The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    MetaBol: grouch-o-thon

    By PeraclesPlease on Thu, 10/11/2012 - 7:20pm |

    I fess up - I called a blog owner a turd, and called a turd a blog owner. Still working out which is worse, but a few more therapy sessions should cure it.

    I will express some regret and nostalgia - I've written humor, multilingual expositions, hard core analysis, searing diatribe, and kumbaya all-inclusiveness. But as Groucho said (or was it The Grouch?), it wasn't here.

    I remember a long-ago interview with Groucho, where he was performing in the depression, and passed a friend - "coming to our show?" "only got a nickel... but is it kicking?"

    This place should be kicking. That doesn't mean we have the greatest talents - I hate the mutual praise anyway. We just have enough interest, that if we choose to be interesting, we can be.

    I feel bad for Genghis - long before this week it felt like he backed off his own blog, and while I can't say we're similar souls, I wouldn't be hanging around this halfway house if there weren't something drawing me in - have I already been blogging at Dagblog longer than TPMCafe? (or the shortlived/self-destructive Annals of the Hive. Or defunct OpenLeft. Or still on launchpad KGBlogz)

     But as sign of times, I had another email thread today unrelated to Dagblog that reflected my misgivings - we're sucked into our own biases.

    We all have our clan allegiance that seems to trump perspicuity - we align to what our tribe proscribes.

    Everyone's a fucking political analyst these days - there are no simple consumers of news - and we all suck at analysis, or at least give little worth giving 2 thoughts to.

    That's why TPMCafe ultimately failed - we realized that these erudite insiders were just as pompous, shallow and obvious as half of the unconnected, as our dimbulb selves. Hey, I could have had that brainfart!!!

    We're all following the horse race, and everything gets distilled into this horrible, limiting and disgusting prism.

    When I write, I know it's not going to be my ideas that are thought about - it's whether what I say will fit this team's roster or that. It'll seldom produce a thoughtful response, but I can drive a witty thread or it's just ignored. Or it's antagonistic parlay, starting a fight that believe it or not I didn't actually want.

    If I write a "topical" piece, it's just leeching off the latest headline like 5 other posts show. I agree that's how the likes of David Brooks make their millions, but it's also why I no longer read the NY Times. So why do I imitate? (Hats off to ArtAppraiser who's been trying to pull some perspectives out of the weeds & keep a steady influx of fresh news/perspectives here)

    A long time ago, Ken Kesey showed up at an anti-war rally, and joked it up - "just walk away, walk away". We walk into this joint, and we play by all the rules, and we think we're going to change things? It's not the arguments, the reason - it's the metadata that's constraining us. We've accepted that we fit this or that type of argument, personality, allegiance, philosophy. And we're busy shoveling 10 lbs. of shit into our poor worn-out 5 lb. bag.

    Hey, here's some meta off-topic - we got a ton of old folks at this place - people with ages of experience, mixed bag of wisdom or naiveté like other age groups - but unique that they're able to apply it at a time folks used to just check out, maybe hang out at the diner or local bar and mumble to themselves. I used to think people became more religious in old age, but there's seldom a blip of metaphysical here - what happened to all the hippies? Where's Gysin and "here to go"? Richard Alpert? Not a regurgitation - Hippie 3.0?

    So here's my meta - we've bang-a-gonged our traditional GOP-Dem whatsamacallit for several years now, and this fucking election will be finished in ~4 weeks, after which it'll be boring as hell. I asked Josh for a post-election game plan 4 years ago, but we can do one here.

    And it's not proscriptive - it's seeking out according to your ability & interest. Bring in your favorit topic, your strangest wisdom and interest. Do not engage in praise - if you like an idea, further it, expand it - few people like attaboys. They like input, growing things, leading or participating in a trend.

    Don't just respond - create, mix it up, restrain yourself, find a different direction - humor, poetry, off-the-wall topics. Do. Something. Different.

    Long ago, Groucho met a guy - "is it kicking?" was the only criteria. Should be ours as well.

    Comments

    I can't wait until the election is over, because I think things will then start getting interesting again.  A lot of progressives have been keeping relatively quiet during the final months of the campaign until the Republicans are dispatched, but they are going to unload on the administration once it is over.  Environment, full employment, ending endless wars, debt peonage, inequality and plutocratic domination - all coming back big time.

    Obama thinks he is going to ram some moderate grand bargain through during the lame duck session, hire Bowles for Treasury Sec etc.  I can't wait.  Make my day.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/11/2012 - 10:57pm

    It's funny, because I suppose a lot of people hope that free from the burden of getting re-elected that the "real" character of the president comes out in the second term.  And that may be true but, as with Supreme Court appointees, you don't always get what you think you will.

    Example... Reagan.  He spent his second term defending himself against the atrocity that was Iran/Contra (which was connected to decades of war crimes committed by the US throughout Latin America) and also by taking a frankly progressive approach towards engaging with Gorbachev that really did make the world a safer place.  He was both hard right and apostate at the same time.

    George HW Bush didn't get a second term, but his New World Order was, in many ways, an extension of Reagan's decision to engage Gorbachev as something other than the leader of an "Evil Empire."  You can almost miss HW Bush's multilateralism and restraint these days.

    Then you get Clinton's second term.  It was ruined by the Lewsinsky scandal and the impeachment circus.  I don't think that he did all that much with the freedom of not having to stand for election again.  He also had the futures of Hillary and, to a much lesser extent (I surmise) Gore.  Also, he was going to leave the White House millions in debt and perhaps needed to position himself to do a little better than that in the future. He certainly didn't tilt full left just because he didn't have to stand for election again.

    Obama probably doesn't owe Biden a run at the White House, though he should probably feel some obligation towards not souring the mood for Hillary's next attempt.

    My prediction is similar to yours.  He wins and he still pursues the grand compromise, perhaps for it to be his legacy and to not rock the boat for his potential successors.  And many on the left will be confused by this, wondering why he still won't fight even with nothing personally left to lose.

    However, he might find a few good surprises for us.  Like Reagan, I bet they're on the foreign policy side.  Given the dictators and terrorists that Obama has dispatched in his first term, I give him a legitimate chance at rewriting some maps than most would.

    Though, the consequences of that are never predictable in the long run.

     

     


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 10/11/2012 - 11:44pm

    It's funny, because I suppose a lot of people hope that free from the burden of getting re-elected that the "real" character of the president comes out in the second term.

    I think the real Obama is the one who admires David Brooks, Ronald Reagan, Erskine Bowles, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and his conservative white grandpa, and who only makes gestures to the left when it is electorally convenient to rally a base.

    That's why he doesn't fight back hard against Republicans.  In his heart he believes they are right.  That's why he mailed in his convention speech too.  He doesn't believe the words in it.  He was saying what he thinks his party wants to hear him say, but his heart wasn't in it.

    He thinks the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, and that they should be more self-discipled and self-reliant, like he was.  He thinks entitlements are too high, and that people are unemployed because they are dumb shits who didn't go to Columbia and Harvard, like he did, and are insufficiently awesome.

    He thinks it is his mission in life, like Moses, to guide the repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble he has been chosen to lead toward fiscal sobriety and a more Republican life, but that he has to keep mouthing pseudo-Democratic platitudes to accomplish the task.

    That's my reading of the man at least.


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 12:05am

    While I agree, I'm sick to death of this conversation. Anyone who hasn't clued in by now doesn't want to, and that's their gig.

    There are a million world politics questions to discuss - only some of them involve the US and/or Obama, some of them can be solved or influenced, but just expanding our view past 1 more debate, 1 more election will be nice.

    If we can manage.

    PS - the thing that pissed me off about Big Bird is it wound down to "we have more important things to worry about ha ha ha". No, this is part of what government should be doing - why we have shared governments and not go-it-alone solutions - and it is important.

    Everyone going into government talks about education, but Sesame Street is a concrete example of something government did that works - education not just for the disadvantaged. With minimal funding. But it's late, have to get back to our wars and tax cutting to prove we're grownups.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 2:06am

    Well, we could talk about the ridiculous decision of a bunch of Protestant Norwegians to pat its fellow Europeans on the back for their peace-enhancing policies of driving Catholic Spaniards and Orthodox Greeks into penury to satisfy the disciplinary zeal of mainly German Protestant creditors.


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 11:12am

    Hmmm, makes you wonder why he just didn't call himself a Republican way back when.  Why would someone like that want to be known as a Democrat?

    Needless to say, I read him differently.  In fact, I'm not seeing Obama in that guy you're describing at all.  I can't imagine anyone "mouthing pseudo-Democratic platitudes to accomplish the task."  Seems like a whole lot of work when being a Republican would have been so much more appealing to a man like that.


    by Ramona on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 4:46pm

    It could be that his views have evolved over time, and that he now finds himself, from an accident of his history, as the leader of a party whose historical traditions he know longer respects as much as he used to? 


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 10:56pm

    Or not.


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 8:33am

    Oh come on, this is silly. I probably dislike Obama as much as you but this is a gross distortion. There were so many other paths he could have taken that would have earned him so much more money. He's a centrist and a mediator by temperament but its pretty clear when looking at his record that he generally cares about average people. As a liberal I disagree with his policies but I think he's genuinely trying to level the playing field and help the middle class and poor. He tends to focus too much on stability and the status quo at a time when conditions call for a major shake up but I don't believe he's a tool of the rich or wall street.

    If your analysis was even close to the truth why would he push for the Affordable Care Act? It wasn't politically necessary, in fact it hurt him politically. He pushed for it against many democrats and he pushed for a comprehensive plan when many wanted an incremental approach. Yes his temperament as a mediator led him to dramatically weaken and water down the plan in a foolish attempt to get some republican support. Yet if he didn't actually care it would have been easy to do nothing on the issue of health care without any political costs.

    Your hyperbole doesn't advance the dialog. Better to work on understanding why liberals keep losing the battles and what we can do to win a few more of the fights.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 5:36pm

    The Affordable Care Act is virtually identical to the Republican plan of the 90s isn't it?

    I'.m not saying he's greedy and hungry for money.  I'm suggesting that he is an admirer of traditional Republican views and is on a mission to make the Democratic Party more conservative.

    Have you ever noticed how frustrated he gets when Republicans stop supporting policies they used to support?  It's like he is trying to win their love and respect, and they keep moving the football on him.


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 11:00pm

    So why isn't Warren ahead of Brown by 12 or 14 points?  Maybe advancing America forward is going to take baby steps.  Unless one wants a true revolution, during which there would a total economic collapse and for the short term a considerable amount of economic pain.

    One cannot sustain the current standard of living and turn over the money changers' tables.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 11:25pm

    I don't see what your comment has to do with the comment by me you are replying to.  It seems like a non-sequitor.  Are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me?


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 12:13am

    Look at the polls.  Romney after the 47% comment is still hanging in there.  Look at the House.  How many Republicans are there? How many hardcore Republicans are there?  And you want someone to push a hardcore liberal agenda?  And how successful would that be?  If MA is having a hard time with someone who wants to take it to Wall Street, what does that say about the rest of the country.

    At what point is the president suppose to reflect the wishes of the People, and what point does the president entitled to impose a higher value on the People?

    When you agree with People - it is all about the People.  But when it split, then it is about the president imposing on them.  There is a time, like JFK and civil rights, when the president should say "I know better" - but in these times and with these issues it is a little more gray.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 12:48am

    While you are looking at all those numbers, look at yourself.  You are now trying to convince me you are actually some kind of closet socialist, but only hew to the middle of the road economically because all those other people are really conservative, and so political realism tells you we have to take baby steps and fuss around a bit on the margins.  But that's not the way it looks to me, and frankly I don't believe you.  To me it looks like you are one of the people you are complaining about.  You're just not that egalitarian.  You believe the economic order depends on the rich for its ability to deliver prosperity, and that if the President or anyone else really took on the existing financial infrastructure, things would fall apart.  You believe a lot of the folks in the lower orders are just not smart enough or educated enough for us to accord weight to their voices right now.  You resent them for having bad ideas, or bad religions, or bad taste.  You are proud of the advanced characteristics of your own mind not just because you value them for their own sake, but because they differentiate you from the ignorant.  You think on the whole that most of the people who have more in our society have merited what they have.

    So you want to know why in a liberal state like Massachusetts a person like Warren has such a tough go of it?  Because Massachusetts is a state filled with liberals just like you.  When Warren calls for getting tough with criminal bankers, it scares them.  They think it is not wise to challenge the roots of the established financial order.  They think baby steps would be better.  It's not some mysterious others who have been holding back social progress toward a democratic and egalitarian society.  It's you.  And it's been me too in the past, and I'm trying to change that.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:26am

    At what point is the president suppose to reflect the wishes of the People, and what point does the president entitled to impose a higher value on the People?

    If the president's job is to reflect the wishes of the people we could just go to a plebiscite form of government.  I think of the president's job as being, in part, about using his and someday her best judgment to deal with those among society's problems which may be capable of amelioration through governmental actions (including deliberate inactions) of various sorts.  Sometimes that judgment will accord with what majorities say they want and sometimes it won't.  I don't think voters expect or even believe it is possible that someone they elect to office either will, or should, act in accordance with what they may say in response to a poll question they've not given much thought to, nor wish to.  

    Elected officials are well aware that if they depart too much from voter opinion they run a major risk of getting voted out, unless they are able to explain to the voters' satisfaction why they thought what they did was the right thing to do for, in the president's case, the country.  We have elections so that the voting public can decide to return that person to office or vote someone else in, based on what in theory is an opportunity to consider the whole record of someone's time in office.

    I don't see this as an abstract point only but as directly relevant to the current situation.

    The prevalence of what I think of as unpragmatic pragmatism is, I think, one among a host of reasons why we have not had more helpful public policy in this country over the past several decades.

     

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 9:26am

    I began to see a lot of this in the 90's.  People can talk about the hard work of changing people's minds.  But it seems to me that the Democratic Party political operatives and leaders of the post-Cold War era gave up on the idea of changing people's minds.  In fact, they seem to believe that there is something wrong with trying to change people's minds because each person has a right to the contents of their own mind and a right not to have those contents interfered with.  So the role of the politician and political parties is reduced then to taking the contents of people's minds as a given, finding ways of measuring what is in those minds, and crafting policies that reflect the desires, beliefs and values of those minds.

    Of course Republicans keep working, with success, to changing what is in people's minds and moving the content's of people's minds rightward.  The result of this combination of passive liberality toward mental contents on the Democratic side plus aggressive conservative proselytizing on the Republican side means a continuing rightward drift in the center of mental gravity.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 11:56am

    The big difference between Democratic and Republican mentalities is that the Democrats never miss a chance to eviscerate their own.  The Republicans circle the wagons and if there's dissension inside that circle nobody on the outside knows it. 

    Why?  Because to the Republicans everyone on the outside is the enemy and they're smart enough to know where to focus.  To the Democrats the enemy is anyone who doesn't follow some narrow path set by each, individual Democrat.

    Worse, we have to put up with the DINOs who like to pretend that since they sometimes vote for Democrats they have a handle on how Democrats are supposed to behave.

    Then we have those who keep threatening to quit the party because the new Democrats have apparently forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for.  To them I would say, how do we get back to our original principals if everyone who remembers what we were is gone? 

    I thought we were the good guys who fought for our principals.  We can't fight for them on the outside.  We have to be inside, engaged, willing to work hard for what we believe in. 

    As I've said a zillion times before, the Democratic leaders are not the whole of the Democratic Party.  The people are.  Our party is what we make it.  Apathy and insults within our walls will destroy us faster than ALEC, the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party, Romney, McConnell, Boehner, Limbaugh, et al.

    So if you're not willing to fight to keep our party strong, then you might want to seriously join the other side.  You're already working for them; you might as well make it official.


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:17pm

    Well, I'm definitely not apathetic.  And I will never join the Republicans.   You act like I'm the first person who ever wanted to join another party.   Some countries in the world actually have three, four or five major parties.  Are those people all monsters too?

    I don't want to try to tell Democrats what they should believe anymore.  I give up.  I just know I disagree with too many people these days in the Democratic Party to have any confidence in where it will go in the future.  I want to take a more independent path.

    Maybe it's just me.  Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't't fit.  So then you should be glad to get rid of me.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:08pm

    Realistically, there are two major parties in this country at the moment and we're in a crisis.  It'll be a while before we're healthy enough to have the luxury of building a third party.

    I'll always be a Democrat but I'm not against a third party at all.  It's just not going to happen right now, and all of the energy in the world isn't going to change that.  So for all intents, we'll be voting for one party or the other.  There are some who will attach to the Green Party or another small party for reasons of purity--and I admire that--but they will not accomplish much, I'm afraid. Not yet.

    But do what you must.  On behalf of the Democratic Party, hail and farewell. (Can't speak for the Republicans.)

     


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:48pm

    We're always in a crisis, and there is never a "right time" for dramatic political change.  The Republican Party was itself formed during the crisis period of the approaching Civil War.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 6:16pm

    So what will be the name of your new party?


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 6:36pm

    No decision.  I asked that question on Twitter a few weeks ago and built up a list of about 20 options.  It also might not be a party but just part of an attempt to build a movement.  I just don't think the Democratic Party is capable of delivering fundamental change of the kind I'm interested in.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 6:50pm

    Just join the Republicans? Romney/Ryan have or will support any position you can name? It is becoming increasingly possible this ludicrously incompetent Dumb and Dumber Lying Duo will in fact come close enough to steal the election, one that should not even be close.

    The rich will get richer.  The rest will work harder and fall further behind. The genetically imprinted UNprogressive KenyanUsurper hating voters who will put Dumb and Dumber in office will be content with their choice because they voted pro-life, pro-kicking ass (any ass), and exactly as their Pastor and Rupert Murdoch told them to vote.

    As long as Romney/Ryan make life tough for gays, illegals or brown people somewhere in the world, and as long as liberals are pissed, regardless of the fiascoes or financial catastrophes to come, the right wing tribe will think it was worth it. You cannot change these people, and they constitute nearly half the voters. For them, 'progressive' policy is anathema. They think Obama will take their guns and melt them down into a hammer and sickle to hang on the White House. Keep that grim election/voter landscape in mind when you criticize Obama for not 'doing more' in this nation of used car salesmen, Bible thumping swindlers, hypocrites and liars, rapacious billionaires, scam artists, haters and easily deceived low information, jaded suckers. 


    by NCD on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 7:31pm

    This is a bit different than your previous comment. This is a bit different than claiming Obama believes " the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, they are dumb shits, repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble"

    A case could be made that he's an admirer of moderate republican views pre 90's. But I don't believe even the republicans believed in those views, not then, not now. When it appeared democrats would pass single payer health care the republicans proposed something similar to Obamacare. As soon as it seemed possible to defeat health care they dropped it.  Just as I don't think Ryan supports privatization of social security or vouchers for medicare. If he had his way he'd simply eliminate both programs. As we both guess at Obama's motivations I think the evidence of his two year struggle to get the ACA passed supports the view that he's a centrist and a mediator seeking common ground with a tendency to over compromise to find bipartisan support.

    Obama didn't have to become a community organizer. He didn't have to join a church focused on liberation theology. Have you read any liberation theology? I have. He didn't have to join a church focused on service to the poor. If he believes " the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, they are dumb shits, repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble" it seems unlikely to me he would have joined and worked in a church that had as its central doctrine helping the poor and the oppressed. A more logical explanation is he cares and would like to help the poor and make the world a better place. At any rate I don't think he's a good enough actor to pull it off. If he truly believed the half the people are dumb shits he would not have been able to fool the other members of his church. Unless you're claiming the members of his church are equally hypocritical?

    A more logical explanation is his central tenant is to find common ground between disparate groups. He's reluctant to confront, to stake out hard positions or to fight for his ideas. Not just now. When I read about his time as president of the harvard law review, and the interviews from his colleagues there that was my assessment. His time as president  of the Harvard law review was one of the reason I sided with Hillary in the primaries.

    Again, I don't think its true or at all helpful to post crap like, he believes " the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, they are dumb shits, repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble"

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:56am

    Bravo, ocean-kat.  This comment deserves its own space as a post, at the very least.  I agree that he wants so badly to find common ground, he does a disservice to everyone.  But it's never that he doesn't care, or that he has a different agenda up his sleeve and he's just waiting for the opportune moment to spring it on us.

    Just like Joe Biden, Obama is who he is.  He's not a face-to-face fighter.  He's not a quick decision-maker.  He's slow and steady and not necessarily affected by outside proddings--unless he's pushed, and he has to be pushed so far he actually can see some danger in it for him if he doesn't do something.

    This year's election should have been a pretty good stimulus for him, but even now he's doing the slow-and-steady thing and it's hurting him.  And us.

    He's not evil, he's not uncaring, he's not out to send us over the cliff.  He is who he is, and I believe he's doing the best he can.

    We're slowly moving up and out of this fix.  No question that it's not fast enough, but I'm not going to regurgitate all the reasons why.  We're moving up and out with Obama and with Romney we would be moving down and backward.

     


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 9:00am

    I wish I could agree that we are making slow progress in the right direction.  But it seems to me that we have been going in the wrong direction for some time now, and continue to go in the wrong direction.  The best that can be said for Obama is that he represents slower movement in the wrong direction than we would get under Republicans.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 11:59am

    Have we gone backward?  Are we stalled?  No, we've made slow progress.  If you can't see that, I won't waste my time trying to turn on the lights for you.


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 4:49pm

    I think this comment shows that our disagreement is not just a matter of a disagreement about tactics or strategy based on the same fundamental values, but that we probably have different ideas about what progress would consist in.  The United States is a more brutal, unequal and plutocratic society society now than it was in 2008.  Is that all Obama's fault?  No.  But we are not going forward.  He's failing; we're failing ... whatever.  We need to do something different.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:14pm

    We'll have to disagree then.  I do believe we've moved forward.  You don't.  This has been discussed and discussed and discussed, and frankly, I don't see the need to discuss it again.


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:30pm

    A case could be made that he's an admirer of moderate republican views pre 90's. But I don't believe even the republicans believed in those views, not then, not now.

    Hmmm....maybe it's that he wishes he had good-faith, old-style moderate Republicans to work with on the other side of the aisle, thinking they had much of value to offer.   Moderate Republicanism, from the 1940s until around, oh, 1980, was essentially an accommodation to the overwhelming popularity of New Deal liberalism during that period, justified as an attempt to curb its excesses and learn from its failures.

    The ideological offensive since 1980 has come almost entirely, at the level of political campaigns, from the Right.  "Free"-market rhetoric and proposals have dominated the  political scene.  Democrats have largely been in a defensive and reactive mode, embracing market-oriented policy where that is seen as beneficial while preserving the core of what is seen as good and politically popular.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 10:29am

    I think that's exactly what he wishes. I think he looks for the good in people and made a good faith judgment of republicans that they actually wanted to work at solving America's problems. I think he would have been a good president in another time and situation. Just not now in this situation. He's a good mediator if he has people with differing views that sincerely wanted to work together. What he seems to have trouble grasping is the republicans don't. He really needs to learn how to play hardball because that's all the republicans understand at this point in time.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 9:39pm

    I think that is a good call. I'm a bit less generous with kudos to Obama because Iso strongly object to a few things he has done but I wish we were in a time when Obama would be the right guy for the job. Such a time would be a better time. I think we need LBJ at the height of his power but after he learned from his Vietnam experience.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 10:05pm

    Dan channels his inner Maureen Dowd:

    He thinks it is his mission in life, like Moses, to guide the repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble he has been chosen to lead toward fiscal sobriety and a more Republican life, but that he has to keep mouthing pseudo-Democratic platitudes to accomplish the task.

    "...like Moses..." - claiming someone sees themselves on the same playing field as Moses is a rather grandiose assertion.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that someone who made it to the WH has this view of themselves given how American politics weeds out those who have small ego.  But, really, is this an accurate conclusion of Obama's self view?

    the same goes for "repulsive, undiscipline and greedy rabble."  So he looks at the 47%, or 62% or 74%, or what percentage constitutes the rabble [I would like to know what percentage of the American population you believe Obama constitutes as the "rabble."] as repulsive? 

    Having worked in the health and social services / community organizing arena pretty much my entire career, I have heard the most bleeding heart liberals of all time speak rather despairingly of the rabble. Nothing like being physically attacked by someone who one has chosen to take a just above minimum wage job to help because the bureaucratic network has denied a request for funds.  But all the talk and attitude (and yes many burn out) doesn't change their bleeding heart, and they keep coming back fighting the good fight. 

    So Obama is supposed to embrace unconditionally a people who make Fox News a hit. We bitch on liberal blogs about the uninformed and misinformed and disengaged American voting public, yet the president is suppose to hold every American in the highest regard?  Romney lies through his teeth and gets a bounce in the polls?  Yeah, that should be applauded.

    So I guess you are all for the anti-intellectualism that has taken hold of this country from the beginning.  How dare the president be frustrated that people cannot understand the nuances of governing a country as complex divided and disengaged as America. 

    I used to respect your opinion.  No more.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 8:55pm

    So, OK, I guess what you are saying is you agree with my assessment of Obama's outlook but think I am wrong to criticize Obama for it?


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 10:53pm

    No.  You are some one who sees a parent dealing with their rambunctious kids at the mall who says "i could just strangle y'all" and you assess that the parent actually wants to strangle their children.  [Not that Obama thinks of us as his children]

    In other words, you are picking up vibes of frustration with the political system, with the people who make up the democracy, and then make an error in his true feelings as opposed to the situational feelings that every feeling human experiences.

    In other words, you are one of those people who expect politicians to give up their humanity.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 11:20pm

    No, I just expect Democrats not to be wanna-be Republicans.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 12:16am

    I am a socialist and a Democrat.  But I don't expect all Democrats to be socialists.  Your attitude seems to be say you have developed your hard core litmus test to determine who is a Democrat.  If one fails, then they are actually a Republican.  So you are really no better than the far right.

    Rather than accept the hard work of shifting the culture so that the people embrace your paradigm, you just bash those who are close to your views but don't quite make the grade.  Maybe it is just an exercise in self esteem boosting I don't know.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 12:41am

    No I don't have a litmus test about who is a Democrat.  I have a historically based litmus test about what it used to mean to be a Democrat - for a lot of people at least.  And if it doesn't mean that anymore, then I don't want to be a Democrat anymore.  And my plan is not to be a Democrat any more following the election, because I think there are just too many Democrats now that I don't like being under the tent with.

    I actually think I am starting to do my bit in the hard work of moving the culture.  I try to write in a lot of different places where I think people capable of being influenced might be influenced.  I try to break down the ideological structures that I think are holding the prevailing order together, and that are both irrational and tenaciously held together by fear.  I also engage in a certain amount of "bashing" which I actually think helps.  People don't like to be bashed, and they dislike me for it.  But sometimes they also change their mind.  Or they resentfully shift their ground a bit even while hating me for making them do it; or they actually choose a side on an important fight where they would prefer to remain neutral and hide in the corner.  I think people have a huge number of powerful defense mechanisms about fundamental change and its impossibility, and you don't break through them with sweetness.  Of course I'm just one guy.

    I plan to do a lot more after the election too, but have decided that most of the things I want to say will be ignored, or not well-received, while the election battle is going on.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:04am

    Okay...what does it mean to be a Democrat, historically, to which one can judge all candidates  upon?

    To put it simply - for me, to be a Democrat is to look for solutions to our problems that include all economic, social and otherwise classes, along with the earth into consideration, understanding that all those classes, along with earth, are inter-related, if not as Thich Nhat Hanh says, interdependent co-arising.

    The most effective solutions in the here-and-now available to achieve an outcome in the long term is where the debate comes in.  Those who choose a more cautious, status quo incremental approach such as Obama are not because of that approach inherently heartless.

    I work in local neighborhoods dealing with poverty.  The other day I sat in a meeting about about how to deal with early childhood education in a poor neighborhood with someone who I knew did not believe in gay marriage.  If I took your approach, I should have stood up and walked away, giving up whatever advances that might have been achieved in implementing programs to improve education achievement in that neighborhood.  How dare I even think I could share the same space with such a person, even if we were totally aligned on how to deal with early childhood education in this particular neighborhood.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:25am

    I try to write in a lot of different places where I think people capable of being influenced might be influenced.  I try to break down the ideological structures that I think are holding the prevailing order together, and that are both irrational and tenaciously held together by fear.

    Congratulations, I'm sure writing blogs will have a big effect. If only we had the internet during the civil rights battles. People could have blogged and avoided all those arrests, dogs, fire hoses, and head bashing with clubs.

    I also engage in a certain amount of "bashing" which I actually think helps.

     Do you think the points I'm trying to make would be helped if I called your blog, "stupid  repulsive,wayward, undisciplined" or if I called you a "dumb shit?" No? Then what makes you think it helps when you do it?


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 2:21am

    I didn't call anybody those things.  I said that's how Obama thinks about other people in the Democratic Party.

    Let's get this straight.  Rahm Emanuel is the guy who called people like me "retards".


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 11:32am

    Incendiary comments like this don't help. You're not going to get any traction demonizing anyone. A convincing argument will be much more effective and you are capable of making one. You think bashing like this helps?

    Let's look at what you accomplished in this thread. I don't like anything Obama's done. I didn't like his Wall Street bail out, the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or his picks for the Supreme Court. Better than nothing, sure, better than McCain would have done, but woefully inadequate and none address the foundational issues.

    I'm not the most prolific poster here and I'm likely the one most in agreement with you. Your incendiary comment was so over the top that it pulled me out and got me defending Obama. Me, defending a president I didn't support in the primaries, voted for reluctantly in the general and will unhappily vote for again.

    Was it your purpose to draw one of Obama's harshest critics in to this thread to defend him?


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 1:43pm

    If you are angry and debating then I think that's a good thing.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:16pm

    You think as long as one is debating it doesn't matter what the debate is about? I don't. I  think this  debate is a waste of time. I've just come off a two year hiatus living in a ghost town in the middle of a National forest without internet. So this is the first time I'm seen you post this nonsense about Obama. If this is a recurrent theme with you the next time I won't bother to respond. Its a waste of time to debate whether Obama believes, " the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, they are dumb shits, repulsive,wayward, undisciplined and greedy rabble"

    I don't waste time with crazy talk. You're better than this so I'll spend some time trying to explain my views on this subject just once.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:58pm

    Sorry you see it that way.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 6:53pm

    Dan, let me put this on record right now.  When someone gets nasty and in my face, it's a sure thing that THEY WILL NEVER GET ME TO CHANGE MY MIND about anything.

    I actually think I am starting to do my bit in the hard work of moving the culture.  I try to write in a lot of different places where I think people capable of being influenced might be influenced.  I try to break down the ideological structures that I think are holding the prevailing order together, and that are both irrational and tenaciously held together by fear.  I also engage in a certain amount of "bashing" which I actually think helps.  People don't like to be bashed, and they dislike me for it.  But sometimes they also change their mind.  Or they resentfully shift their ground a bit even while hating me for making them do it; or they actually choose a side on an important fight where they would prefer to remain neutral and hide in the corner.  I think people have a huge number of powerful defense mechanisms about fundamental change and its impossibility, and you don't break through them with sweetness.  Of course I'm just one guy.

    Insufferable egotism never won points anywhere.  Yes, you are just one guy.  Get over yourself.


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 9:08am

    Hi Dan, think it might help if post-election you can just "walk away" -don't take the gauntlet, just focus on issues, no more horse race. Realistically the campaign will continue - it:s just what we do these days instead of permanent revolition.

    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 3:31pm

    Hi Dan, think it might help if post-election you can just "walk away" -don't take the gauntlet, just focus on issues, no more horse race. Realistically the campaign will continue - it:s just what we do these days instead of permanent revolition.

    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 3:31pm

    Dude, projection much? Pop psychology, it's what's for dinner.

    He thinks the bottom half of Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and spoiled, and that they should be more self-discipled and self-reliant, like he was.  He thinks entitlements are too high, and that people are unemployed because they are dumb shits who didn't go to Columbia and Harvard, like he did, and are insufficiently awesome.

    Umm one more thing, the only blogging commenter who loves to bring up his Ivy League education to make the point that we should all listen to and believe is, well you know, you.

    There is an anger and bitterness that permeates your comment. You are dismissive of others with a shrillness that repels thoughtful people.  We aren't sheeple Dan, we know the President has his faults, every human has them, even you.  We are thoughtful and smart without having attended an Ivy.. weird and unexpected isn't it, and we know drivel when we read it, even this dumb old UW grad, can discern BS from reality.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 10:06am

    You must be confusing me with someone else.  I never had an Ivy League education, and I hardly ever talk about my past.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 11:29am

    Amanda Todd commits suicide

    I thought about posting this on the news section, but I posted it here because it is a great example of a problem our communities face that has almost nothing to do with our elected leaders when it comes to finding a solution. 

    We need to look at our local community - the grassroots - whether it is the arts or education or diversity or poverty (and all the mix of those), and ask "is it kicking?"  If it isn't - what can be done about it. 

    Part of the crux of the matter in the post-election game plan is that the game plan requires we all see ourselves as a team, even though we don't see eye to eye on the issue, and live in different local communities.  There is a tendency to gravitate the discussion to things like national elections because it is one of the few things we all have a common participation in.  How do I relate what is happening down my street in a way that someone on the other side of the country (let alone in a different country) would find relevant?

    An example of this is that we talk about movies and tv shows because we all have access to them at the same time (for the most part), while some local theater or dance performance is available only to a tiny fraction.  On a site like this, unless one lives in an urban city like NYC, chances are there are no other people here from one's town.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 9:59am

    Okay, as if anyone asked me, I end up rootin for the team.

    And I see myself doing it; then I decide that I have to get outta doin it; then I end up watchin Scarborough (as if he is relevant to anything) and I am screaming at the TV.

    There is something I call the Super Bowl mentality.

    November 6th is really the date for the Super Bowl.

    Where in the hell did mainstream media come up with all these charts anyway?

    They got them from ESPN.

    I never understood football. I watched it for decades and I never understood what the hell the sports pundits were talking about. I was just watching ESPN today and they now use computers mixed with game takes and explain the strategies involved in each and every play.

    My mind just cannot grasp that game.

    I swear I see holding on every play just like I see traveling going on in every single basketball game.

    And you never know when the ref is going to throw a flag and when he does throw the flag you usually can predict that he is going to throw a flag at the other team any time soon.

    Back to Scarborough.

    For the last week Jughead has been arguing (in his mind proving) that the dems are dead due to the debate and such and this nation is right of middle and....

    So following last night's debate his strategy is to talk about what a great guy our VP is but how awful he was at the debate and what a fine VP the other guy will be.

    Then he attempts throughout his show to use Micka like Hannity used to use Combs.

    Joe threw the ball to Micka five or ten times today and she, of course, dropped the ball every single time. She is just an embarrassment.

    And Joe made sure to call in his normal lackies and a lot of repubs to buttress his position.

    Okay, enough of that.

    Now we come to my failing. Do I really believe that the President lost his first debate or that the VP won his debate or that the other guy won the debate.

    We really do not have points except for polls.

    But polls are like odds making charts in Vegas guessing which team will win which games.

    So November 6 becomes the date for the SUPERBOWL.

    Now if I bet on the games, then I have a stake in the process. If I do not, then a day or two have the big game I could care less what the outcome was.

    So why give a damn?

    As a nation we are involved in one full blown war and are succeeding in killing 'civilians' there and in a dozen other countries (I could give you a more exact number but I have not been reading Greenwald lately).

    As a nation we are 'exporting' 'illegals' at a rate the previous Administration could not accomplish.

    As a nation we imprison more people as slaves in our prisons than any nation on earth with the exception of China (China is a little ahead of the game but has four times our population).

    Thousands upon thousands of gangs are at war in urban areas across our country.

    Thousands upon thousands of homeless people are without shelter and since half of those unfortunates are not at the top of their game cognitively there really is no way for them to 'clean up' and 'fly right'.

    Corporate powers without government regulation (and we really dont have enough regulation) run over their employees like John Deere runs over rows and rows of corn. Have you read about how difficult it really is for a whistle blower to blow a whistle over internal corporate felonies? Have you ever read how difficult it really is to sue a corporation for almost any malfeasance?

    That's enough for now.

    Except that I know that if the repubs are in full power, IT IS WORSE.

    We will be involved in more wars, we will give away more defense contracts to international corporations that pay almost no taxes and owe this nation no allegiance whatsoever.

    There will be lower wages, there will be lower benefits, there will be more homeless, there will be more people imprisoned....

    Maybe I just make up my own realities!

    See now I am just rambling.

     


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 10:59am

    The popular political blogger known as Genghis denied reports that he had "backed off" his own blog.

    "I get busy, people," he told reporters at a crowded press conference, "I've got a book to write, money to earn, and a friggin' life, you know?"

    Genghis did not acknowledge that he had grown weary of deleting spam. He also said that moderating bloggers he referred to as "asshats" was like "giving an enema to a grizzly bear." But he conceded that it was not as bad as "getting an enema from a grizzly bear."

    When asked about a recent confrontation with a blogger known under various aliases including  "quinn esq," "qnonymous," Genghis began shrieking unintelligibly and abruptly terminated the press conference.

    Genghis' name is still listed on the dagblog.com website, but the link redirects visitors to the page of another blogger named "Michael Wolraich."


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 3:38pm

    burp.


    by quinn esq on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 3:43pm

    GESUNDHEIT!


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 4:07pm

    It's working, Q, soon he'll be stomping around with the Napoleon hat seeking his Waterloo....

    Why herd crocodiles or walruses - much less get enemas from them? Can't we sll step it up a level?

    And if he feels betrayed by Lance Armstrong, think about his feelings toward you, almost a Canadian twin or doppelganger? 

    Next couple episodes should be greatly interesting.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 3:47pm

    Yes, we do seem to be stuck in the storming phase of group dynamics.  Thanks for trying to move us on to the norming phase. ;D  

    So.....FWIW, an idea:

    I was going to sign up for Tyler Cowen's new totally and completely free MRUniversity and thought it might be interesting if others here at dag signed up too so we could form a study group.  Maybe even arrange to show up at a certain time to discuss specific lessons.

    Anyone game?

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 8:50am

    Would it be more interesting if I told you this is almost certainly Koch-sponsored economic agitprop designed for the masses.  Do you not think it might be useful study to if only to be able to develop a progressive counter to it on the same level?  

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 6:26pm

    Ha ha, Emma, I checked it out and thought as much but didn't want to hurt your feelings, since I don't know you very well and wasn't sure if you were serious.  Glad to see you weren't.

    Think I'll pass. . .


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 7:38pm

    What did Emma Goldman say, 'if can't dance don't wanna be part of your revolution'? What's wrong w Tango lessons? To the ramparts!

    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 9:57pm

    I appreciate what you're trying to do.

    When I write, I know it's not going to be my ideas that are thought about - it's whether what I say will fit this team's roster or that.

    With this I disagree--a good deal too overbroad, although the tribal tendencies are in evidence here to be sure and must be resisted in order to keep the reality you perceive and reject from becoming more prevalent.  With some of the stuff you write, I appreciate your willingness to take a different point of view but just think what you wrote in that case was not well considered or presented.

    There can be a fine line between a creative tension amongst a group of folks that results in better product, versus a bunch of folks who drive one another a bit batty at times.  Actually, it might not be possible to have one, cleanly, without the other.  Maybe they are two sides of the same coin.

    Can a site be effectively about both learning and advocacy?  Are the two compatible in the end, or just in tension with one another?  If they are necessarily in at least some tension with one another, does that have to be harmful, so long as people engage with others they wish to engage with and leave other people to talk about what they want to talk about?  

    I don't know.  But I hope you and others here who are trying to expand the range of subject matter discussed, and also how it is discussed, will keep doing that, so long as it's all civil and doesn't entail personal nastiness.  If a welcoming, or at least fully benign, tone can be established for anyone who wants to contribute something constructive here (again, recognizing differences in what individuals perceive as constructive or tolerable)  that may be a route to growing the site while enhancing its quality.  Where there is a solid foundation of civility among people with differing views, desires, commitments and styles--something that I think many of us realize is rare, fragile, and requires constant attentiveness and vigilance to sustain--many things are possible.  

    If I am charged with going meta in this comment my plea in response is that there is no personal antipathy directed to anyone.  To the contrary.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 11:18am

    I like confrontation. But we've largely avoided useful content. What do each of us bring to this blog? Out of the box thinking or just poli sci lite? Could we be replaced with a Turing machine? Are we progressing any causes we want to progress? Have we co-opted ourselves? Hey, how will we #OccupyOurselves the next 4 years?

    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 3:41pm

    Who will tell the children?

    Cutting to the chase, nothing is honest in American institutions today. We have government corruption from the top to the lowest levels. There is “no checks and balances” that is no one there to require that laws are observed from federal to state, state to county, county to city and back up from the bottom supervising above. It is blowback from our foreign adventures.

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/09/22/decrypting-the-shadow-behind-hamid-karzai/

    Herman Kahn, "We have corrupted the cities Now, perhaps we can corrupt the countryside as well.’ It was not a joke. Kahn was thinking in terms of a counterinsurgency program: the United States would win the war by making all Vietnamese economically dependent upon it. In 1967 his program was already becoming a reality, for the corruption reached even to the lowest levels of Vietnamese society.”

    Look at Iraq and Afganistan. That is why the money was and is sent. Foreign aid is the same story.

    America is now controlled to the lowest level. Who will tell the children?


    by Thinking on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 10:39pm