dagblog - Comments for "Walking Eunomia and the Tea Party Blues"

Obama so far has governed as

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:16:36 +0000

In reply to Thank you for introducing me

Obama so far has governed as though he sees himself as kind of a Senate Majority Leader, and not a particularly hands-on one, either. He's been quite conventional in his (evident) thinking and in his approaches to governing so far, contrary to what some who were saying over and over again how he is playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers seemed to think he would do, if elected. Stiglitz's take (in Freefall, chapter 3 among other places) is that Obama's approach to the economic crises has actually been very risky for him, politically, in a number of crucial respects. But I would be shocked to learn later on that Obama sees it this way--politically courageous, yes, he maintains he has been that, but I think he would say he has been very moderate and "responsible" in his choices so far.

Well, I wouldn't say I have a

brewmn — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:05:23 +0000

In reply to Thank you for introducing me

Well, I wouldn't say I have a "mania" for Obama (I'm sure others would disagree), but I can tell you why I was excited about voting for him, and it came down to three primary reasons. First, I was really excited about voting for someone who spoke intelligently, clearly, and not in politispeak soundbites. When you contrast him to Clinton, I'm surprised you found him (Bill)so charismatic; I always found him to be a stupefyingly boring speaker. But, I was hoping that the American electorate was ready to have an adult conversation about political solutions to the problems so clearly on display after the disaster of the Bush years. Turns out, they'd rather rail against Big Government and listen to the paranoid ravings of Glenn Beck. As has been said, nobody ever went brok underestimating the intelligence of the american public.

Second and third are related. Based on Bill's presidency and Hillary's campaign, I was sure with Hillary we were going to get a retread to the Clinton/DLC triangulation. I also thought we would get a less militarized approach to foreign policy. So, I was voting anti-Hillary about as much as pro-Obama. But I would have voted for any legitimate challenger to hillary from the left just as enthusiastically.

Finally, I think the mania that was out there was as much due to putting the Bush years behind us as a faith in the transformative powers of Obama. Unfortunately, the Congress and the electorate don't seem to want fundamental changes in policy, just a change in who's doing the driving.

Thank you for introducing me

artappraiser — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:51:42 +0000

In reply to Walking Eunomia and the Tea Party Blues

Thank you for introducing me to Larison and too bad for this:

hat was how I came to my assessment of him as a rather dull, conventional center-left Democrat. In a Culture11 article that has since vanished into the ether

as I would like to be able to read the whole piece. Of course partly I like it because I too always found him a rather dull (and I emphasize the dull, as opposed to say, Bill Clinton, who really was an exciting charismatic character, a people person,) conventional center-left Democrat, too. But this really isn't about "I told you so" moments for me, it's about people who can see irrational manias before others do. Nor is it about being anti-centrist, as I myself am sort of a belliever in the overall value of most conventional center-left policy.

But for the life of me, I couldn't figure out where the mania for Obama was coming from, especially from liberals. Many times during the presidential campaigns, he started to remind me of Dukakis. And I am not any more of a fan of "dull" as anyone else, and I saw him a "dull," staid even, from day one. That others found him exciting, and some kind of change agent according to their own definition rather than Obama's definition (change to more consensus, more civil politics and bipartisanship), I think that's an important something that we still have to figure out why it happened. It was like mass delusion. Because like Larison said, everything about him, his life story, his writing, his speeches they seemed clear to me what he was about. Why did/do so many others left and right see totally opposite things, a charismatic change agent, whether dangerous or positive? That Larison saw this back then, that makes what else he might see very interesting to me. That he/she doesn't let his political views or goals cloud his/her analysis, and that he/she is good at pointing out cultural zeitgeist, that's one of the main things I really enjoy in a pundit and find useful to boot.

In view of my own

moat — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:21:01 +0000

In reply to Well, I know I am. ;o)

In view of my own limitations, I often repurpose the old investment mantra: Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Well, I know I am. ;o)

we are stardust — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:34:47 +0000

In reply to Labels aside, do you see that

Well, I know I am. ;o)

Labels aside, do you see that

moat — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:20:21 +0000

In reply to I am missing something.The

Labels aside, do you see that there could be conservatives who consider their principles betrayed by the Republican party establishment? The Eunomia blogger is not identifying with the tea party, he is pointing to a divison within the Republican party. He is agreeing with your idea that the energy of division has been co-opted by the status quo and objecting to it for his reasons.

There is a parallel phenomenon on the Democratic side. Consider the progressives who see their energy being co-opted by the centrist business friendly DNC. Are they all idiots too?

Donal, this is a significant

Oxy Mora — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:20:17 +0000

In reply to Walking Eunomia and the Tea Party Blues

Donal, this is a significant post, thanks.

Citizens of all stripes are pitted against each other inside a structure of corporate predetermined government. It is the function of corporate media to keep citizens fighting with each other, never to see clearly the actual structure.

I thought Obama would fight from outside the structure to materially change the design. Instead he has fought for concensus inside the structure. We await another character in history who is willing to hammer the struccture from the outside. I don't think that character will be from the tea party, but could possibly be from Republican ranks.

I think corporate America is going to have to decide to what extent they wish to continue to allign with the religious right to keep the existing structure intact. The religious right in fact wants structural change--a structure that is anti-women, anti-environment, anti-science and anti-social safety nets. In effect they are against everthing that corporate America relies upon for sustenance.

Well he is a conservative. Of

Donal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:08:01 +0000

In reply to I am missing something.The

Well he is a conservative. Of course he's for small government.

I am missing something.The

Richard Day — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:58:09 +0000

In reply to Walking Eunomia and the Tea Party Blues

I am missing something.

The Tea Party is on the right track?

They are all, all of them rotten racist corporate repub dupes who are idiots; they stand by while the corporate oligarchy picks their pockets and they cheer.

I'm missing something.

And partisan politics? Every single repub candidate, I don't care what office they are running for, are adamant that they will allow no compromise on their fascistic corporate oligarchic stances.

I am most probably missing something here.