dagblog - Comments for "2013 and Beyond"

Part of what holds us back is

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 04:30:03 +0000

Part of what holds us back is not being able to imagine a plausible, doable alternative way to organize an economy.

Maybe if more of the public can envision, even literally observe, alternatives to the current system which do not strike them as alien to their experiences and values, which strike them as really much more doable than they might have feared--well, maybe to the degree that evolution in public consciousness can be heightened in that respect, there might emerge along with that a greater willingness to also insist on reigning in through necessary public policies the destructive behaviors towards workers, communities, the environment, and future generations that Kelly sees as the inevitable consequence of what she articulates and describes as "extractive" institutional designs.

I think this is the key.

Still haven't found what

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 04:10:12 +0000

In reply to Moo.

Still haven't found what you're looking for? Maybe here? http://www.phallus.is

Moo.

quinn esq — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:25:37 +0000

In reply to Still bitter, I see - it was

Moo.

Part of the reason we can't

Aaron Carine — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:28:48 +0000

In reply to I think these are good

Part of the reason we can't imagine a plausible alternative way to organize an economy is that all the alternatives that were tried turned out to be worse.

Still bitter, I see - it was

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:22:03 +0000

In reply to As a farmer's son, I would

Still bitter, I see - it was an accident, how many times must I apologize?

As a farmer's son, I would

quinn esq — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:30:17 +0000

In reply to On a recent family vacation

As a farmer's son, I would like to note the phenomenon of "the steer."

This post is very much on the

DF — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:28:47 +0000

In reply to 2013 and Beyond

This post is very much on the long-run side of what I've come to see as the short-run vs long-run divide on the left. Much of the debate here revolves around this dichotomy. Short-runners are constantly arguing about how the Dems are preferable to the GOP on the margin. While this is frequently true, what the long-runners argue is also true: there are a growing number of issues where supporting either party represents continuing the inexorable march in the wrong direction.

Think Supreme Court vs the WOD. Short-runners are technically correct (the best kind of correct!) when they argue that Obama is likely to appoint non-heinous individuals to the SCOTUS. At the same time, the last three of our fine Presidents have openly admitted to using drugs. The current guy admits to what sounds like fairly frequent recreational drug use, but ask him about reforming drug law in this country and he giggles like it's a Cheech and Chong joke. On this issue, he and his party are the joke. One more representation of "do as I say, not as I do" elitism from the titular adults in the room. We all know what would have happened to Barack Obama had he ever been caught, especially if it had been with the brothers in the gym and not in the white frat boy's van. In the meantime, enhanced sentences for minorities, privatization of prisons and militarization of the civilian police force continue unabated under either party you might pick to support.

Another issue that gets no traction from either party is climate change. This issue is going to be a serious test of political systems, moral conviction and temporal cognition around the world. What have we done here in America to alleviate the problem? Nothing significant under either party. This isn't really an issue where we all get to weigh in with our normative preferences. If the models currently being used are accurate, there are going to be unavoidable consequences for nearly everyone.

The national debt is another issue. The world wants to pay us to borrow money right now. Neither party can seem to connect this, no matter how much hand-wringing about the debt, to an opportunity to grow the economy again. This depression was man-made and it continues because we insist on it.

In fact, more and more we face problems of our own creation that continue as a result of political failures. Look at the EU crisis right now. It's no different, though I'm not sure whether it's heartening that America isn't the only Western nation facing this dilemma right now.

So, for now, the short-runners can be right. Can I name issues where I prefer Obama to Romney? Sure. The only problem is that in far too many of these cases the issues aren't the most important and the superiority is out at the margin. The list of issues that never seem to get better - how about income inequality and stagnating wages for the middle class - grows and grows under either banner.

I think using King and the

cmaukonen — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:06:13 +0000

In reply to The King analogy is

I think using King and the civil rights movement analogy is misplaced. Remember those involved - black Americans - had a shared life experience, background, history and agenda. It was natural and expected for them to come together and to fight for the same things.

For the progressive community - which is splintered at best - and so called middle America - it is not natural and far to many people do not have a shared life experience and agenda.

This is why even the revolutionaries of the past had to generate propaganda to create a share experience and agenda.

And why now when ever the president wants the country to back him/her (usually for a war) they do exactly the same thing.

Interesting post, Dan. Brings

cmaukonen — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:46:06 +0000

In reply to 2013 and Beyond

Interesting post, Dan. Brings up a number of problems. Demographics for one.

We have now additional demographics we did not have after WWII.

Suburban for one. It was not initially a separate demographic as those who lived in suburbia originally came from the cities or from the rural areas. Now a distinct demographic as we now have people who have been raised in and lived entirely in the burbs as it were.

And a sub group - the gated suburban community which is usually of the higher income bracket.

The questions you pose were difficult enough to answer when there were only the city dwellers and rural/farm dwellers who had each there own views and there fore agendas and wants.

True that some of these agendas do overlap but not enough, I feel, to create a strong consensus.

The small towns, which at one time were extensions of the rural/agrarian culture - being mostly to support it - are now not so much and could be considered a separate demographic unto themselves.

All of which makes reaching an accord much more difficult.

Fewer and fewer groups with similar shared experiences.

The democratic establishment

cmaukonen — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:45:22 +0000

In reply to Kennedy had to be hauled

The democratic establishment were not that fond of the Kennedys. For that and their stand against organized crime (mostly Robert) and wars such as Vietnam (which Jack wanted to end). As well as the financial sector.