Saturday night ended up being a big arguefest with Bernie Maniacs which is kind of a waste of time though entertaining. You can never have a logical discussion with Emoprogs because they don't like sober, left brain, analysis. Like a woman in love all that matters with Bernie is 'That I love him.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/i-kick-hornets-nest-of-bernie-maniacs.html
They blanch at anything so cold as to think strategically or look at the big picture. or party affiliation.
In their mind it's just a contest to see who has the most liberal ideas on every topic, to discover who the 'True progressive' is. Which is just silly. Years ago, Garry Wills got it right.
"Though the debate image is still popular, voter analysis established long ago that the truly issue-oriented people are the frankest partisans. Since our parties are not ideological, but constellation of interests, the more educated and active people look to the long-term impact of these constellated groups on the values they cherish, not frothy campaign rhetoric."
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441214018&sr=1-1&keywords=confessions+of+a+conservative
pg. 86
This is why I'm not going to turn on Hillary because she won't criticize TPP or Keystone-of course, Emoprogs just assume this means she's for it; no issue can ever have more than one side to it.. A single issue is not going to make me change my mind but the likely long term effect of which party is in power. I truth I vote not so much for this candidate or that as I vote for the party. I'm always going to vote for the Democrat, Full stop.
Bernie's not a Democrat and voting for him is not seeing the long view. My trouble with the Bernie Maniacs is all they see is the frothy campaign rhetoric.
But as Wills argues, elections don't decide issues.
In 1965, when he was running for mayor of New York, Buckley was asked what he would do if he won, and he shot back: “Demand a recount.” That one comment got more attention than all the position papers he had labored over to show that the nascent Conservative Party of New York should be taken seriously. More immediately, the quip almost made his assistant campaign manager faint. He took Buckley aside and said, “You have people working night and day for your campaign. You can’t dismiss their efforts, making it harder for them to raise money or make voters pay attention.” Buckley never again said he could not win. He had learned the rules: pretend candidates have to pretend they are not pretending. It seems almost cruel to let down people whose belief in you is greater than your own.
Of course, once you start professing belief in yourself, it is easy to try sipping some of your own Kool-Aid. It saves psychic wear and tear just to go along with the campaign’s official line. I observed the perils of pretend campaigns in the case of Ralph Nader. In 1972, many were urging Nader to run for president—among them my friend Marc Raskin. Nader told Raskin he had worked hard to master the projects he was devoted to—car safety, consumer protection, the environment, and the PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups) he was setting up state-by-state. If he ran for president, he would have to learn about many things he had not studied (who is the president of Uzbekistan?) and try pleasing a range of constituents with priorities very far from his own. He could do more by staying focused."
"But ten years later, I ran into Nader at the New Hampshire primary and had lunch with him. When I quoted what he had told Raskin, he said that he now had wider interests and had convinced himself that the best way to draw attention to his concerns was to become a candidate for the highest office in the land. He ran half-heartedly in 1972, but in the nineties he changed his mind, readying himself to plunge ruinously into the 2000 race, where he came as a savior to prove that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans and we should reject them both for his one true position. This made him refuse to run only in states where he could not affect the outcome (advice given him by friends like his old fan Marc Raskin). He thus became one of the factors electing George Bush, giving us all the Iraq war, torture, and the Surveillance State. He has haunted subsequent presidential campaigns as the ghost of his former self, a social prophet dwindled into a mini-messiah, joining Gene McCarthy in the Harold Stassen brigade of perpetual candidates. That is how running for president can hollow you out."
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/may/12/dont-run-elizabeth/
Also Will's has a great piece on Barney Frank's new book. He quotes Frank here:
"There is a price to pay for rejecting the partial victories that are typically achieved through political activity. When you do so, you discourage your own foot soldiers, whose continued activity is needed for future victories. You also alienate the legislative partners you need. A very imperfect understanding of game theory is at work here. Advocates often tell me that if they give elected officials credit for incremental successes, they will encounter complacency and lose the ability to push for more. But if you constantly raise your demands without acknowledging that some of them have been satisfied, you will price yourself out of the political marketplace. When members of Congress defy political pressure at home and vote for a part of what you want, they are still taking a risk. Telling them you will accept only 100 percent support is likely to leave you with nothing."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/barney-frank-hampered-brilliance/
See Frank's full book here.
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Politics-Society-Same-Sex-Marriage-ebook/dp/B00N046ZFC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441614285&sr=1-1&keywords=barney+frank
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/i-kick-hornets-nest-of-bernie-maniacs.html
They blanch at anything so cold as to think strategically or look at the big picture. or party affiliation.
In their mind it's just a contest to see who has the most liberal ideas on every topic, to discover who the 'True progressive' is. Which is just silly. Years ago, Garry Wills got it right.
"Though the debate image is still popular, voter analysis established long ago that the truly issue-oriented people are the frankest partisans. Since our parties are not ideological, but constellation of interests, the more educated and active people look to the long-term impact of these constellated groups on the values they cherish, not frothy campaign rhetoric."
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441214018&sr=1-1&keywords=confessions+of+a+conservative
pg. 86
This is why I'm not going to turn on Hillary because she won't criticize TPP or Keystone-of course, Emoprogs just assume this means she's for it; no issue can ever have more than one side to it.. A single issue is not going to make me change my mind but the likely long term effect of which party is in power. I truth I vote not so much for this candidate or that as I vote for the party. I'm always going to vote for the Democrat, Full stop.
Bernie's not a Democrat and voting for him is not seeing the long view. My trouble with the Bernie Maniacs is all they see is the frothy campaign rhetoric.
But as Wills argues, elections don't decide issues.
In 1965, when he was running for mayor of New York, Buckley was asked what he would do if he won, and he shot back: “Demand a recount.” That one comment got more attention than all the position papers he had labored over to show that the nascent Conservative Party of New York should be taken seriously. More immediately, the quip almost made his assistant campaign manager faint. He took Buckley aside and said, “You have people working night and day for your campaign. You can’t dismiss their efforts, making it harder for them to raise money or make voters pay attention.” Buckley never again said he could not win. He had learned the rules: pretend candidates have to pretend they are not pretending. It seems almost cruel to let down people whose belief in you is greater than your own.
Of course, once you start professing belief in yourself, it is easy to try sipping some of your own Kool-Aid. It saves psychic wear and tear just to go along with the campaign’s official line. I observed the perils of pretend campaigns in the case of Ralph Nader. In 1972, many were urging Nader to run for president—among them my friend Marc Raskin. Nader told Raskin he had worked hard to master the projects he was devoted to—car safety, consumer protection, the environment, and the PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups) he was setting up state-by-state. If he ran for president, he would have to learn about many things he had not studied (who is the president of Uzbekistan?) and try pleasing a range of constituents with priorities very far from his own. He could do more by staying focused."
"But ten years later, I ran into Nader at the New Hampshire primary and had lunch with him. When I quoted what he had told Raskin, he said that he now had wider interests and had convinced himself that the best way to draw attention to his concerns was to become a candidate for the highest office in the land. He ran half-heartedly in 1972, but in the nineties he changed his mind, readying himself to plunge ruinously into the 2000 race, where he came as a savior to prove that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans and we should reject them both for his one true position. This made him refuse to run only in states where he could not affect the outcome (advice given him by friends like his old fan Marc Raskin). He thus became one of the factors electing George Bush, giving us all the Iraq war, torture, and the Surveillance State. He has haunted subsequent presidential campaigns as the ghost of his former self, a social prophet dwindled into a mini-messiah, joining Gene McCarthy in the Harold Stassen brigade of perpetual candidates. That is how running for president can hollow you out."
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/may/12/dont-run-elizabeth/
Also Will's has a great piece on Barney Frank's new book. He quotes Frank here:
"There is a price to pay for rejecting the partial victories that are typically achieved through political activity. When you do so, you discourage your own foot soldiers, whose continued activity is needed for future victories. You also alienate the legislative partners you need. A very imperfect understanding of game theory is at work here. Advocates often tell me that if they give elected officials credit for incremental successes, they will encounter complacency and lose the ability to push for more. But if you constantly raise your demands without acknowledging that some of them have been satisfied, you will price yourself out of the political marketplace. When members of Congress defy political pressure at home and vote for a part of what you want, they are still taking a risk. Telling them you will accept only 100 percent support is likely to leave you with nothing."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/barney-frank-hampered-brilliance/
See Frank's full book here.
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Politics-Society-Same-Sex-Marriage-ebook/dp/B00N046ZFC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441614285&sr=1-1&keywords=barney+frank
This is a great point: why do activists always think that they should just make demands all day and never acknowledge that any demands have been satisfied? I don't get this idea that this will lead to complacency.
You could make the counterargument that politicians so live on praise that this would be the way to get them to do more for your cause or issue-give them rave reviews for what they've already done.
I can't resist pointing out that activists are feminine and politicians are masculine. But the women's magazines always warn women they have to stroke their man's egos at least some of the time. Activists offer nothing but demands and accusations.
What kind of teacher for instance only criticizes young students but never praises them or gives them any credit?
In the book, Frank also laments the rise of Nader in 2000-he had called that one from the start but Nader had to prove that he alone had the true position on everything.
Another thing I appreciated is Frank-as a gay man who was able to come out of the closet only recently and is now happily married-says that at the time had no problem with Kerry coming out against gay marriage in 2004 as the time wasn't yet ripe for Americans to accept gay marriage.
This to me is admirable. I get so tired of purists who demand perpetual purity perpetually.
Frank gets that sometimes the politics has to change first. As Wills' points out in Confessions of a Conservative Presidents that do big things don't usually run on those big things.
Lincoln never ran on anything like abolition. FDR ran on cutting spending, not the New Deal, Then in 1940 he ran on staying out of WWII.
Obama was the President who finally got us marriage equality, but he didn't run on it either. This is why you can't go too far in buying into frothy campaign rhetoric, a al the Bernie Maniacs.
In the book, Frank also laments the rise of Nader in 2000-he had called that one from the start but Nader had to prove that he alone had the true position on everything.
Another thing I appreciated is Frank-as a gay man who was able to come out of the closet only recently and is now happily married-says that at the time had no problem with Kerry coming out against gay marriage in 2004 as the time wasn't yet ripe for Americans to accept gay marriage.
This to me is admirable. I get so tired of purists who demand perpetual purity perpetually.
Frank gets that sometimes the politics has to change first. As Wills' points out in Confessions of a Conservative Presidents that do big things don't usually run on those big things.
Lincoln never ran on anything like abolition. FDR ran on cutting spending, not the New Deal, Then in 1940 he ran on staying out of WWII.
Obama was the President who finally got us marriage equality, but he didn't run on it either. This is why you can't go too far in buying into frothy campaign rhetoric, a al the Bernie Maniacs.
No comments:
Post a Comment