What Should Democrats Do? While glancing through the op-ed page of the New York Times, I stumbled across a few discombobulated opinions on the current state of the Democratic party. While the most lucid opinion came from an Austrailian, the most non-sensical came from (imagine this) some liberals.
I'll quote-
I'll quote-
"Political leadership is the act of saying where our country can get to in the future. For the Republicans, the future is pure win-lose. To the Democrats, the goal is a future where everyone prospers. Unfortunately, they haven't figured out the "values" for getting there.This clash of worldviews is at the heart of today's struggle. And the Democrats are traumatized by the "take no prisoners" aspect of the Republicans' goal.
Until the Democrats declare the Republican worldview to be obsolete and offer a clear plan for getting to the future they know in their hearts we can get to, the Republicans will beat them in every election to come."
Also,
"Although writers and political pundits never tire of deriding the Democratic Party for its failure in 2004, it is for some reason verboten to place the blame where it properly belongs: the American people."
If anyone can explain to me why apparently I believe the future is "pure win-lose" or what that entails, why the Republican worldview is obsolete when demographics are trending Republican, or why we should blame the American people for not voting Democratic- by all means do so.
posted by Justin at 10:50 PM 
31 Comments:
"...for getting to the future they know in their hearts we can get to," I think thats the principle of most Democrats, excluding most of their leadership. They are doing what feels good, a future inspired by their 'hearts.' The problem is that they leave their minds behind, so they 'know' in their hearts they can have that future, but the rest of us know in our minds that its never going to happen. This is, however, also the reason why we need liberals. We need someone to be the crazy dreamer types who follow their hearts to keep the rest of us from getting too cold or calloused by looking at things objectively. I don't know that the Democrat party is doing a good job at filling that role, but individual liberals are. I really do think its important to have some of those people in society, even though few or none of their dreams ever come to fruition -- they keep society human.
A Liberal Dictionary for the Intentionally Not-So-Bright: Abridged Edition
“For the Republicans, the future is pure win-lose” – human populations naturally represent essentially two groups: the weak and the strong. An ideal model of society is one in which freedoms lead to equal opportunity, thus rewarding those that are strong without rewarding those that are weak.
“the Republican worldview” – see above for explanation. This worldview is obsolete for several reasons, including but not limited to a) the fact that it is an inhumane, thinly-veiled social Darwinism, b) it’s valuation of “weak” and “strong” reflect entirely wrong principles, c) human populations aren’t really composed of discrete groups anyway. The Republican worldview is disproportionately held by those that are systematically favored by our social system, namely white males from at least middle-class backgrounds. The Republican worldview is disproportionately absent in those that are systematically discouraged by our social system, namely everyone who is not a white male from at least a middle-class background.
“the American people” – where blame belongs. This is the group of people that decide how our social system operates. The fact that “they” voted Republican reflects a decision based in self-interest for particularly influential and large groups: business leaders, white males, military personel, and Evangelicals. In reality, however, those voting blocs represent only a slight majority of voting Americans and a slight minority of overall Americans. Identity politics wins again... Here’s to short-sighted self-interest at the expense of others and, eventually, at the expense of yourself.
"An ideal model of society is one in which freedoms lead to equal opportunity, thus rewarding those that are strong without rewarding those that are weak."
J. Morgan- First, put down your white man's burden. Then, realize that this worldview isn't obsolete because you don't have one to replace it. Plus- equal opportunity is the best you can hope for without penalizing those who are more capable. Any society that tries not to limit what a single person can accomplish is going to be slanted towards rewarding the strong (or more capable). Realizing this doesn't make me an advocate of social darwinism because I'm not advocating that those less capable are somehow less worthy or important.
Also, playing the race card doesn't work either. If the Republican view was totally incompatible with non-white, poor minorities, then they wouldn't be voting more and more for republicans every election. A quote from Jerry Brito-"Hispanics are all Democrats. Ask anyone--anyone except Hispanics, that is. For their part, they seem blissfully unaware that they are supposed to be loyal Democrats. While 72 percent of Hispanics voted for President Clinton in 1996, the figure dropped to 62 percent for Al Gore in 2000, and to 54 percent for John Kerry last year." Weird, generally obsolescence means things fade out of popularity...
I thought j. morgan excellently answered your questions without A)launching any ad hominem attacks, or B) oversimplifying, both of which it is easy to do in the heat of the blog. Great summary, j. morgan.
I would like to point out that the quote said...
"Until the Democrats declare the Republican worldview to be obsolete..."
...which is to say not necessarily that it IS obsolete, but that Democrats need to declare it thus and then offer a competing vision. In fact, it's definitely not obsolete.
standingout, I think your characterization of Democrats as "crazy dreamer types" against Republicans as "objective" is 1) oversimplifying things and 2) wrong.
Here's how I see it. The Democratic leadership right now is caught between wanting to be idealistic and progressive and answering to their more liberal base on the one hand, and normal politics on the other--Hillary Clinton is unbelievably effective at getting defense money spent in NY, and Nancy Pelosi takes illegal campaign contributions like she's Tom Delay. They know how to play the game just like anyone else.
Then there's us progressives. You'll find that many of us--j. morgan and myself included--don't hold to the Democratic party line on nearly anything. We're Christians, we think abortion is immoral, we think affirmative action, welfare and Social Security were bad solutions (albeit to real needs), and we think the Democratic party leadership is nearly indistinguishable in practice from Republican party leadership. (Sure, they SAY different things about abortion, and occasionally one or more will go off about torture or the war, but votes are what counts, and the Iraq war was 98-2 in the Senate.)
Hoping and working for a better society does not make me a crazy dreamer type.
Help, j. morgan?
jackscolon, you're assuming that j. morgan holds to some positions that he doesn't merely because he criticized your position. He never said "All Hispanics were Democrats"--he made a much more nuanced statement, which was that Republican policies (unfairly) favor rich white males more than they do other groups.
Is that true or false?
It's not like I'm saying "All hispanics are republicans"- I'm making the point that it would be illogical for larger and larger groups of people to buy into a system if it was prejudiced against them...
Also, it is increasingly hard to argue that their are blanket barriers in the way of all non-white males in our society. If so, then why don't they seem to apply to Asians and Indians (from India)? The only kind of prejudice that I can see argued would be against those who are unwilling to buy into capitalism.
Who said anything about blanket barriers? Who said that minorities in this country don't have a good shot at the American dream if they work hard enough?
Answer my question.
"It would be illogical for larger and larger groups of people to buy into a system if it was prejudiced against them."
Right...and people sure are logical and reasonable when making political decisions...
I say false- no republican policy that I support favors white males more than any other ethnicity.
Ammendement to A Liberal Dictionary for the Intentionally Not-So-Bright: Abridged Edition
“the Republican worldview” – the previous definition with the following to be added: usually characterized by a strong victimization complex, most obviously seen in the belief that social and civic requirements are seen as punishments for individual achievement (most notably when these requirements are in the form of taxes).
I think it's more accurate to say that the republican world view sets up a society in which everyone is given the chance to accel. If there are weak and strong, which not all republicans would agree is a fair distinction, the republican ideal states that the strong should be given every opportunity to help the weak, but that no system of government has the right to require altruism.
You're trying to say it's unfair because the strong get more than the weak, j. morgan, but by distinguishing between the two you've already admitted that the strong are ahead and have more to begin with. The only way democrats can force a level playing field is to penalize the strong, because while you can force the strong to be weaker, you cannot do anything to force the weak to be stronger.
jackscolon:
“First, put down your white man's burden.”
I don’t have one so that shouldn’t be a problem. I do, however, realize that being among the most privileged and successful members of a civic polity means that I am both more indebted to what that polity has to offer and more responsible to other members of that polity than those who are less privileged and successful. That is, almost by definition, what it means to be a citizen in a civilized society that values human existence.
“Then, realize that this worldview isn't obsolete because you don't have one to replace it.”
It is completely obsolete, not only because I do have one to replace it, but because it is, at it’s root, contrary to civility (in the political, not personal sense). Unfortunately, a blog post won’t facilitate even the quick and dirty version of the alternative.
“Plus- equal opportunity is the best you can hope for without penalizing those who are more capable. Any society that tries not to limit what a single person can accomplish is going to be slanted towards rewarding the strong (or more capable).
There you go with that Right-wing victimization crap again. As for rewarding the strong, I would say that we need to come to some consensus opinion about what “strength” entails. Then, if we want to play your Let’s-Reward-The-Strong Game, we should make sure everyone knows the rules, including poor people and minorities.
“Realizing this doesn't make me an advocate of social darwinism because I'm not advocating that those less capable are somehow less worthy or important.”
No, you are. Social Darwinism is pretty nebulous and doesn’t always entail claims about worth. Pretty much any meritocracy that has an individualist bent to it qualifies as Social Darwinism. Meritocratic systems must recognize personal indebtedness to other persons and institutions and then require service to other persons and institutions as a result. That is the only way it works for more than a hand-full of people at any given time.
”Also, playing the race card doesn't work either. If the Republican view was totally incompatible with non-white, poor minorities, then they wouldn't be voting more and more for republicans every election. A quote from Jerry Brito-"Hispanics are all Democrats. Ask anyone--anyone except Hispanics, that is. For their part, they seem blissfully unaware that they are supposed to be loyal Democrats. While 72 percent of Hispanics voted for President Clinton in 1996, the figure dropped to 62 percent for Al Gore in 2000, and to 54 percent for John Kerry last year." Weird, generally obsolescence means things fade out of popularity...”
Again, you are just plain wrong. Obsolescence can entail decline, but doesn’t have to. In a system where public opinion is not a level playing field and all things are not equal, obsolescence can look shiny and new, especially when the most powerful hold that obsolete view.
redhurt, I am denying that there is such a thing as “weak” and “strong” in any real sense apart from socialization. The “strong” are such because they have been given instruction, opportunity, access, and nurture to a greater degree than the “weak.” The “strong” are those that know the rules and have the skills to play by them, the “weak” are those that do not know the rules and have not been given the skills. I adamantly reject the “pulling yourself up by the boot-strap” model of life – it is simply not true. I don’t want to penalize or force anyone to do anything; I want to require certain things of those who have benefit the most from society, which means “the strong.” And, to disagree with you again, I do think you can make “the weak” stronger by giving instruction, opportunity, access, and nurture from the beginning of life to everyone. Teaching everyone the rules and giving them the skills to play by them is the only way to have truly equal opportunity.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what I'm hearing with this weak/strong stuff is basically socialism. You're saying that if I'm 'stronger' than I should realize that I owe more to society. So if I work 10 hour days because I want to get ahead and my coworker works 8, we should net the same profit. Because I am 'strong' enough to put in those extra hours I should realize that it must be because someone 'weaker' helped me get there. And so I should pay more taxes, or whatever, and not get a benefit for my extra work. That doesn't make any sense at all. I hope thats not what you're saying. If not though, then what? Because thats pretty much the "Republican Mindset" as I understand it -- you get rewarded according to your work. If you do something valuable you get rewarded highly. If you do something that can be done by anyone you get rewarded lightly. If you work more you should get paid more. Supply and demand dictate what your services are worth. Its just unaltered capitalism, from what I understand. And, being a Republican, I think that I should at least have some say in what the "Republican Mindset" is.
I don't really see any evidence that the Republican party is biased towards white males, it seems to me that they are totally unbiased, and that they pick who they think will do the best job, ignoring whether they are a minority or not, even when they are told they ought to go out of their way to pick one (which, by definition, is racism). Do you honestly believe that W chose Roberts because he is a white male? But he chooses Condi, Powell, Gonzales and others to make the most diverse cabinet of any president ever? EVER. Again, that just doesn't make sense.
I don't think Bill Gates success has anything to do with race or gender. Or Steve Jobs. Or Sam Walton (thats the WalMart guy, right?). Or just about anyone successful today. Look at Oprah -- nothing about the way she became successful goes against Republicn ideals. I just don't understand where you get this idea that the party is biased from. Any real facts would be helpful. Also, I'd like to know what is uncivilized about capitalism or the Republican party, because you just make the statement without much evidence.
Neither party is perfect, and as I said, I think that we need both. If its not being a 'crazy dreamer type' to think that people are going to want to give up what they worked hard for because they 'owe it to the polity' then I don't know what is. Its a nice ideal, and I do think that it is ideal. I happen to think that it should be voluntary rather than enforced by the government -- thus making me a Republican -- and I realize that people are, by nature, to greedy to ever realize that ideal. The democrats keep pushing for it, and thats fine because it makes people think about it. But I consider the belief that this system might one day be adopted and supported by the majority of Americans to be a crazy dream... maybe someday it will be a crazy dream come true, but its still a crazy dream.
I am not at all advocating socialism. I think people should be rewarded for working harder, working smarter, and working better than others. At the same time, I want them to realize that they are not able to do that by some force of will or ingenuity or determination that others lack: it is almost exclusively because of the way they were socialized. Ideally, I think they should be rewarded, but also responsible. That’s it. Just so you know, I would also be comfortable with a completely capitalist, unregulated, survival-of-the-fittest economy that would rival even Dick Cheney’s wildest dreams so long as it didn’t pretend to be fair. That is what I cannot stand.
I am not playing a race card or a gender card, this is a socialization card. The way one is taught to participate in society and the economy, the access to institutions that one is given, and the ambitions one has is the product of compounded, generational, historical realities. My Grandpap has a saying that he always reminded me of when we would do things a very laborious, but frugal way: “Poor people have poor ways.” The same could be said about any socioeconomic group. So much about who and how we are in society is inherited that it is impossible to separate individual merit from social setting.
So it isn’t that white males are shown favoritism by Republicans, it is that, because of a multitude of historical realities, white males have been socialized in the appropriate way to succeed in the Republican world at a disproportionate rate. Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and cultural capital are particularly apropos. These things are stockpiled and compounded over generations, just like inherited money. So to “level the playing field” by removing institutional barriers to success doesn’t really level anything because you have white males with this huge stockpile of capital and everyone else with virtually none.
All I am suggesting is that we recognize this situation for what it is and not make it out to be something it is not.
I don't understand why redhurt, standingout and jackscolon think that j. morgan's position, which is something like
"Republican policies, in general, tend to unfairly favor wealthy white males"
entails socialism, the rejection of equality, and the punishment of the strong for the sake of the weak. The last time I checked (and it was recently), j. morgan was a good capitalist who would certainly think that
"if I work 10 hour days because I want to get ahead and my coworker works 8, we should net the same profit"
is FALSE, standingout. Are any of you even reading what he's writing? Here's one of his salient points:
"I don’t want to penalize or force anyone to do anything; I want to require certain things of those who have benefit the most from society, which means “the strong.” "
So we don't punish people for being strong or force altruism on anyone: we merely create a level playing field that is race-blind. (Hence, j. morgan's and my utter rejection of affirmative action as a pathetic solution to a real problem.)
Thus, for example, one way to level the playing field is to tax wealthy people more. Bill Gates can work as hard as he wants to, and he should be rewarded in proportion to that work: EVERYONE HERE AGREES ON THAT. BUT, since Bill Gates gets MORE BENEFIT out of the things that taxes pay for, he should be taxed more. So, there's an example of where Republican policies unfairly favor white males. Our tax system is set up so that the people at the top can get out of paying the taxes we need to support our infrastructure. From the NYT:
"The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent. To determine those differences, The Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury’s. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable, and the Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable. Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000."
So there it is. standingout wants facts; here's one of his:
[Liberals] are doing what feels good, a future inspired by their 'hearts.'
I'd like to see the data to back that up.
If we're going to disagree here, I'd like to know what we're disagreeing about. Don't assign me or j. morgan positions we don't hold to and then rip them to shreds--that's called "the straw-man."
Well Charles, J Morgan seems to have understood where my questions were coming from and has answered them pretty well, I'm sorry that you were offended by them. To be honest, I don't think that there is very much that we all disagree on here, unless you, Charles, disagree with J Morgan's previous comment. I think that we would all agree that this world we live in is not fair, some people are just born with more opportunity than others. We'd all like to see a world where there are no poor, ignorant, or suffering people. We'd like for there to never be discrimination based on anything but skill. And we all think that if you are a good, responsible citizen then you should use some of your surplus to help people less fortunate than yourself. I don't know what this "Repubilcan Mindset" that is obsolete is. Maybe its a Pat Buchanan thing. But I think that the only thing we all disagree about here is how we should go about making our society more like the one we all want to live in. And I think thats about all, in regards to this thread of conversation.
"[Liberals] are doing what feels good, a future inspired by their 'hearts.'
I'd like to see the data to back that up."
"offer a clear plan for getting to the future they know in their hearts we can get to"
I felt like that was enough data, given the context. The writer bluntly states that the Democrats "haven't figured out the "values" for getting" to their desired future. To me that says they are following a vision from their hearts rather than a well thought out plan. And, as I said, I think people like this are necessary to have any kind of healthy and balanced society. Or more correctly I believe that there are some times during which or some issues about which we should all behave this way. I think that to have a balanced society we have to be balanced people and none of us should become so extreme that we are always following one party or the other (in ideology, not the party leadership which is rarely focused on the party ideals).
I quote myself from comment #4:
"In fact, [the Republican worldview] is definitely not obsolete."
I just want to go on record as saying the Republican vision is not obsolete.
I definitely was not offended, standingout, and I appreciate your fairness and insight in comments on this post.
In defence of StandingOutintheCold, I think that some of the stances taken by the far left (not necessarily J. Morgan and Charles Pierce) reflect idealism without the accompaning shred of reality. A perfect example would be HRC's pet- Universal Health Care.
It would be great if everyone could go get laser surgery, Viagra, or some melanoma removed free of charge- BUT there is no good way to accomplish this. Also, many liberals willingly blind themselves (Michael Moore) to the failure of this in Canada, a real-life example of this policy in action.
Moving on, I apologize for any misconception I may have had reflecting the stance of my more liberal brethren on certain issues.
Also, I could use some clarification or some quantatative analysis on how Bill Gates gets more use out of tax money than those less wealthy. Especially since he will pay for his kids to go to private school and won't (rightly) recieve financial aid if those kids go to a state college, won't use public transportation, won't recieve food stamps/welfare/unemployment, and won't recieve any extra benefit from money spent on national defense, etc...
Finally,
"In 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000."
I think someone making $100 million and paying the same percentage as someone making $75,000 is totally fair. For every ten percent taxed- he (or she) is kicking in $10 million for the other person's $7,500. Can you argue that this person is using up over 1,300 hundred times the services?
Standingoutinthecold, thanks so much for your replies. I think you are right that there is less that we disagree about than meets the eye at first glance, however, I want to be careful that my comment doesn’t lose its teeth in all of this. Among other things, I think this is a point that we potentially have a large disagreement about (I say potentially because I don’t want to attribute anything to you specifically):
“I think that we would all agree that this world we live in is not fair, some people are just born with more opportunity than others.”
The Republican position on this, more often than not, is that this is a set of circumstances that a) has evolved as a part of society naturally for the most part, b) probably reflects something about the natural order, and c) is an inevitability in advanced society. Because of that interpretation, Republicans usually have little or no moral outrage when asked about inequality. Instead, they recognize it as an unfortunate social fact that ought to be minimized through not-for-profit organizations on the basis of good will.
The progressive position (not to be confused with the Democratic position, which only God knows what that is) on this, more often than not, is that this is a set of circumstances that a) is the result of generations of overt and orchestrated manipulation whereby controlling elites have “made the rules” and actively limited the means by which admittance to the game is gain, such that only the very few who are similar to them could have access and learn the rules, b) reflects nothing about the natural order, and c) is certainly not a fact of society, but rather a long-standing evil, rectifiable only through a concerted effort by those who know the rules and have access to the game. Because of that interpretation, progressives usually have a nearly inexhaustible supply of moral outrage when asked about inequality. Indeed, they recognize that these foundational limiters are such a pervasive part of society’s fabric and so instrumental in their own success, that nothing short of legal rectification will suffice.
I think it is really important to recognize that this debate is larger than “the way things are,” acknowledging that it also has to do with “why the way things are the way they are.” I think that has a tremendous influence on the solutions that seem most viable. Thoughts?
jackscolon: I want to keep the debate to the subjects that are at the heart of this post, so this is going to be my last comment on taxation. I do want to write this comment, however, as it's a perfect illustration of a real different between a Republican capitalist and a Democratic capitalist.
"Can you argue that this person is using up over 1,300 hundred times the services?"
Yes, because the very reason Bill Gates is able to make $100 million is because he is using our tax-supported infrastructure and tax-supported services. He's supporting himself by paying $10 million in taxes, as those taxes go to pay for the things that he then makes his money from.
Your example of his kids not going to a state college is perfect, because his tax dollars go to provide financial aid for students who can't afford the private universities he can--thus creating a market for his products, namely the massive amounts of Windows licenses that educational institutions buy and are able to pay for because of tuition dollars that Bill Gates contributes to. No tax, no financial aid; no financial aid, lower enrollment; lower enrollment, less need for Windows licenses; less need for Windows licenses, Bill Gates's income goes down.
Taxation is circular. Most money that's taxed goes right back into the economy. Many conservatives resent "their" money being taken off their paychecks by taxation, but their salaries wouldn't be as high if their taxes were lower.
This is not to say that all tax money is used wisely (it's not) or that taxes shouldn't be lower (they should); it's just a demonstration of why people who make more RIGHTFULLY should be taxed more. I'd also like to point out that I don't know what a "just" rate should be; maybe it's lower than the 38%(ish) the Bill Gateses have to pay right now. I don't know--what I do know is that SOME degree of progressive taxation is necessary for a growing economy.
In response to j. morgan's attempt to iron out real differences between our positions, I might say the following by way of summary.
He wrote:
"Progressives usually have a nearly inexhaustible supply of moral outrage when asked about inequality."
And that's because he thinks that, to cite a standingout example, the person who puts in 10 good hours of hard work should be rewarded more than the person who puts in 8 lazy hours, and ISN'T, and the reason he or she is not is because of institutional factors that we could change if we wanted to.
Neither he nor I wants some sort of socialistic system where your job and income level are set by the state and you can't break out: good, hearty capitalism is the best economic system we have going. HOWEVER, we still believe that changeable policies create barriers to non-whites and women, and that Republican leadership enforces these barriers. We might be wrong about that, but that's the deal. I cited taxation as one example and defended myself above; it's a perfect issue, because taxation, unlike affirmative action or something more overt, looks color-blind until you examine it closely.
J Morgan- I think you did an excellent job summing up the Republican and progressive views on social inequality. I'm not what you mean about the natural order, but I believe that in any society you are going to have people who do well and those who do less well. I think that inequality is inevitable, not because of an unfair set of starting conditions of the system- but because the people in any system aren't identical. I don't think that total fairness is achievable unless you limit the upward mobility of the more gifted members- which is why whenever I hear someone describe the current system as unfair I jump to the conclusion that they are advocating some form of socialism. I think I will always make this jump until I hear a realistic way to change things that isn't socialism. If you can do that, I'll gladly give you space on my blog to do it.
Sorry that I'm weighing in a little late here again, Charles, but speaking of the straw man, I'm absolutely reading J. Morgan Caler's posts, and I said NONE of the things you blindly ascribed to me, standingout and jackscolon. They might be, but I posted 1 single frickin thing, and it didn't say any of the crap you said it did. As far as I can see, you're the only one here who's blindly ascribing ideologies to people based on personal or previous experience without regard to what they've posted on this thread.
charles, you said this:
"HOWEVER, we still believe that changeable policies create barriers to non-whites and women, and that Republican leadership enforces these barriers."
and j. morgan said this:
"So it isn’t that white males are shown favoritism by Republicans, it is that, because of a multitude of historical realities, white males have been socialized in the appropriate way to succeed in the Republican world at a disproportionate rate."
And, j. morg, you said this: " Teaching everyone the rules and giving them the skills to play by them is the only way to have truly equal opportunity."
The fact that I have to gather and re-post your comments is testament to how fractured this comment stream has become, so maybe it's a good time for Jack to throw up another post colidating one or more of these issues? Else I'd be happy to take "the ideal political system" to my blog. Either way, I'd really like to hear j. morgan and or chuck explain:
1.) why we should teach people the skills required to play in this sytem if it's obsolete
2.) how you're going to "re-socialize" all of the non-white non-males in order to make opportunity equal without requiring the white males to pay for it
3.) how "soclization" is the same thing as a "changable policy", which you alternatly ascribe as the source of non-white non-males inability to thrive the this republican system
4.) a clear summarization of what the problems with the republican system are, and what the republican system is. Your first comment was obviously a little satiric, and since then there's been too much replying to too many people to really be sure what it is you take issue with.
Like I said, it might be better to start some new threads somewhere.
Take it and run with it redhurt...
I had a good run, 27 comments is by far a personal best for me...
Speaking for myself (Charles is welcome to disagree and/or nuance any of this) and to quickly answer redhurt’s questions before the conversation is moved to a different thread:
1) The system is obsolete precisely because the playing field isn’t level. By making sure that everyone knows the rules of the game and has access to it, the system ceases to be obsolete. I would also qualify that the system that I am taking issue with is not capitalism or even American capitalism, but the Republican notion of American capitalism, which, among other things, relies heavily on corporations. As you might know, isn’t ideal for me, but it is great so long as the aforementioned condition is met.
2) We aren’t. We also aren’t going to punish the successful simply because they are successful (that would be Socialism as Republicans cast it). We are going to require more from those who benefit more: in this case, that would disproportionately but not exclusively be white males. But, as Charles has pointed out, that has a way of benefiting the successful as well.
3) The particular socializations that allow varying levels of success in modern America are the result of a particular set of changeable policies. The policies include, but are not limited to a) Republicans turning a blind eye to the fact the playing field is not level simply because barriers are removed, b) Democrats proposing stupid patches like Affirmative Action rather than vaccinations like skill acquisition, and c) an all-around individualism in America that has become so overwrought that it has erased any sense of civil responsibility.
4) I think this, along with my original post (sarcastic but accurate) should sum up what is wrong with the Republican position and what that position entails.
redhurt, you absolutely hold the position that I ascribed to you. Did you read the posts? Here's what you wrote:
"The only way democrats can force a level playing field is to penalize the strong."
And I wrote (this is a selection):
"I don't understand why redhurt thinks that j. morgan's position entails the punishment of the strong for the sake of the weak."
I meant for each person's view to be one of the things I said in that list, not all of them; forgive me for getting your position on j. morgan's position incorrect.
You also wrote:
"As far as I can see, you're the only one here who's blindly ascribing ideologies to people based on personal or previous experience without regard to what they've posted on this thread."
That's cute. You're clearly right--I am THE only one ascribing ideologies, I'm ascribing them blindly, and I'm doing it without any regard to this thread. I obviously comment on this thread without reading any of the previous comments.
I'm sorry you're so frickin upset with my crap--like I said, I apologize for getting yours or anyone else's position wrong.
redhurt, I retract the previous post that so inflamed you and insert this one, which has only direct quotes in it, instead:
I don't understand why redhurt thinks that j. morgan's position entails "penaliz[ing] the strong," why standingout thinks "[what] I'm hearing...is basically socialism," and why jackscolon thinks that "equal opportunity is the best you can hope for without penalizing those who are more capable."
I meant for the first post to be a question; it's been cleared up since.
yeah sorry. I get a little pissy in the afternoon sometimes. I'm a little pissy sometimes. Sometimes, it's afternoon, and maybe then I'm pissing. I mean pissy.
Post a Comment
<< Home