July 30, 2004

Progressive Jackpot

I suppose I disagree with practically everything Naomi Klein has ever written. This article isn't an exception, exactly, but I think she has a well-formulated point about how "progressives" tend spin themselves into self-caricatured irrelevance when it comes to George W. Bush:

It's not that the president is dumb, which I already knew, it's that he makes us dumb.

Klein's idea is that a Kerry presidency, while "just as bad" from an anti-everything point of view, would at least free progressives from the irresistible temptation to substitute bitter, sophomoric attempts at humor that impress no one but themselves for actual argument and analysis that might stand a chance of making a dent outside the magic circle. And, who knows, it could even have a similarly salutary effect on expediency-driven Republican partisans as well. It's worth a shot, anyway.

Posted by Dr. Frank at July 30, 2004 06:11 PM | TrackBack
Comments

So, you're voting Kerry then? Talk about your lesser of two evils.

I'm unsure whether punching Nader on the ballot come November(it's my first presidential election, hurray!) would constitute a total waste of vote. Then again, wasn't there a similar situation involving Ross Perot back in the 92-96 elections? Am having trouble finding information on his supposed effect and am not old enough to remember.

Posted by: Kid Somnambulist at July 30, 2004 06:45 PM

Another way to summarize Klein's article is that Bush invites ad hominem criticism, which distracts the Left from analyzing and criticizing the systems that are at fault, while Kerry is dull and plodding enough to close off attacks on his intelligence, laziness, etc. The most valid point she makes is that the world's problems are not caused by a "few bad apples" who happen to be running things, but by the structures of economy, politics, society that make unjust outcomes very, very likely. While I agree with her analysis of the Left's relationship to a Kerry administration, I think it's important to add that the common enemy of Bush has expanded coalitions on the Left -- for instance, the AFL-CIO will be very reluctant to criticize a Pres. Kerry on his Iraq policies, even if they're identical to Bush's, simply because Bush is an open enemy of the labor movement and Kerry will be some sort of ally.

Kid,

Perot's appeal was based on a belief that politicians can't run things, only businessmen can, and Perot can just go to Washington and get everything squared away. More like Arnie, I think, than Nader, who's saying not that politicians are weaklings or incompetent but that they're corrupt agents of Big Business. Perot said "Business should run government, vote for me," while Nader says "Business is running government, vote for me." The main similarity is they both claim to be uncorruptable: Nader because he's so committed and hostile to special interests, Perot because he was so rich and didn't need to take special interest contributions.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

Posted by: Nick at July 30, 2004 08:47 PM

I like to think of it all as one big game of "good cop bad cop".

Posted by: Blixa at July 30, 2004 10:36 PM

Anybody but Bush, eh? How about Al Sharpton? I know he's not an American and thus disqualifed but they are saing ANYBODY, so how about Fidel Castro? There's always this kind of hate for any Republican when he's in office. I see it as Democratic sour-grapes and they're much much more vocal than the Republicans. I would like to see a 3rd party candidate win so this infantile party-line whining will stop. I'd vote for Jesse Ventura in a heartbeat.

I was a Freshman in High-School during the Perot times, so here's what I remember: Perot was having a good run (a first for a 3rd party candidate) ans even though he was trailing the Rep. and Dem. candidates it wasn't by that much. I think he could've made a run at it if it hadn't been for two infamous words "you people". He was talking to the NAACP about crime, welfare, healthcare and making the USA a better place in general and said "it's all up to you people and how you want to handle it". While conveying a positive message, it as taken out of context and he was turned into a racist by the NAACP and the media. Hell, he could've been talking to the student body at USC or a bunch of teamsters and said "you people" and it wouldn't have cost him his political career, but if you look at an African-American crosseyed then you're branded as a racist biggot. The problem has only got worse today. Call me a racist if you will, I don't care, it's only a name, but it's got to stop somewhere and until the majority stops letting the minority walk all over them it won't. (Yes I know I got a bit off-topic but he/she asked).

Posted by: Zaphod Beeblebrox at July 30, 2004 11:35 PM

whoa that was a really stupid statement you just made, man. that is offensive in so many ways but i know you don't care so i won't enumerate.

Posted by: r a e d y at July 30, 2004 11:41 PM

It's safe to say that the left's retreat into escapist irrelevancies is nearly complete.

Posted by: JB at July 30, 2004 11:53 PM

--"whoa that was a really stupid statement you just made, man. that is offensive in so many ways but i know you don't care so i won't enumerate."

What?????

Sorry, I fail to see the offensiveness. He's/She's just pointing out how PC and thin-skinned this nation has become.

This kind of garbage doesn't help either
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations/

but alas I digress, this isn't the point of the discussion.

I agree with the above that I'd vote for Nader if I thought it'd mean anything, but witht the exception of Perot, the 3rd party Presidential hopefuls always start too late in the game with not near enough $$ and campaign time to even be taken seriously.

Posted by: Quentine McCord at July 31, 2004 12:50 AM

Zaphod,

Perot lost support because he's a nutcase. I think he was the white, middle class version of the Rodney King riots: "Hey, politicians, you can't destroy our community! Only WE can destory our community, and here's how we're gonna do it! And our way is more fun than yours!"

You've also left out the policy context of his campaign. For instance (and this is for all you Reason magazine fans out there), Perot advocated martial law to prosecute the war on drugs. Here's a Stanford Univ/Hoover institute reference to this stance, www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/920505Arc2237.html, and a description of Ross's proposed drug policy:

"Perot called for new wiretap powers for police, a system to rate judges according to the severity of drug sentencing, and cordoning off black neighborhoods in Dallas for house-to-house searches for drugs by hundreds of police.

"He has called for declaring martial law to combat the drug trade. He says, “You can start dealing with the problem in straight military terms.”"
Source: Strong-Man Politics, by George Grant, p.111 Nov 7, 1992

see www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ross_Perot_Drugs.htm

That seems to be a pretty legitimate reason for many African Americans to oppose his candidacy.

And do you really believe that the problem in our country is that "the majority is letting the minority walk all over them"?

Posted by: Nick at July 31, 2004 02:05 AM

yeah i stand by it. it's a stupid comment. because i don't think the "majority is letting the minority walk all over them". i think it makes sense for african-americans to be sensitive about racism. because of all the racism that exists and the history of the horrible things white people have done to black people. just try to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and really think about it.

and what is so ridiculous or "garbage" about reparations? it's about getting backpayment for years of unpaid, forced labor. what's wrong with that? you think that racism and slavery are not major causes of the economic, social, etc. gaps that exist between black and white people? this isn't about being PC; it's about owning up to what our country has done to people and trying to fix it. i don't think that's garbage. but i guess i'm just a bleeding-heart liberal. shucks.

Posted by: r a e d y at July 31, 2004 03:35 AM

So, if your great great grandfather was a Chinese railroad worker or Irish bricklayer, or heaven forbid an indentured servant (yes whitey was indentured too) then you should get millions of my tax dollars because they were impoverished by people whom I know knothing about and may share a gene or two with? It has nothing to do with being a bleeding-heart liberal and everything to do with having some common sense. It's smart but lazy people seeking an undeserved payday via a lawyer. Hell, better odds than the lottery!

Posted by: Zaphod Beeblebrox at July 31, 2004 03:45 AM

Hmmm. Bleeding-heart liberals and hick tycoons notwithstanding, I have to say my biggest argument for voting Nader would be for the sake of subverting, in an immeasurably miniscule way, the outdated two-party system. The whole democrats-republicans gestalt is obviously reaching whole new levels of effed-upness (see current smear campaigns, partisan interests, etc), and this is the best contribution towards the end of doing away with it that I can think of.

Can't say I'm very well-informed. I'm 19 and all I have are a lot of opinions and precious few solutions- that's why we have the papers I suppose. And why I hang around these types of places, heh heh.

Posted by: Kid Somnambulist at July 31, 2004 03:53 AM

I'm all for newly freed slaves being given reparations from the institutions that exploited them. Just not to their decendants.

Reparations for wrongs done to dead ancestors are horsesh*t.

I have black, white and cherokee ancestors.

So how much of my paycheck gets taken from my white parts to give to my black parts?

If some of my white ancestors came to America after slavery ended, what would be their contribution. How much do the Arabs who abducted my black ancestors and sold them to the Europeans have to kick in?

How about the Europeans who benefited from the slave trade but whose decendants live in Europe?

Do I have to go on?


Here's my take: Slavery Reparations looks like free money to some dolts who think there is such a thing as "government money".

Newsflash! That's our money.


p.s. By the way, what's up with the non-resizable window for comments. It's weensy on my screen.

p.p.s. I'd rather not give my address to harvesters if it's ok with you. You don't have valid address checking so why make me enter a bogus address?

Posted by: willc2 at July 31, 2004 05:48 AM

um..this is my real handle, so googling for it will pull up comments I've made on other sites.

I don't want you to think I'm a troll or a blogroach.

Posted by: willc2 at July 31, 2004 05:51 AM

okay, the suit that was linked to had nothing to do with tax money. it had to do with corporations that had benefitted from slave labor, so , no, zaphod, don't worry. no one's going to get "millions of your tax dollars", since i'm sure you've paid millions of dollars worth of taxes anyway.
and also nothing you mentioned compares with the cruelty of the african slave trade. people were stolen from their homes and family, forced to live in horrible conditions, raped, killed, beaten, forced to breed, lived solely to provide someone else with free labor, and a lot of other terrible stuff, you know that. that's disgusting. i'm not saying that injustices done to other groups aren't horrible, too, but they don't compare to slavery. so yeah maybe 'whitey' was 'indentured' but it doesn't even begin to compare.
i'm not personally of the belief that giving people money is going to make up for that, but that's how the legal system operates, i guess. those companies could at least issue some sort of statement apologizing for their previous involvement or something, or set up a scholarship fund like it says at the bottom of that article that no one bothered to read.
and guess what, zaph, tax money is not just yours. and it doesn't just belong to white people. everyone pays taxes. even black people. even 'smart but lazy people', whatever that's supposed to mean.
i totally understand the idea behind seeking reparations because i see the difference that exists between the races every single day. and i'm sure that government-sponsored slavery and government-okayed racism have something to do with those differences. but this is america and i guess everyone has the same opportunities for success, right? if you believe that, you're blind. or just terribly sheltered.

Posted by: r a e d y at July 31, 2004 02:42 PM

Zaphod,
you are what is known as a latent racist. Black people were stolen from their home country to work in the states for no money, and for huge amounts of abuse and neglect. Not to mention lynched and murdered (hung by a tree for "looking cross-eyed" at a white person) up until the 60's. They deserve reparations, apologies and anything else our government can offer. For you to have some sort of attitude regarding that is absurd, and you should really educate yourself before you spout off your college-boy starbucks bullshit.

Posted by: myke at July 31, 2004 09:01 PM

Zaphod,
you are what is known as a latent racist. Black people were stolen from their home country to work in the states for no money, and for huge amounts of abuse and neglect. Not to mention lynched and murdered (hung by a tree for "looking cross-eyed" at a white person) up until the 60's. They deserve reparations, apologies and anything else our government can offer. For you to have some sort of attitude regarding that is absurd, and you should really educate yourself before you spout off your college-boy coffee house opinions on this board

Posted by: myke at July 31, 2004 09:02 PM

sorry for multiple postings. but now you have both versions. i dont really know what happened with that

Posted by: myke at July 31, 2004 09:07 PM

"Can't say I'm very well-informed. I'm 19 and all I have are a lot of opinions and precious few solutions- that's why we have the papers I suppose. And why I hang around these types of places, heh heh."

Most solutions are worse than the disease. Utopia (or close) is not a possibility. Mankind is tragic.

The fact that even this kind of democracy exists is nothing short of a miracle.

That said, if you're left-leaning in your sympathies, you should vote for Nader. It'll help Bush, and that's a good thing for the left.

The left needs an imperfect America to criticize -- but for that to happen America must not go down the toilet as a power. 'Cause let's face it, with Kerry it's a long slide downward.

Posted by: JB at July 31, 2004 10:09 PM

JB,

And the right doesn't "need an imperfect America to criticize"? So if you're on the right, you should vote for Kerry so that you'll have more to be upset about?

Mankind may be tragic, we may all be headed to hell in a handbasket, but we can go there with 44 million Americans uninsured or we can go there with everyone in the US getting to go to the doctor when they're sick. I prefer the second option. That's why I'm on the left.

Posted by: Nick at August 1, 2004 12:23 AM

we on the left (or ultra-left, dangerously wacky and insane left) have plenty about kerry to criticize, i don't think anyone thinks that america is going to be perfect with him. but he's less terrifying and horrible. with bush it's a long slide downward on a razorblade with a thornbush at the end. ouch.

Posted by: r a e d y at August 1, 2004 05:47 AM

To Dr. Frank: Sorry for perpetuating this exceedingly off-topic and immature debate on reparations, but somebody struck one of my pet-peeves.

To myke: I offer you a hypothetical situation. Say you were arguing with someone about stem cell research, and they repeated the mantra, "Killing babies is wrong, murderer," without offering any facts, logic, or relevance to the argument, appealing entirely to emtion, and proving him/herself painfully ignorant in the process. You would probably consider it a cop-out. You'd be right. So it is when you take any complex issue, wipe away all the details and intricacies, and resort to taking a moral high ground rather than an intellectual one.

If you don't believe the reparations situation is complex, and clearly you don't, consider a few things. The first, that the oppression and death are all in the past, and holding those who had no real involvement responsible is questionable. Second, that discrimination, racism, and a "legacy of slavery" cannot (completely) be blamed for the entire state of the black community today, and the degree to which it can is very subject to argument. (Note that I am not trying to argue either point in this case; I'm merely pointing out complexities). Third, that the people likely to suffer from fining corporations for reparations are innocent stockholders and employees, not the greedy CEOs or what have you.

This has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with living in a world full of grays. You, as a liberal, should understand our world's void of simple black and white.

Now, let's all get back to talking about how stupid Bush is. (Hey, I managed to address the actual topic!)

Posted by: Swimmy at August 1, 2004 09:21 PM

Sorry for stirring up a hornet's nest, but I'm in total agreement with the poster above who said that I'd gladly pay money to anybody who was a slave to an American. Guess what there aren't any!!! They've been dead for over 125 years!!! It's time to quit hanging onto the slavery crutch and start walking for yourself!!! No, I haven't personally paid "millions of tax dollars" but I've paid tens of thousands of dollars and I don't think that a penny of it should go to silly assed shit like the reparations. It should be going for it's intended purposes which are: medicare, social security, education, libraries, military, police and fire departments, national parks, roads and highways etc.... AND NO NOT A PENNY SHOULD GO TO WELFARE!!! That was supposed to have ended after 7 or 13 years, I can't remember which one and it's too late to do research right now. It was supposed to be a temporary relief program and it never ended!!! That's why I can't vote for Kerry!!! His solution to everything is to raise taxes and throw money at a problem (proven track record) while both of them and every President and congress member since WWI should've been working on directing money to where it should be going in the first place!!! ARRRRRRRGGHHHHH!!!!!!! That's why we DO need a 3rd or even 4th and 5th party candidate to get into the race and actually compete. We need somebody without an agenda. I don't know every politician from coast to coast, but the only ones that come to mind that have actually tried their hardest to serve the people, do the right thing and not have some kind of hidden agenda are Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Only one of those two guys can be President!!!!

As far as being racist goes, so what if I am? I guess I'm a horrbile person then, right? I don;t need to justify this to anybody but I'm sure others feel the same and won't say so for fear of persecution, so here goes: In general I don't like black Americans!!!! I have met many Jamaicans, South Africans and other off-shore black people and have had no problems with them, swell guys! Guess what, I don't like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans either, but I know a lot of Cubans and Costa Ricans that again are great guys and good friends!!! I don't lie Middle-Easterners in general, but have some good friends from Turkey!! I have no problem with Asians. Oh, I forgot I hate French people as well! I don't like people from New England very much either. I think the KKK are a bunch of inbred idiots. I think the white kids who wear baggy pants and listen to rap music need to grow up or they'll pull society down the toilet. Let's see...hmmmmmm. Well I guess that about sums it up...old Zaphod the racist biggot is an EQUAL OOPPORTUNITY HATER. I hate everybody equally!!!!

I just hate it when somebody deals the race card. Sorry folks, I know it'd make Jesus very happy and proud, but we just can't all love each other and be one big happy family because we're all too different. It'd be nice if we could but I admit it'd take a much better man than I to do so and let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

Okay, I'm finished with my rant now, all apologies.

Posted by: Zaphod Beeblebrox at August 2, 2004 06:24 AM

I'm not going to touch the reparations question with a ten-foot pole, but I would like to challenge the basic premise of both Klein's article and the blog post that launched this tiny little window on my computer. Suggesting that it might be worth voting Bush out to quiet the progressive whiners is itself about as sophisticated and issue-driven as the Bush in a box doll that pushed Naomi Klein over the edge. Everything we've seen under Bush (including Fahrenheit 9/11) represents merely a change in complainers from the situation under Clinton, not a change in the magnitude or complexity of the complaints. If you're pining for a return to the days of an informed, engaged populace participating in public political debate, you're going to have to go back quite a bit further than four years.

Posted by: D at August 2, 2004 05:50 PM

Actually, D, the post was intended to be neither prescriptive nor sophisticated. But it certainly is possible, though perhaps incidental, that both the Naomi Kleins and the David Frums of the world will be less annoying when they don't have GWB to ridicule and mollycoddle respectively.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at August 2, 2004 06:21 PM

So I guess my comment is better applied to the article itself than the blog post. I do find it hard to imagine, though, that if Kerry were elected, we would be free from "the irresistible temptation to substitute bitter, sophomoric attempts at humor that impress no one but themselves for actual argument and analysis that might stand a chance of making a dent outside the magic circle" -- it would just be coming at us from a different direction. The Clinton administration wasn't that long ago, we should all still remember the "debate" that raged in our country then.

Posted by: D at August 3, 2004 02:48 PM


yes...I guess... but I was wondering,would you say it would be out of human nature or human habit? I hope that's not too irrelevent,but the thought occured to me its more the later.

Posted by: just me at August 4, 2004 01:02 AM