dagblog - Comments for "The California Preview"

Well, Prohibition ended

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:16:53 +0000

In reply to Yeah, but while we crash the

Well, Prohibition ended during the last major depression. That picked up everyone's spirits.

Excellent. I look forward to

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:15:28 +0000

In reply to Agreed. Btw, I'm working on

Excellent. I look forward to reading it. (Although of course, the late Senator Hanna will hate it.)

Agreed. Btw, I'm working on

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:48:49 +0000

In reply to When I'm in Cleveland, I

Agreed. Btw, I'm working on book proposal about the Republican progressive insurgency in the early 1900s.

Yeah, but while we crash the

jollyroger — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:48:46 +0000

In reply to Good point. In that case,

Yeah, but while we crash the economy, we will at least be able to get high!

When I'm in Cleveland, I

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:29:35 +0000

In reply to Roosevelt was much more

When I'm in Cleveland, I often commune with the ghost of Mark Hanna, the Republican political boss from those days. And let me tell you: Hanna still hates that goddamn crazy cowboy.

More seriously: yes, it's more complicated than my reply comment allowed. Roosevelt dealt with the political realities of his party's power structure, and no President is on the edge of his party's radical wing. But he wasn't presenting politics as a problem that went away if you became more agreeable.

I believe that there are hypothetical centrist policies that would not be timid or unrealistic. But what I hear put forward as "centrism" is either ridiculous middle-of-the-roadism (for example, following economic policies that cancel each other out) or conservativism that won't cop to the name (as in "We need a centrist to take the bold step of cutting Social Security and Medicare." Also, we need a liberal to bring back segregation in the South.)

Good point. In that case,

Verified Atheist — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:13:46 +0000

In reply to I think that Paul would do

Good point. In that case, he's arguably a much more frightening candidate assuming you share my assumption that he's more electable than Bachmann...

I think that Paul would do

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:54:43 +0000

In reply to I think Michelle Bachmann and

I think that Paul would do enormous damage to the country, and particularly to the country's economy. Yes, Paul and I share opposition to our foreign wars. But if he won the election, the best possible economic outcome would be four lost years, as the government deadlocked rather than helping. The worst case scenario is that Paul would pass even of a fraction of his economic program, which would severely lengthen and intensify the recession.

Inflation is at under half a percent, and the man wants tighter money. He wants to go back on the gold standard, which would be an absolutely catastrophic monetary contraction if you did it during a boom. If we did it now, the Great Depression would likely have to be renamed, because it wouldn't be the biggest one anymore.

Roosevelt was much more

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:52:04 +0000

In reply to Okay, fair enough. centrism

Roosevelt was much more conciliatory to the conservative old guard than you think, and he had a troubled relationship with the progressive wing. His radicalization came late into his second term. But I admit that it's an imperfect analogy and that he did not campaign on centrism.

Okay, fair enough. centrism

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:34:25 +0000

In reply to Very interesting analogy,

Okay, fair enough. centrism does not always mean dullness or impotence under all circumstances. But the version of "centrism" being peddled in our current political situation would absolutely lead to impotence.

But Theodore Roosevelt, surely, was not a centrist. He was the leader of one wing of one party, a Progressive Republican, focused on defeating both his intra-party and opposite-party rivals. He was certainly not conciliatory. And he didn't play the bogus "last sane man" card, implying that all it took was one "common-sensical" person to break political deadlocks. (That idea presumes that a) every other politician is an utter fool and b) they will be overjoyed to hear that pointed out. It's an ego fantasy.) Roosevelt never talked about "getting beyond" arguments. He set out to win them.

I think Michelle Bachmann and

Verified Atheist — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:28:07 +0000

In reply to The California Preview

I think Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul are very different beasts. If Ron Paul got the nomination, I would think that Obama would be in for a very strong challenge. If Michelle Bachmann got the nomination, then Obama's only challenge would be himself. If Ron Paul got the nomination, I wouldn't be afraid for my sanity were he to win^*. If Michelle Bachmann got the nomination, I would be, because the economy is shaky enough she just might be able to pull it off.

^*That's not to say I agree with him on lots of stuff, but I do agree with him on some stuff, and most of the craziest things he says would not be supported by Congress.