MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
|
|
Good Sense from a Conservative?
By A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 7:09pm |What should an anti-war Republican do. Daniel McCarthy from The American Conservative has a surprising answer. I find his rationale an unusual and surprising case of political apostasy, but quite thoughtful and quite interesting. Give it three minutes.
URL:
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9694?in=44:45&out=49:09
- 802 reads
Comments
Pretty much the same conversation here.
But these two should vote for Obama because they think he's marginally better.
Why be apathetic about marginally worse getting in? I don't see the logic of that.
As to the strategy for taking back their party, two things: 1) Money talks and will for a long time. So unless you have some big money on your side or, much harder, really have millions of $5 donors, you just won't have enough fighting weight.
2) You have to capture the reigning rhetoric in a way that allows you to communicate your ideas in a way that feels "common sense" to the average guy.
Idealism is fine, but it has to be treated right. People have ideals, but they also face harsh realities every day that tell them that other things count too.
So in addition to content, delivery and tone count too. For example, the guy on the right is WAAAY to scary and intense. He screams "purist." He's also fine burning down the barn with the idea that a new, much better barn will rise from the ashes.
People work too hard to get where they are to feel good about burning anything down. "Who's going to clean up this mess?" is this first thing they ask when they see the barn burning. And they know the answer is a shit sandwich: It will be up to them.
When they see a barn burning, all they think about is all the work they put into building it and maintaining it and all the work it will take to rebuild it. This is not a good feeling. The reasons for burning down the barn don't matter: The idea on its face is a turn off. Having a bunch of intense guys like this leading the charge is the last thing you want.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:23pm
You ignore so much that is essential to the argument that your response is meaningless and without content except to show how shallow is your understanding of what has been said and how dismissive you are about reasons behind legitimate disagreement when your side of an opinion is disputed.
First, the guy on the right thinks that on a specific important topic Obama is marginally better that Romney who he believes is extremely bad and dangerous on that topic. Being willing to recognize that Obama would be better on that topic, and that is of great enough importance that he would rather the choice of his nominal team lost the election to Obama, is hardly being 'apathetic'. Of course, in your chosen world logic would hold that it would be better for him to vote for Romney no matter how bad he is.
[Just as a reality check by way of thought experiment, can you imagine Obama could have a bad enough policy on an important enough subject that you could justify hoping a candidate that was not good on a whole lot of lesser issues would unseat him? Just theoretically, mind you, just to see if you can envision the idea even though you do not agree that it is now the case.]
Next, he recognizes that changing the political culture will be a tough and time consuming project and so he recommends that spending the next four years trying to set the stage for change rather than being forced to defend a horrible status quo or likely more advance of the wrong-headed policies, is the best way his party could invest their efforts, not that he says the project could be completed satisfactorily in that time.
The rest of your comment is worse than the first. It is void of any substance which backs up your assertions, which knocks down the speakers assertions, or offers anything as an alternative to how things can be improved. So, tell us if you will, do you think Obama's foreign policies, focusing mainly on areas of the world where we are in conflict, or where we are either supporting or opposing others in conflict, are smart and effective and legal and in line with our Constitution, and with our treaties and, if you are a believer [which I am not] follow the spirit of Christian teaching?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:56pm
You ignore so much that is essential to the argument that your response is meaningless and without content except to show how shallow is your understanding of what has been said and how dismissive you are about reasons behind legitimate disagreement when your side of an opinion is disputed.
PS: Okay. Teach me...
First, the guy on the right thinks that on a specific important topic Obama is marginally better that Romney who he believes is extremely bad and dangerous on that topic. Being willing to recognize that Obama would be better on that topic, and that is of great enough importance that he would rather the choice of his nominal team lost the election to Obama, is hardly being 'apathetic'. Of course, in your chosen world logic would hold that it would be better for him to vote for Romney no matter how bad he is.
PS: Both guys think Obama is marginally better. The guy on the left, more so to my ear. I didn't listen to their entire conversation, only the part you clipped out. But this is what I'd say: They don't think the other things Romney stands for are sufficiently important as to outweigh his stance on this one area. I have no problem with that.
[Just as a reality check by way of thought experiment, can you imagine Obama could have a bad enough policy on an important enough subject that you could justify hoping a candidate that was not good on a whole lot of lesser issues would unseat him? Just theoretically, mind you, just to see if you can envision the idea even though you do not agree that it is now the case.]
PS: Yes, I can, but I don't see it in the choice before me. And frankly, I've never seen it in any of the Republican choices I've lived through since 1970. I guess it's admirable they are willing to break with their party, if they are in fact going to break. Neither said he was going to vote for Obama, did he? I can't remember. But frankly, the Republican Party is so deeply flawed, this doesn't surprise me.
Next, he recognizes that changing the political culture will be a tough and time consuming project and so he recommends that spending the next four years trying to set the stage for change rather than being forced to defend a horrible status quo or likely more advance of the wrong-headed policies, is the best way his party could invest their efforts, not that he says the project could be completed satisfactorily in that time.
PS: Yes, but I don't see the two parties as being in the same situation, at the same level of decrepitude. The Democratic Party, and Obama in particular, still advances policies I like and think should be advanced. Moreover, the Republican Party--who wins if we lose--wants to roll back those policies. So I don't want to see that happen. Spending the next four years regrouping and thinking more deeply about how to effect bigger changes is something I support. I don't think the party has to fall flat on its back in order for this happen, though as the fundamentalists like to say, "that's a theory that's out there." Moreover, I consider it immoral to acquiesce in that happening: A lot of good people will get hurt in very specific ways if that happens. I care more about them than about all this high-level theorizing, in part because it's not at all clear that all this theorizing is ever going to trickle down to a level where the average person is going to benefit. Maybe. Maybe not. But soon, a person with Stage 3 cancer will be able to get insured. That matters more to me.
The rest of your comment is worse than the first. It is void of any substance which backs up your assertions, which knocks down the speakers assertions, or offers anything as an alternative to how things can be improved. So, tell us if you will, do you think Obama's foreign policies, focusing mainly on areas of the world where we are in conflict, or where we are either supporting or opposing others in conflict, are smart and effective and legal and in line with our Constitution, and with our treaties and, if you are a believer [which I am not] follow the spirit of Christian teaching?
PS: I think the intervention in Libya was the right and moral thing to do and removing support from Mubarak was the right thing to do. Trying to stop the bloodshed in Syria would be the right thing to do if we could figure out how to do it. Getting out of Iraq was the right thing to do. Escalating in Afghanistan was the wrong thing to do and served no purpose. Killing Awlaki, US citizen or no, was the right thing to do, though bringing him in might have been better if it could have been done. Killing his son was the wrong thing to do, but the real mistake was made by the person who sent a 16 year old there in the first place. So far, Obama is doing okay with Iran, though maybe not great.
LULU, the guys on the tape aren't offering "substance" or "back up." They aren't discussing specific policies, except touching on Iran. They aren't even committing to voting for Obama from what I heard. They are talking about a philosophical, or really strategic, approach to moving their party a certain way. And though you obviously think these guys are cool and deep thinkers, they are suggesting that it might be right to vote for the guy EYE support because he's marginally better on war and peace, the issue you CLAIM to care about. That would be the same same guy, Obama, whom, I guess, you don't support--or something, though at this point, it's hard to tell. So it's odd for you to cudgel me with them.
I appear to be the only person who's taken the time to comment on a piece you think is really cool and unusual. I've done it twice now. Be a better host.
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:58pm