dagblog - Comments for "Wolraich Discusses "Fighting Bob" La Follette on WPR"

Too bad it was only an hour .

Beetlejuice — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:26:46 +0000

In reply to Wolraich Discusses "Fighting Bob" La Follette on WPR

Too bad it was only an hour ... seemed like only 10 minutes ... and it was getting really good with some real meat to chew on ... It would have been nice if there was more time to discuss how present day politics mirrors the history of that time period.

Enjoyed listening to you talk

trkingmomoe — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 06:13:28 +0000

In reply to Wolraich Discusses "Fighting Bob" La Follette on WPR

Enjoyed listening to you talk about your book. Good interview.

The short run, too. Woodrow

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 00:41:58 +0000

In reply to What Wolraich said. It's an

The short run, too. Woodrow Wilson did not embrace progressivism until he ran for governor of New Jersey in 1910. One magazine described his campaign platform as a “Western Insurgent Republican platform,” that is to say, La Follette's platform.

In 1912, La Follette tacitly supported Wilson's presidential campaign against Taft and TR, though they later fell out over America's entry into WWI. La Follette also had close ties to other famous Democrats like William Jennings Bryan and Louis Brandeis.

What Wolraich said. It's an

Verified Atheist — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 23:40:16 +0000

In reply to Ouchy. Do I feel duh, or what

What Wolraich said. It's an easy-to-understand mistake. I was just having some fun with the idea that in the long run he actually helped the Democrats change for the better.

Don't worry. "Progressive

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:09:31 +0000

In reply to Ouchy. Do I feel duh, or what

Don't worry. "Progressive Republican" requires overcoming a lot of cognitive dissonance. Thanks for listening and summarizing!

Exactly right (except for the

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:05:42 +0000

In reply to I listened to the interview

Exactly right (except for the Democrat part). I usually tell people that Follette rhymes with "wallet." Wolraich doesn't rhyme with anything.

And yeah, it's a debate that often happens here at dag and among the left in general. I'm not willing to say that LF's strategy is best in every context, but when faced with obstructionist opponents who aren't negotiating in good faith, LF's long-term strategy to use legislative defeat for shaping public opinion is more effective.

Ouchy. Do I feel duh, or what

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:34:01 +0000

In reply to He was successful to a degree

Ouchy. Do I feel duh, or what? Anyway, I still feel aligned with the essence of my comment but could hardly be surprised to find I made some other dumb mistake.

He was successful to a degree

Verified Atheist — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:23:19 +0000

In reply to I listened to the interview

He was successful to a degree in changing the Democratic Party for the better, I think.

Of course, he was a Republican, so…

I listened to the interview

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:10:42 +0000

In reply to Wolraich Discusses "Fighting Bob" La Follette on WPR

I listened to the interview and although I wasn't able to give it my undivided attention I did learn a few things. In the first couple minutes I learned [presumably] the correct pronunciation of two names that I was mentally mispronouncing; Wolraich and Follette.
Next, I learned that 'Fighting Bob', a hero to many, employed long term tactics that very much paralleled those being successfully employed today by the Tea Party even though the differences in the political philosophies intended to be advanced are nearly dead opposite. He was willing to challenge members of his own party if they were not supportive enough of the positions he wanted to see prevail or gutsy enough to fight for them. He was willing to take short term losses in the pursuit of long term gains. He was supportive of primary challenges to incumbent Democrats as a way to influence the political direction and commitment of his party even though they might cause a Republican to be elected. He was NOT willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, if I understood correctly what I heard, because doing so would simply lead to prolonging evil. He was successful to a degree in changing the Democratic Party for the better, I think. Do you agree? Do I have this approximately right?
This is significant to me in light of the conversations here at Dag, often vitriolic, during the run-up to the last election. Most any idea regarding a constructive alternative to voting for incumbent Democratic candidates, most certainly in the case of the Presidential vote, was seen by the majority as not even possibly a vote for constructive change but instead a vote for all the evils of the GOP. Anything but total support for all things Obama during the run up tp the election was considered by at least some to be stupidly wrong, dangerous to even seriously consider, to be a de facto sellout to the devil. To be stupid and wrong headed politics. Pointing out the effectiveness of the Tea Party tactics was completely dismissed.

Oops, link corrected. Thanks!

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:23:18 +0000

In reply to I couldn't get anywhere with

Oops, link corrected. Thanks!