Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no problem with this. (5+ / 0-)
    There is no "Obama rox", either Cassiodorus.  Sorry.

    "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 05:51:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Then why (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delphine, Matt Z

      did you diary the exact opposite?

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:53:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The main premise of this diary -- (7+ / 0-)

        is that there is a false equivalence between "Obama rox" and "Obama sux."  One side cheers on the triumph of neoliberal technocracy while pretending that it's a triumph of personality and of race relations, while the other "side" complains now and then without any basis in political efficacy.

        If Delphine doesn't want to believe that "Obama rox" is real, then I'm okay with that.  I'm into tolerance.

        "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 08:00:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hm. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delphine, jan4insight, Matt Z

          Your premise is flawed.

          See, I got pushed onto the "rox" side because the other side sees any defense of Obama on anything as being an authoritarian, or in your words, supporting "neoliberal technocracy". And I don't like the NSA programs and support measures to curtail or eliminate them -- hopefully by removing those portions of the PATRIOT act that provide their legal basis.

          The sux side is as real as the rox side -- and the rox side is as artificial as the sux side.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:18:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you're for government economic policy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo

            to subordinate people to "market discipline"?

            Interesting.  Would you be willing to explain in what way you are in favor of such a thing?

            Or are you not in favor of such a thing?

            Another thought:

            See, I got pushed onto the "rox" side because the other side sees any defense of Obama on anything as being an authoritarian, or in your words, supporting "neoliberal technocracy".
            What "other side"?

            As I explained above, there are a number of diverse complaints about Obama policy from a number of different angles.  And for the most part they're ineffectual.  So there is no "other side," or at least there is no one "other side."

            "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 08:50:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not for thinking (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              that neoliberal philosophy is the impetus behind subordinating people to 'market discipline'.  

            •  quoth: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              delphine, sviscusi

              "So you're for government economic policy to subordinate people to "market discipline"?"

              See, this is why I nominally align myself with the "rox" crew: Because you (and so many from the "sux" crew you assert doesn't exits) have the stones to even ask that question.

              THAT is the other side. People whose argumentation is that of the ideological absolutist, who equate compromise with betrayal (to paraphrase how kos himself put it) and who project a set of unflattering beliefs on the people who do such, whether they have any basis in fact or not.

              What a couple people on the "sux" side, and quite a few people on the "rox" side have figured out, is that there's not a lot of daylight between the ideological positions of the two sides. Where we differ, most pronouncedly, is in strategy. We play the long game, are willing to go for incremental improvements towards a long term goal, and will sometimes take one step back to take two steps forward. Your side is, largely, all-or-nothing, and taking one step back to take two steps forward is tantamount to treason to the cause of progressivism.

              THAT is where the only real divide is, those few on either side (and they are in roughly equivalent numbers) who literally do base their philosophy on their personal opinion of the President.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:07:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (178)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • Culture (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Labor (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Rescued (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site