Skip to main content

View Diary: On the false equivalence between "Obama rox" and "Obama sux" (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You mistake me. (11+ / 0-)

    And that's not unlikely to be my fault.

    But what I'd like you to understand is that some of us, quite a few in fact, don't argue solely based on 'The Market'. Or even mainly. Social and economic justice are two sides of the same coin, I think.

    I give you credit for trying to understand and analyze the differences between us, but again, you're not really putting yourself in the other person's shoes as far as I can tell.

    Where we agree, again taking a guess, is that we as a movement and a country are in a moment of crisis. My feeling is that the more time we waste arguing over the virtues of individual actors rather than go into the structures they represent, the longer this crisis will last, and the smaller the chance we can solve it.

    Does that make sense?

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:46:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Okay: (10+ / 0-)
      My feeling is that the more time we waste arguing over the virtues of individual actors rather than go into the structures they represent, the longer this crisis will last, and the smaller the chance we can solve it.
      So what's your opinion on "neoliberalism" (as defined above) as one of the "structures they represent"?

      "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

      by Cassiodorus on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:49:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It could be a useful concept. (8+ / 0-)

        Take a look at Frank Rich's newest piece in NY Mag, for example, about the bipartisan, permanent composition of our government. It completely supports your case.

        I have several problems with that case. One, as noted, I don't believe we can ignore social issues. They matter quite a bit.

        Two, in practice, evidence is clear that a Democratic administration is better for the little guy than one of the other side. The post-Nixon redistribution of resources slowed and partially reversed twice twice: under Carter and Clinton, and not by accident. We'll see the same with the ACA.

        Third, I would argue that Democrats are institutionally more modest when it comes to putting American troops in harm's way.

        So I'd be hesitant about stressing commonalities, though they do exist, over differences.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:13:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site