Toot, toot!
Prometheus6 thought enough of a comment I left to make it a post. So yeah, I'm tooting my little horn. And I'll share the comment with you. I linked the posts I'm referring to:
THIS IS COMMENTARY ON THIS POST AND THE EARLIER "BOEHNERIZATION OF OBAMA" POST
Posted October 31st, 2010 by Blaque Swan
[P6: No1KState posted this comment after changing her tag to Blaque Swan. I promoted it to a post because she's talking about a major concern of mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that wherever we come down on Obama, we're all progressives, right? Then what are we really arguing about? It's not as though those on the "Probama" side think he's been a stalwart of progressive legislation and policy. Cause seriously. He could end DADT and federal prosecution of minor marijuana crimes by executive order. We all agree that the stimulus wasn't large enough, nor financial reform strong enough. Blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
We're arguing about who's to blame for our current electoral state. Obama for not being strong enough? Congressional Dems for being too moderate? Rank and file progressives for not remaining engaged? All of those arguments have some merit, right? So what are we going to do next? Are we going to start arguing over blame-percentages? And in this scenario where we assign percentages of blame, do we split 100% equally or is it a percentage of what they should have done?
Let's say we go with assigning percentage blame based on what each party should have done. Before we begin arguing over whether Obama did 5% or 50%, we need to agree on what represents 100%. Does 100% represent every single progressive idea across the board, not to mention keeping Van Jones and not firing Shirley Sherrod? Or, does 100% represent his campaign pro . . .
Oh, damn. The dumb-dumbs won the House and picked up 6 senate seats.
Who're we going to blame for that?
Which is all to say I agree with George Soros (I read the entire article you suggested, ptc.). Well, I agree with him as much as I could understand. (How does a country devalue its currency?) In addition, I just feel like no matter what Obama did or didn't do, we have a country of racists and dumb-dumbs, and the groups aren't mutually exclusive. It would take more than Obama doing 100% of what Krugman suggested to effectively change the political discourse. Obama could take a few more lessons from George Lakoff, but I'm not sure even that would help. Because where dumb-dumb ends, racist begins. To really change the conversation would take progressives literally teaching their dumb-dumb neighbors how economics really works. We'd have to keep drilling facts such as the fact that all income groups do better under Dem presidents than Republican presidents. We'd have to keep calling our congressional representatives. We'd have to get involved in local and state politics. I could go on and still haven't delved issues of race. Make no mistake about it. We do have to deal with race. The principle reason we don't have a German or Sweden-type economy is race. And it seems like some European countries will start cutting into their social safety net principally because of race.
So why are we wasting time and energy arguing amongst each other at this point in time? Really. Some of these arguments could've been saved for Nov 3. No matter how pissed off you are at Obama for not being a stronger progressive, you do plan to vote, right? Or, maybe you think have a Republican House and a more jacked-up Senate will help Obama. That position does have a fairly strong argument if you care to take that bet. Emphasis on bet.
Rather than arguing amonst each other, shouldn't we be trying to educate the dumb-dumbs and disabuse them of their dumbness? Shouldn't we be mobilizing the vote? If you can do all these things, more power to you. I can't. Health issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Share This Article
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This isn't too complicated. If you disagree with me, I'm more than happy to have an honest discussion. I'm quite open to learning new facts and ideas. I'm dying for a conservative to explain their ideas in a sensible way.
But, I do have rules, and they also apply to those who agree with me. They just get the benefit of my already knowing the fact they'll be referring to.
So, here're the comment thread rules:
1 - Use facts.
2 - Refer to policy.
3 - Don't rely on theories and conjectures. Show me how, for example, a public health insurance option will lead to "rationing" of health care.
4 - No unfounded attacks on any entity.
If you break those rules, I will edit your comment to my own whimsical satisfaction.
Lastly, perhaps most importantly, I'm not going to entertain too much pro-white/racism-denying discussion. I want this to be a space to discuss strategies to fight racism, not space where I have to fight racism. I want anti-racists to be able to come here for a mental respite. If what you're interested in doing is attempting to demonstrate the fallacy of anti-racism by repeating the same ole comments and questions and accusations we hear all the time, please do that somewhere else.