming they get elected at all, of course. Clinton only won because Perot split the vote, and of course Gore and Kerry lost. (Or at least made things close enough that the Republicans, who are good at such things, could nudge the pieces on the table in their direction.) I suspect Obama may just be taking us down the same garden path.
But of course, according to the “two parties are just alike” narrative I follow, I guess it really doesn’t matter that much to me one way or the other. Whee! (Quin shudders involuntarily and then breaks down weeping)
That’s fine and all, but WHO are you asking? You’re still (indirectly) asking the politicians for these bigger and better things. What Amanda is saying (and forgive me if I’m misreading) is that you move the Overton window NOT by making demands of politicians, but by making demands of your fellow citizens.
* * *
I also find the argument about the nonvoting 1/3 of the country to be extremely hollow. If a Green* thinks the Democrats should focus on the nonvoting slice of America instead of fighting over the “center-crumbs,” the obvious retort is: well, why don’t the Greens try to pick them up? The obvious answer is: because nonvoters don’t vote!
The big Parties aren’t stupid; if they thought those people could actually be persuaded to vote, they’d be fighting for their votes tooth and claw. If they’re wrong, and this slice of society is such an easy ‘get’, smaller parties should try to get them.
*or insert your third party of choice
I don’t think anyone on this site is the kind of person to blindly follow any leader, regardless if he’s an elephant or a donkey (American politics are stupid, why do parties need animal mascots?!). But after the left mostly abandoned and ignored Kerry because he wasn’t Howard Dean or some other “perfect” candidate, we got four more years of corruption, war, greed, and crisis after crisis. We have an endless war, a stronger al-Quaeda, a politicized justice system, a staunchly conservative majority on the Supreme Court, richer and greedier CEO’s, a defanged SEC, a middle class that is buckling under the stress of $4 gasoline and higher heating/cooling costs, and a population that is so embedded with republican talking points, they think a president who is articulate and intelligent is a bad thing. I mean, seriously, I know you’re not in the U.S., but, if you could hear our empty headed, vapid media you would understand. The criticism of Obama in his debates, forums, press conferences is that he’s too nuanced and complex. Thats a criticism..WTF?!?
If Obama didn’t constantly praise the troops, and credit them with saving the world for democracy at every opportunity, the meme would be “Obama hates the troops”. Then internet rumors would abound that he wants to throw all the military people into prisons where they’ll be tortured, while giving Osama bin Laden the congressional medal for bravery. If Obama says the surge didn’t work because although a briefly successful tactic, it failed to promote long term strategic changes and goals, and that the Sunni Awakening was the main reason for a downturn in violence, he would get criticized for being too professorial. If Obama said that the IEAE reports stated that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb, and that cooperating with them would promote a safer and healthier foreign policy, then he would get hit with not understanding the “enemy”, being “pro muslim” and hating Israel. (And you know, once people think you’re critical of the sainted Israel, you can never run for public office again. Because that means you hate God, Jesus, and Christians.)
Just being a democrat puts the candidate in the position of being weak on “terra”, not understanding foreign policy, and being a “pussy liberal coward”. Obama can’t just be our president, he has to be the entire country’s president. And the entire country doesn’t study foreign politics, history, economic policies, etc. Like Amanda said, its our job to change the country’s attitude, but its not going to be done overnight. Lets get this guy elected, and maybe the country can see that democratic economic policies work (they’re not tax and spend liberals), that a more diplomatic and nuanced approach to foreign policy really does keep us safer, that cooperating with the world is better than pissing on it and saying they should count themselves lucky cause its “good American piss”, and that having really intelligent people in public office is a good thing. When that day comes, then we can demand more and more progressive leaders. But if we throw our hands in the air, and refuse to vote because Obama and McCain are too much alike, than we’ll never get to that bright, progressive future.
Amanda: What you want is what can’t happen in a democracy, which is for a politician to somehow turn the entire country’s opinions on certain subjects around.
I can’t speak to what Quin wants or doesn’t want, but your characterization here inverts the reality. The fact is that the country already does agree with the progressive agenda on issue after issue—and this despite the fact that there’s no major mainstream voice for these viewpoints. The reason the Democrats keep losing is not because genuine progressives desert them out of a naive or misguided desire for purity, but because the Democrats are too co-opted by and subservient to corporate power to champion exactly these issues—which could easily lead them to electoral landslides. And when liberals and progressives vote for Democrats despite the Democrats’ rejection of progressive values like these, all they do is reinforce that that’s a viable strategy for the party to pursue. The only hope of getting the Democrats to abandon that strategy is to make them pay a price for it.
(I’ve written much more on this theme here, which takes as its starting point former Democratic operative Lawrence O’Donnell’s admonition that the Democrats know they don’t have to listen to the left because the left has nowhere to go).
sabrina: But after the left mostly abandoned and ignored Kerry because he wasn’t Howard Dean or some other “perfect” candidate, we got four more years of corruption, war, greed, and crisis after crisis.
I’m used to seeing “the left” blamed for Gore’s loss (and you’ve got the sneer about wanting “perfection” down pat)—but Kerry’s? I have to wonder if you’re joking. The left threw its support behind Kerry not just grudgingly, but with manic (and deeply misguided) enthusiasm. No, Kerry lost because he was a vacillating, triangulating stuffed shirt whose positions were practically indistinguishable from George Bush’s. His defeat was solely his own fault, just as Gore’s defeat was solely Gore’s fault.
Democrats need to stop trying to blame “the left” for their own failures, as though they possess a prior claim on every non-Republican vote and it’s incumbent on those of us who reject their conservative, pro-corporate approach to justify why we should be allowed to vote for anyone but them. Like it or not, the Democrats don’t own anyone’s votes; they have to earn them, just like anyone else would.
My enthusiasm for Obama has been shrinking day by day and the debates were quite disappointing. I agree with Quinn, the very similar talking points between the two candidates was a wtf moment. And I also agree that the assumption that Al Gore would have been a better President is questionable. What we see of Gore now is someone who is not constrained by political and “special interest” pressures to promote ideologies he believes in. But his election strategy made him seem quite similar to and in some cases, worse than Bush. Look at who his VP pick was - Joe Lieberman. If today we have Dick Cheney presidency, what’s to say that Al Gore’s government wouldn’t have been a Joe Lieberman presidency? And if you see where Lieberman’s ideology rests now, would he really have been better than Cheney? In hindsight, with the new and improved Gore, the left is arguing for Gore, but during the election cycle Gore didn’t inspire us with that confidence.
I will still be voting for Obama, but his rhetoric is growing thin.
Quin: “I now have real doubts as to whether it’s safe to assume that Al Gore would, in fact, have been a much better president than Bush.
*GASP!* (The room goes silent. Everybody looks around at each other, some with eyebrows raised. Somebody in the back titters, nervously.)”
Actually, it’s more like the whole room rolls their eyes and debates whether or not to burst into mocking laughter. Yep, that post had better be a good one, explaining how nearly anybody who is not a moron wasn’t going to be an improvement on someone who was one, keeping all other factors completely equal.
“Why attack Obama? Because he is the Sacred Cow, and all Sacred Cows should be questioned.”
Good lord. Lots n lots of people don’t think Obama is the Sacred Cow–polls had him nearly neck and neck with McCain FOREVER. Yer not one of those people who shops around looking for stuff to get offended at just because nobody else is getting sufficiently offended with a particular individual to suit you, are ya? ew. It’s so much more interesting when people do stuff based upon genuine principles, rather than a desire to be seen as sexily rebellious.
Thanks for your comments! To those who disagree with me, please know that I love you all, and invite you with an open heart and mind to keep on trying to poke holes in my arguments. If you can!
People who are “non-voters” turn into voters if you actually give them a candidate who inspires them. Case in point: me. Even people who are voters will cross party lines to vote for a candidate who inspires them. It’s impossible to be inspirational by sounding exactly the same as your opponent. But the center is where the money is for politicians. Money first– figuring out how to snag enough voters with it, second.
That’s why Obama is staking out the same middle territory as McCain. And it’s paid off nicely, better for him than for McCain– the billionaires have already cottoned on to the fact that Obama will be a much more believable spokesperson for their agenda (hence, for instance, his support for the now-defunct $700,000,000,000 bailout plan).
Funny, so many people blamed the DLC for forcing our Dem candidates to play the center; but Obama has managed to do it all by himself.
These points are all true. Fact is, Obama will get criticized for whatever he does. So why not stand for what’s right? (Well, I guess I’ve already answered the reason he doesn’t in my reply to MH.)
Lets get this guy elected, and maybe the country can see that democratic economic policies work (they’re not tax and spend liberals),
Like the Obama-supported $700,000,000,000 Bailout Bill, you mean? (Dems 140 yea, 95 nay; Repubs 65 yea, 133 nay, 1 not voting)
that a more diplomatic and nuanced approach to foreign policy really does keep us safer,
See above re: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
and that having really intelligent people in public office is a good thing.
Intelligence in elected officials means nothing unless they use it to do good things. Cf: Richard Nixon.
When that day comes, then we can demand more and more progressive leaders.
When that day comes, we will have lost any leverage that we once had. See John Caruso’s Lawrence O’Donnell link.
But it’s so comforting to blame Ralph.
Shh! Don’t tell Obama you’ll vote for him, or he’ll never change!
Agreed on Lieberman, and by the way, Lieberman’s ideology really hasn’t changed that much in the past eight years. It’s just that he’s been expelled from the tribe, so now his hawkishness is bad.
Because in the history of American politics, this has never been a winning position?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that at one point Obama was pegged as having the most left-wing voting record in the Senate? Not that that’s saying much because a) it’s the US Senate and b) ‘left-wing’ isn’t always quantifiable.
The idea that all candidates have to move to the centre to get elected is odd in the context of this election, because McCain has distinctly moved away from the centre in order to win more votes - and it worked, briefly at least, though it seems likely it will not succeed in November. (The Tories in the UK tried the same tack after 1997, and it never really paid off, while their recent hop back to the centre has worked well both for them and for democracy in general). So even if you think that that’s what Obama’s playing at, it’s clearly not the only strategy on offer.
My immediate reaction to the post was the exact opposite of Amanda’s - I felt it likely that Obama was misrepresenting himself as being more of a centrist than he really is. On CiF recently I read one of those pieces where the media is talking about its very favourite topic, that is, the media, and the media person who wrote the article was noting that way back when Roosevelt was campaigning against Hoover, the media people deplored the sameyness of the candidates and wished that they would display some ideological or policy difference. And look how that presidency turned out!
Ultimately, I don’t think it’s possible to foresee which campaign promises will result in a better presidency simply because we can’t know what will shape that presidency. It’s not the UK; there are no manifestos and no way to push through an important bill even if it makes the legislature fear for their electoral backsides. It’s impossible to know whether Gore would’ve been a decent president because we will never know what he would have done after 9/11. So instead it’s about, heh, who you would rather rely on at 3am. Sarah Palin? C’mon.
I really like John’s point about the Democrats not deserving anyone’s vote, but…3am, Sarah Palin. Which is a shame, because six months ago I was thinking ‘Hey, whichever of these three people becomes president of the country I live in, the world will be okay, better than it’s been for the last 8 years.’ Sod.
Come now, Lisa, we ALL want to appear sexily rebellious.
That said, really, I don’t need to look very hard to get offended by Obama. He’s downright eager to show how far he can outdo the Republicans in the “killing brown people” department. Doesn’t this offend you, too? Why this doesn’t appear to offend most of his defenders is testament to the fact that, as long as he is the Democratic candidate, he IS a Sacred Cow– not to 100% of the public, as you are seeming to think I meant, but to those partisans who just want a Democrat to win.
On Al Gore– he might just be the fattest Sacred Cow of all (no stupid pun intended regarding his weight, by the way). Even if I had the ghosts of Mark Twain, Hunter S Thompson, and Peter Camejo all guiding my hands over the keyboard, I doubt I could write a post which pleased you or most of the other readers of this site, let alone convinced you. People don’t slaughter their Sacred Cows easily. You’re right, mocking laughter is exactly what I expect. Still, people’s minds do change over time when exposed to new ideas. Mine did, and maybe some yours will too; or maybe not. In the meantime I’ll just do my best with writing it, and I hope you’ll read it with at least a slight attempt at something resembling an open mind.
Or at the very least, and I know it’s always tempting with ideas (and people) you strongly disagree with, I’d appreciate if you tried not being so dismissive.
Dude, if you’re determined to believe that I consider either Al Gore or Obama to be “Sacred Cows” of any descriptions, I don’t suppose I can stop you, but yep, I can mock and dismiss you for making such a claim. I mean, c’mon, even a surface perusal of what I’ve written just on this site makes such claims mockworthy! And nope, Obama isn’t a “Sacred Cow” to most Democrats, either–to his partisans in particular, sure! But to a lot of Dems, for example, H. Clinton is the Sacred Cow and they are voting for Obama only grudgingly.
As I said, if you can put forth a post that would convince me that anybody less stupid and reactionary than Bush specifically would have been just as bad as he has been (I’m indifferent to whether you choose Al Gore or somebody else), then I will withdraw my mocking laughter. But I don’t think you’re going to be able to do that. I don’t think anybody could.
Now, now, Quin. If you’re going to regularly employ the tactic of snotty dismissiveness yourself, it is not impressive when you, upon now discovering how unfun it is to be on the receiving end of it, hop on your high horse and ask others to stop taking it with you. I can say that I personally, at least, will absolutely stop taking it with you as soon as you drop it yourself.
I hate that the only way I can have something resembling an actual live conversation here requires me to stay up past 3 in the morning.
Well, there HAVE been winning exceptions, though probably not at the presidential level.
This is a standard trope that conservatives ALWAYS pull on Dem presidential frontrunners. Although if you define “liberal” as, “voting the Democratic party line”, there’s some truth to it– Obama has voted with fellow Democrats 97% of the time since he’s been in the Senate.
…way back when Roosevelt was campaigning against Hoover, the media people deplored the sameyness of the candidates and wished that they would display some ideological or policy difference. And look how that presidency turned out!
Roosevelt seems a great president in hindsight, largely due to his having taken us into the “good war”, which we happened to win at the end, and then America had a long glow of warm feelings afterward because an economic boom then commenced, due to the fact that America was the only major player left standing which hadn’t been ravaged by war, and still had loads of natural resources to boot. But, there are other viewpoints of his presidency; it’s just that nobody likes to criticize warmongers when they’re winners.
Franklin Roosevelt oversaw an Office of Censorship, made plans to detain hundreds of peaceful political enemies, imprisoned war opponents, and interned 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans. That’s all commonly accepted, yet swept under the rug. And to top it all off, there are minority (but reputable) economists who say that even the New Deal wasn’t what it was cracked up to be! Then again, you can always find an economist willing to say anything, can’t you.
So instead it’s about, heh, who you would rather rely on at 3am. Sarah Palin? C’mon.
Hmm. Might have a point there. Then again, not sure I want Biden the Bloody answering that call, either. Still…
Fair enough. Besides, an argument over what makes something a “Sacred Cow” or not is really the most tedious thing we could be doing, anyway.
…then I will withdraw my mocking laughter. But I don’t think you’re going to be able to do that. I don’t think anybody could.
I already told you that! Still, it’s a blog, I have opinions, gotta share ‘em.
Now, now, Quin. If you’re going to regularly employ the tactic of snotty dismissiveness yourself, it is not impressive when you, upon now discovering how unfun it is to be on the receiving end of it, hop on your high horse and ask others to stop taking it with you. I can say that I personally, at least, will absolutely stop taking it with you as soon as you drop it yourself.
Evidently, to have elicited this response, I’ve been being snottily dismissive of you without realizing it. (Though I’m pretty sure I’ve never begun a response with “Now, now, Lisa”.) I’m sure it’s true; we all like to think we’re just being endearingly sarcastic, and meanwhile the other party is feeling wounded inside. [EDIT: "Come now, Lisa" is COMPLETELY different from "Now, now, Lisa", as you surely understand.]
Not sure what to do about this. I certainly don’t want this to devolve into a discussion of what constitutes healthy sarcasm vs belittling dismissiveness. I guess I’ll just have to say, fine, have at me, gloves off, give no quarter, mock away.
But do try to be gentle.
“I certainly don’t want this to devolve into a discussion of what constitutes healthy sarcasm vs belittling dismissiveness.”
I dunno, those discussions can be pretty useful–they tend to improve the constructive communications abilities of the parties so engaging. Of course, if constructive is optional, then they’re a waste of time. Up to you, what your goal is.
Do you think it will help? Okay, let’s do it. I just wish there was another place we could do it– I hate hijacking threads.
But what the hell, it’s my own post, I can do whatever I want with it. Sure, let’s get all touchy-feely and work on optimizing our constructive communications ablities for a bit. (Did you learn to talk like that at that team-building workshop you mentioned?) Gotta warn you I need to go to bed soon, though.
I guess first step is identifying the problem. When was the last time you felt I was being snottily dismissive of you?
Quin:”When was the last time you felt I was being snottily dismissive of you?”
Sure, let’s get all touchy-feely and work on optimizing our constructive communications ablities for a bit. (Did you learn to talk like that at that team-building workshop you mentioned?) Gotta warn you I need to go to bed soon, though.
If you dislike the public eye, we can always do it via e-mail.
Ha. We’ve got some work to do, then. Or I do, anyway.
Actually, don’t mind the public eye. Sunshine disinfectant and all that. Or was that a statement of preference on your part? What do you think about me starting another “etiquette” post for us to hash this out at? Tell you what, I’m writing one now and going to bed, but I won’t post it. If you like the idea, just go in there and hit “Post”. But if you think private communication would be more fruitful, then pop me an e-mail instead.
HEY EVERYBODY ELSE! People who actually want to talk about Obama and how evil the Democrats are/aren’t! PLEASE COME BACK! We promise to be civil. Well, TRY to be anyway.
I like the idea but I don’t wanna post your post!!
I’ll wait til you get back on and do it yourself. Sounds like fun. 
I lied. NOW I’m going to bed. At 6 in the morning. Damn this net addiction!!!! I’ve got to be at work in 3 hours!!! I am a FOOL!!!
Anyway, great! Let’s have at it, then.
Why attack Obama? Because he is the Sacred Cow, and all Sacred Cows should be questioned.
I enjoy attacking sacred cows, too, but I prefer to do it when the stakes are, yes, a tad lower. The Democrats did in fact screw the pooch by leveling milder versions of the same deregulation scams as Republicans. But were they as bad? No. And the Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq is a major, unavoidable difference to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives.
The kinds of demands I have are only “impossible” because so few people are demanding them. Haven’t you yourself written in the past about the importance of widening the Overton window on the Left?
Yes, but I’m talking to activists and concerned citizens trying to talk to people on the ground. And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Politicians will always fall inside the most narrowly defined Overton window possible, or else get filtered out by the democratic system. They don’t change the Overton window. The Overton window is applied to them like a ruthless filtering system. Say something out of bounds, and you’re out of the running.
On the subject that I know well, you see how this works. Right wing extremists declared abortion to be “murder”, which opened the window enough on the right for right-leaning politicians to allude to “life”. Pro-choicers played it cautiously, saying, “Privacy”, and politicians—who are always inside the window, not opening it or moving it—said, “Unavoidable tragedy”.
That’s actually changed. The Obama and Clinton campaigns were a little less harsh on abortion and women who have them than Bill Clinton was with his “safe, legal and rare” stuff. I think in part it’s because feminists have been a) fed up and b) have more access to technology to express themselves, and have managed to reintroduce “Women’s liberation” into the equation. From my perspective, it was done mostly through in the trenches talking, for years. It was putting forth the idea that abortion is a moral good that helps women in need. Obama and Hillary Clinton were given more elbow room and inched slightly to the left on the issue, and now talk about abortion in terms that are closer to “important life decision” than “major fucking tragedy”. That’s how you do it.
I was swept up in Naderite thinking in my wayward youth, and for me, it was an impatience. I just knew there had to be a tool to force Democrats to move to the left in one, swift blow. But then I came around to realizing that if I wanted to learn effective politics, I needed to be willing to look at who practices them, and what they do right. You know who has? The far right in America. And did they take over the Republican party by declaring that they were no different than Republicans, and threatening them and taking symbolic but ultimately useless stands like 3rd party voting? Nope.
What they did was they changed the public, and that changed the party. They built think tanks and worked their asses off taking over and creating a non-profit and opinion-making infrastructure. They worked on getting their candidates elected into smaller offices, slowly moving up the chain of leadership. They pushed forward slowly but surely. And the tortoise won that race. Now John McCain can’t wipe his ass without phoning Grover Norquist first and then James Dobson.
If you want to be a Norquist/Dobson to the Democrats, then I highly recommend looking at what they did right.
Quin - this was on CiF, so the war context of Roosevelt’s success wasn’t at the forefront of my mind when I read it; just the fact that the New Deal was nowhere in sight when he was on the campaign trail.
Er, I meant “no different than Democrats.” As in, the right wingers singled out Republicans and flattered them into coming over, instead of insulting them by calling them closet liberals.
It’s exactly when the stakes are highest that sacred cows should be attacked! At least, if one’s criticisms are *right*. As to whether mine are, well I guess that’s what we’re debating. Right? Or do you on the whole agree with my criticisms, but believe that this lesser evil is the best we can hope for, so I should just pipe down and not ruin the mood?
The Democrats did in fact screw the pooch by leveling milder versions of the same deregulation scams as Republicans. But were they as bad? No.
Sorry, not clear on whether you’re referring to the specific recent past in a way I’m not quite getting or to the general deregulation that’s been occurring piece by piece over the last 20 years. But whichever, the Dems were definitely as bad– because the Republicans kept on inviting them to play their game, and the Dems kept on agreeing to, over and over. Most recent case in point: the bailout bill. (Which only thankfully failed due to a rift in the Republican ranks, and the American people finally getting active about something. Funny how it wasn’t the *Democrats* who listened to the activists…)
And the Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq is a major, unavoidable difference to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives.
I’ll save my full argument here for my impending Gore post. But please remember– though it’s easier to block out this inconvenient truth from one’s mind– that Gore was an enthusiastic supporter of the sanctions which, even according to the UN’s own figures, killed over a million Iraqis, over half of them children, during his tenure (and according to others it was half again as much). And that he was one of the most vocal proponents of bombing Iraq… at least, when it was Democrats who were doing it.
I think there is a strong case for moral equivalence here; the only difference is that Bush has been spending a lot more money and killing a lot more American soldiers to do the same nasty.
“Support Democrats! They’re more EFFICIENT murderers!”
On the subject that I know well, you see how this works. Right wing extremists declared abortion to be “murder”, which opened the window enough on the right for right-leaning politicians to allude to “life”.
I’m not sure the situation you’re describing is properly analogous to the question of whether it’s an effective Overton-Window-opening tactic for extremists to directly criticize politicians for their stances. Unless you can point to pro-choice Republicans that the Far Right stayed away from criticizing, I don’t see how your example demonstrates historical precedence. (I mean, maybe you can. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
In the meantime, I’m going to go on believing that publicly expressing leftist viewpoints (unfortunately “radical” as they apparently appear to Centrist Democrats, but for the most part within the mainstream of public opinion), even if it takes the form of criticizing Democrats, will always minutely nudge the Overton windowframe a bit further left.
Do you agree with me that public criticism and debate of the candidates’ stances is healthy and good? If so, then please disagree with my (and the Left’s) particular criticisms of Obama because they’re wrong (and show us why). But don’t disagree with it just because you’re afraid it hurts your preferred candidate’s chances.
Thene– if it’s something up your alley, check out that article I linked critical of the New Deal, and let me know if you think it makes worthwhile points. It’s not really something I know a lot about, so it’s an area that I could perhaps be easily persuaded either way. As for it being something that never got any mention on the campaign trail, if true, that is interesting.
If you believe that, then you have to ask yourself: so why haven’t the Greens done this?
Well there’s your problem: you’re projecting your own reasons for not voting [for Democrats] onto tens of millions of other people.
I would like to note that while the Democrats don’t deserve your vote, the Republicans DEFINITELY deserve to taste defeat. So bear that in mind if you’re going to choose your vote based on deserved-ness.
Hey now, there are plenty of us partisans who just want the Republicans to lose, too! And yes, this means by corollary that the Democrat has to win. But don’t confuse the process with the end goal.
Yeah, and Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, and Washington owned slaves, and my grandfather just didn’t trust black people. So what? We still admire and respect these people because they left the world a better place than they found it.
The surest way to political irrelevancy is now and always has been by pricing your vote out of competition, as the history of third parties in this country amply demonstrates. Even if you don’t think the proposed alternatives will work, for whatever reason, it’s impossible to deny that the Green party approach of trying to punish Democrats has been worse than ineffectual - it’s downright counterproductive. A reality-based solution would take that recent history into account and adapt to it, rather than just trying the same thing again, but harder.
MH: The surest way to political irrelevancy is now and always has been by pricing your vote out of competition…
And the path to political relevancy is paved by guaranteeing your vote to a political party, no matter what they do? I can just imagine those negotiations:
————————————
DEMOCRATS: So what do we need to do to get your vote?
VOTER: Well, let me make it crystal clear at the outset that you already have my vote, and let me assure you that there is absolutely nothing you can do or say that will change that, so long as you’re at least marginally better than the Republicans! I wouldn’t want you to be worried about that unnecessarily. Now, about what I want…
DEMOCRATS: …Oh, hey, look at the time. We’ve got to be going. Thanks for voting Democratic!
————————————
You’ve got it exactly backwards. The surest way to political irrelevancy is now and always has been by making it eminently clear that your vote can be counted before the election has even begun.
And regarding this:
…the Green party approach of trying to punish Democrats has been worse than ineffectual…
I find it interesting that both you and Amanda appear to conceive of voting for Greens (or any third party, presumably) solely in terms of the potential effects on the Democratic Party. Which makes it clear that no matter what you’re doing, you’re still just Democratic partisans—entirely in the Democratic orbit, and constrained by a world view that sees the Democrats as the only possible reality.
(By the way, the “Green party approach” isn’t to punish Democrats—it’s to grow the Green party by participation at the local and national levels. Exactly as any other independent political party would do.)
Quin: Your point about deaths from sanctions couldn’t possibly be more important. There’s no clearer illustration of the dangers of Democratic rule than the fact that supporters of the Democrats will express such concern for the deaths of Iraqis killed by a Republican, but will endlessly rationalize the deaths of Iraqis killed by a Democrat (if they’re aware of them at all; as Orwell observed, a partisan “not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”).
MH: I don’t personally agree with Lincoln’s decision, but it was more than understandable, even to my bleeding liberal heart, given that it occurred in the midst of 11 states having seceded from the Union and a rebel army literally going about attacking places. George Washington realized that slavery was wrong towards the end of his life, and though I am disappointed that he was not strong enough to decide to free his slaves during his own life, I at least credit him for arranging for them to be freed upon his wife’s death, and even arranging for the care of the elderly and children among them. (Your grandfather I cannot speak for, but I hope he was also somebody worth similarly forgiving.)
I’m really no expert on FDR, but it seems to me that his sins were of a much greater magnitude (even without going for controversial routes like arguing that he knew about Pearl Harbor in advance). He was elected to four terms in office, and considering the police state apparatus he was busily putting in place while he still lived– as well as the totalitarian actions he had already been taking– this country may have been quite lucky that he bit the dust when he did. He consciously lead his administration to dehumanize the enemy to a degree unprecedented in American history (well, except for Native Americans), he laid the foundation for the modern military-industrial complex, and he took prisoner over a hundred twenty thousand American citizens and residents (of Japanese, German, and Italian descent) for no good reason, a majority of whom lost nearly everything they owned as a result. So yeah, not so sure FDR was really any better than some other president would have been at that time, especially once the war got rolling in Europe and FDR got that greedy glint in his eye.
Not really sure anymore how this applies to arguments about why we should vote Democrat, but it sure is fun to talk history sometimes!
MH, if none of the mainstream choices please me at all, why should I care whether my vote is “priced out of competition”? That’s not a competition I care to win anymore, then. It’s a mug’s game.
As for recent history, please remember that there is more than one way to analyze it. Nobody has all the answers; what is clearly the only “reality-based solution” to you, may be but one of many realities.
The Democrats came very close in 2000 and 2004, but they lost. Please correct me if I’m mischaracterizing you, but it appears to me that you are not blaming the Democrats for their loss. You’re not even blaming their direct enemies, the Republicans, who worked actively and with more resources than anyone else to make the Democrats lose. No, you’re blaming third parties.
So, we see the same history. You say, “If only all those third party members had voted for our centrist Democrats, and then the Dems would have won!” I say, “If only the Democrats had gone just a little bit left, and then so many more people would have been inspired to actually vote for them!” See, glass half-empty, glass half-full. Both reality-based.
I’m an optimist, so I’m just choosing the glass half-full. The Democrats CAN earn the votes of people like me who are currently disaffected. They just have to work for it a little! But if they’re not willing to bend to the left at all, then not only I’ll hardly care if they win– they’re probably just going to lose anyway. Again.
John Caruso:
Damn, but that Orwell fella said some good shit sometimes.
I’m bumping a lengthy response I just made to MH up to the front page. Because I’m a lazy bastard and I don’t want to write another post today. Thanks MH!
***
TO EVERYONE WHO’S POSTED HERE THIS WEEK:
I need to give a big THANK YOU.
It feels really good to argue this stuff out. Keep on criticizing my viewpoints if you disagree– I LIKE it. I’m a glutton for punishment. No, but seriously, I’ll never know if I can really trust my own views unless I see if they can stand up to other people’s challenges.
Please trust me that I *am* listening to you, and not discounting your opinions out of hand. It’s just that I *will* keep on fighting any opposing arguments, until such time as my own argument might fall apart. THEN I’ll change my opinion.
In fact, I really relish it when that happens. Nothing gives me more pleasure than that feeling where I’ve suddenly discovered an entirely new viewpoint that I didn’t have before. So whether you’re on my team, or think I’m out to lunch– as long as you’re making intelligent arguments, you’re making me just SO happy!
AND TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS ACTUALLY *READ* ALL OF THIS:
Sorry, I’m expressing many of these arguments for the first time, and so I haven’t learned how to express them concisely yet. I’ll work on it!