In Defense of the Blame Game

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: While I have no idea when things will return to a semblance of normalcy, I do know that, as always when disaster strikes, the heart in humanity shines. Private relief organizations, such as the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and Catholic Charities are already on the ground in the hardest-hit areas doing all they can do to bring the type of relief that no government can fully provide Even apart from trying to avoid accountability and deflect criticism, there is something much deeper behind the conservative talking point "don't play the blame game" (which, of course, they have no problem playing when it comes to criticism of local officials). The idea that no one should be blamed for the poor governmental response strikes at the very heart of the conservative philosophy. The conservative view on disasters like Katrina is that no government, not just the Bush administration, could have done any better when it comes to helping those affected. In their view, stuff like this just happens, and it is up to the individuals affected by them to sort it out for themselves. Ultimately, no matter what happens to the victims, no one is to blame, and thus playing the "blame game" is inherently pointless (except as a means to score political points).

Of course, even those people who are conservatives have a latent progressive worldview in their minds, which means that they are open to the possibility of being offended by a meager and incompetent governmental response when their fellow citizens are suffering so greatly. The Pew report Jerome talks about below shows that this is in fact happening for a significant number of conservatives (see page four of this link--PDF). Katrina and the relief failure is causing a crisis in worldview for many conservatives, as they are now growing convinced that a massive public response, rather than just a private response, is needed in the wake of this disaster. Ultimately, it is this line of attack that Democrats need to adopt, for it was the failure of the conservative worldview, a belief that the only common good is the sum of individual goods, that led to poor preparation before the disaster, and a general failure of governmental relief efforts after the disaster. This includes "playing the blame game," because progressives believe that the government is obligated to serve the public good through effective preparations for and responses to situations like this. When there are ineffective responses, the cause must be discovered and rooted out. Unless we can place blame, we cannot hope to avoid future prepaation and response failures.

On this subject, I recently received the following email from George Lakoff:

The moral of Katrina is mostly being missed. It is not just a failure of execution (William Kristol), or that bad things just happen (Laura Bush). It was not just indifference by the President, or a lack of accountability, or a failure of federal state communication, or corrupt appointments in FEMA, or the cutting of budgets for fixing levees, or the inexcusable absence of the National Guard off in Iraq. It was all of these and more, but they are the effects, not the cause.

The cause was political through and through -- a matter of values and principles. The progressive-liberal values are America's values, and we need to go back to them.

The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.

The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.

It's the difference between We're-all-in-this-together and You're-on-your-own-buddy.

It's the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You're only entitled to what you can afford.

It's the difference between connection and separation.

It is this difference in moral and political philosophy that lies behind the tragedy The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.

The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.

It's the difference between We're-all-in-this-together and You're-on-your-own-buddy.

It's the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You're only entitled to what you can afford.

It's the difference between connection and separation.

It is this difference in moral and political philosophy that lies behind the tragedy of Katrina.

  • A lack of empathy and responsibility accounts for Bush's indifference and the government's delay in response, as well as the failure to plan for the security of the most vulnerable: the poor, the infirm, the aged, the children .
  • Eliminating as much as possible of the role of government accounts for the demotion of FEMA from cabinet rank, for Michael Brown's view that FEMA was a federal entitlement program to be cut, for the budget cuts in levee repair, for placing more responsibility on state and local government than they could handle, for the failure to fully employ the military, and for the lax regulation of toxic waste dumps contributing to a "toxic stew."
This was not just incompetence (though there was plenty of it), not just a natural disaster (though nature played its part), not just Bush (though he is accountable). This is a failure of moral and political philosophy -- a deadly failure. That is the deep truth behind this human tragedy humanly caused.

It is a truth that needs to be told starting now - over and over. There can be no delay. The Bush administration is busy framing it in it's own way: bad things just happen, it's no one's fault; the federal government did the best it could -- the problem was at the state and local level; we'll rebuild and everything will be okay; the people being shipped out will have better lives elsewhere, and jobs in WalMart! Unless the real truth is told starting now, the American people will accept it for lack of an alternative.

I agree, and it seems that some Democrats are starting to get it: Mr. McClellan did not respond to e-mails seeking a response to the Democratic criticisms. But in a sign of the White House effort to move the dispute out of the Oval Office and try to cast the argument in partisan terms, the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, issued a statement assailing Democrats like Ms. Pelosi for "pointing fingers in a shameless effort to tear us apart."

Mrs. Clinton, in back-to-back television interviews Wednesday morning, angrily dismissed those kinds of attacks as a diversion from legitimate attempts by critics to point up shortcomings.

"That's what they always do; I've been living with that kind of rhetoric for the last four and a half years," Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, said on the "Today" show. "It's time to end it. It's time to actually show this government can be competent."

Well said, Senator. Pelosi and Edwards are also doing well: Oblivious. In denial. Dangerous," Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the House minority leader, said of President Bush as she stood in front of a battery of uniformed police officers and firefighters in a Capitol Hill ceremony that had originally been scheduled to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Americans should now harbor no illusions about the government's ability to respond effectively to disasters," she said. "Our vulnerabilities were laid bare."

Former Senator John Edwards, a likely candidate for president in 2008 and the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2004, argued that the breakdown in New Orleans illustrated the central theme of his national campaigns: the nation has been severed into two Americas.

"The truth is the people who suffer the most from Katrina are the very people who suffer the most every day," Mr. Edwards said in a speech in North Carolina on Wednesday, according to a transcript provided by his office.

Play the blame game, even if it turns out some Democrats are to blame as well. Thrown anyone who fucked up under the bus. It is for the common good.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Comments

36 Comments

Simple phrase to remember
"The Republican leadership is corrupt and follows a bankrupt idealogy that will destroy America." Everything, that they say and do needs to be defined according to this. Katrina, DeLay, Coingate, Rovegate, thef of Social Security, Shiavo are all the same story. That story is not Bush- it's that "The Republican leadership is corrupt and followsa a bankrupt idealogy that will destroy America."
by bruh21 2005-09-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Take your ball and go home
The guilty never want to play the blame game.  That being a common truth it should be the counter to those that use that term to rebuff accountability.  Its also easy to say, unlike most counters to Republican talking points.
by jrflorida 2005-09-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Anyone see the video
of the guy who told Cheney to go fuck himself? Crooks and Liars has the video.
by dole4pineapple 2005-09-08 12:57PM | 0 recs
Oh, Please!
Judith Butler is an arrogant elitist snob.  

And your prose reflects how badly infected you are.

Behind all your logorhea, there are very simple and basic misunderstandings or, at best, questionable assumptions.

Exhibit A:

Lakoff's role in mobilizing the Left has received a lot of press....  He is right to note that the conservative mythology of the liberal bourgeois subject is the cause of all the neglect about which we are complaining.
That's not what he's saying at all, you nitwit!  Apparently, you've lost the ability to read plain English.

Exhibit B:

But what I believe is limiting is this conception's inability to deal with each argument as it surfaces.
Conceptions don't deal with arguments. People do.

It's an interesting dichotomy: constipated thoughts, with freely flowing vowel movements making a mess all over everything.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Please!
vituperative?  Just call him a schmuck and be done with it.  Damn, I thought I was verbose.
by jrflorida 2005-09-08 02:31PM | 0 recs
A troll with a thesaurus!
Will wonders never cease? Trolls have learned to use advanced human reference guides. I shall notify Dr. Buddah immediately!
by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-08 02:46PM | 0 recs
The troll can read!
A questionable assertion at best. Is it possible that there has been an evolutionary development in the troll species? Would it be a positive development or a negative develoment?

Dr. Buddah is on the way and is skeptical that a troll could actually read. He suspects an eleaborate ruse, but observed that the increased arrogance of this troll could be accounted for by its singular ability to read. If it were the first troll to learn how to read it would be held in high regard by fellow trolls, who continually attempt to imitate human behavior.

I eagerly await Dr. Buddah's arrival and personal observations.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-08 02:52PM | 0 recs
Where to Begin?
(1) I'm snarky, not vituperative. When I get vituperative, believe me, you'll know it.

(2)

you obviously never met her.
Ah, but I have. And that about says it all, doesn't it?  I rely on passe things like evidence, while you immerse yourself in the post-structural discursive necessities of showing how tragically hip you are in a decidedly declasse manner.  

(3)

and you obviously never sat through one of her seminars.
Congrats!  You're 1-for-2. One conference was more than enough.  You know what really did it for me?  When she told a blatantly classist story with herself, the aristocratic princess, as talmudic scholar hero.  Her contempt for a "mere pool attendant" was one of the ugliest displays of class hatred I've ever witnessed so close at hand.

You just had to be there to appreciate the levels upon levels of irony involved. I didn't know which I found more repulsive: The thought that she was totally unconscious about what she'd done. Or the the thought that she understood it totally and was having all her would-be acolytes on.

(4)

we are in this together, or everyone for themselves.  the liberal bourgeois subject is a subject of unlimited agency who is not constrained by anything, including their society. that is exactly what he stated in his letter to chris.
Yo, Doofus!  It's your ludicrously simple-minded construct of "the liberal bourgeois subject" that I'm disputing here (along with your careless imputation of your construct to Lakoff).  All you pomoholics think you're so damn smart and sophisticated, but even Hegel (much less Marx!) was miles ahead of you in terms of having a nuanced, problematized view of bourgeois subjectivity.  

(5)

perhaps my antihumanist prose is offensive to those who believe they are somehow distinct from the ideas that have formed them.  unfortunately, that is not the case.

Funny, I was making similar point about awareness of being shaped by ideas to not-nearly-so-seriously-wasted pomoholic over at My Left Wing just last night.  She wanted to not use the term "gay" for people in other times. I told her, in essence, that trying to have her language do her thinking for her was a non-starter.  I have the same message for you as well.  We always have to use language that is contradictory, "misleading" and imprecise, because any language that wasn't like that wouldn't be a human language in the first place.

Yeah, I'm a humanist. I embrace the fact that our language is quirky, playful, and badly behaved. Maybe because I was a poet before I was anything else, this does not bother me one bit.  But the language Nazi pomo police just can't handle it.  (The English language, that is!) (That's SNARK, dude!)  

(6)

thank you, paul.  but i fundamentally disagree with everything you write.
It's yet to be demonstrated that you even understand a single thing I write.  

< /snark... no, wait, the snark never goes off...

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Where to Begin?
Your persistent use of this kind of rhetoric is part of an exercise of power that weaves throughout your writing and interactions.  "There is no power that is exercised without a series of aims and objectives" nor without "a multiplicity of points of resistence" (1).  What are the aims and objectives that your tactics are enacting here, metonym?  Have you seriously interrogated yourself on this?

(1) Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol. 1, p. 95
by arenwin 2005-09-09 06:45AM | 0 recs
Be Here Now!
I recall entering college at Berkeley in 1994 and happening upon Judith Butler's text, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex."  Struggling to get through it, I decided to read it five times.  And I still read it to this day, discovering I missed a crucial point or misunderstood entire chapters.  This, I believe, is the value of all her texts.
And here I had the old-fashioned idea that the value of texts was being able to understand them!  Fortunately, you and Leo Strauss agree 100%!

And then I remember meeting drag queens, tvs, bisexuals, other gays and lesbians who, despite their lack of college educations, love her text.  I recall throngs of people outside of the university attending her lectures.  I recall the many independent zines that mobilized behind her.  I recall her fan club, and I recall her accessibility and her willingness to meet with anyone who was ready to learn.
The dispossessed are starved for recognition. This makes them easy marks.

Okay, that's overstating it. Because, despite her hateful classism, she does have some valid insights.  But a batting percentage that's perfectly respectable for pop culture can be seriously deficient for academic purposes. Just compare any conservative think tank with any serious university.

But then I recall the backlash.  The American Phiolosophical Society deriding her prose.  I recall Martha Nussbaum's vituperative assessment of her books.  And now that I am at Martha Nussbaum's university, I know why she had to write her review: she was jealous, as she just lacks the ideas.  In fact, Nussbaum's ideas are utterly regressive.  So the woman at the vanguard had to take the blows because of torpor, vacuity and an unwillingness to try.
A dedicated groupie, you are!

So Butler created an entire social movement while the academics and the pundits derided her.
I'm sorry, sir, but you wouldn't know a social movement if it up and bit you in the arse.  

And they still continue to deride.  Nevermind she was responsible for the production of a radical queer politics.
Silly me!  And here I thought it was "Act-Up!" and their forebearers!  

And nevermind she has been at the forefront of almost every political debate that shapes the discourse of the academcy.
According to her groupies like you.  

Just through your unfounded insults and resort to ad hominem arguments.  How progressive you are, Paul.
My, my!  Aren't we touchy? And what was all that about Martha Nussbaum, if not an ad hominem attack?  Besides, those aren't insults. They're taunts!  You are so seriously pompous and boring, I just had to do something!

(And you think you know all about provocations, no doubt!)

Here's a hint: Get out of your head. Get out of the academy. Get out of all those petty intrigues.  Just be here now, and try to write in English.

I know it's hard. But you can do it.  Believe it or not, I really like you.  It's why I bothered to provoke you in the first place, rather than simply ignore you.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
I say this in the most respectful manner possible:  Metonym, the reason why Democrats are paying attention to Lakoff and not Judith Butler is that Lakoff says things that make sense to average people while Butler writes like you did in your comment.  However correct your underlying point is (and since I didn't reach for my dictionary I didn't understand all you said), politicos simply will not pay attention if you use words like "metalepsis."  Maybe they ought to if they want to truly understand the semiotic or ideological underpinnings of their political opponents, but they won't.
by Matt Lockshin 2005-09-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Now I know why people don't read his diaries.  If you use enough big words you'll get extra credit even if your argument sucks.  I use to do this when I wrote papers in highschool.  I had no idea what I was saying but I got a good grade anyway because I knew the teacher wouldn't read the whole thing and would give me credit for having talked over their heads.  They certainly weren't going to admit it and don't get paid enough to try to figure it out.
by jrflorida 2005-09-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
You'll use even bigger words to try to clarify it.  The point is if you choose your words more carefully people won't have to ask for clarification.  Its like you are writing a doctoral thesis or something.  We all know how great your words are ... how talented an individual you are ...how big your head is.  Understanding that, you should try to dumb it down a little bit so all us schmoes can understand how glorious you really are.  
by jrflorida 2005-09-08 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
if something is unclear, you should ask me to clarify as opposed to dismissing it because it may be complex.

Yes, of course. Humans should just ask the troll for its opinion on all matters that are too complex for them to understand. The troll knows all!

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-08 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
I am not anti-intellectual or anti-intellectualism.  I am, however, opposed to intellectual onanism.  

I did not reject the content of your argument, I rejected your method of communicating your argument.  The point is not that what you're saying is meritless, it's that the way you're saying it will doom your point to political irrelevance.                

by Matt Lockshin 2005-09-08 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Wow.  So the answer to the Republican smear of liberals as elitist leftist college per-fessers is to play into it?

Okely dokely.  

by paperwight 2005-09-08 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
You are no more important than anyone else regardless of how much you may think of yourself.  The issue here is that your message is never going to reach those who are not as well versed in obscure words.  I have a degree in aerospace engineering.  I'm not an idiot, but I have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm a busy person.  There are tons of things going on in the world that I want to catch up on and even comment on each day.  I'm not going to waste time trying to figure out what you have to say.  I will however waste time trying to help you figure out that what you have to say is completely lost, wasted, pissed away, because you choose to talk above everyone else.  If you are SO smart you can find a way to speek clearly.  I'm not saying your ideas have any merit or that they don't, no one will ever know because your words are poorly chosen.  If you have to sell your diaries then they aren't worth reading in the first place.

Also, and I could be wrong here, the reply above does not appear to be a compliment.

by jrflorida 2005-09-08 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Actually, I am identifying your limitation.  You are incapable of speaking to ordinary people.  I'm sure among those that spent their life preparing for spelling competitions you may be competent at communicating a message.  In the real world, however, you have serious shortcomings.  One of those is recognizing your faults.  Since you choose to make your thoughts tedious, stop complaining that no one pays attention to you.  Those that choose to speak French in an English world may think they are somehow showing a sign of   intelligence when in fact they show they have no common sense.  Since you are also incapable of accepting criticism I will leave you to your faults.  You are entitled to them as I am entitled to mine.  I will stay oblivious to your musings and, I suspect, be the better for it.  You may continue to think your musings prescious as gold.  Gold tucked away in a vault far from the reaches of the masses you seem so eager to reach.  Such is the humor of it all.
by jrflorida 2005-09-08 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Actually, I am identifying your limitation.  You are incapable of speaking to ordinary people.

Don't be too brutal.  I'm sure I'm not telling you something you don't know, but this is unbelievably common among Ph.D. candidates, especially in the social sciences and humanities.  As one professor once told me, many people go into graduate school knowing how to communicate clearly, and have the ability systematically trained out of them without even realizing they've lost it.

Of course, there are certain things that may greatly reduce sympathy or patience in this case.  Such as the refusal to take criticism.  And I'll leave that at that.

But part of the reason I post on blogs rather than just lurking - besides the fact that I just enjoy it, period, and do it playfully as often as not - is that when taken seriously it's also a training ground for learning how to communicate outside of discipline-specific journals or conferences, with people who are smart but come from diverse backgrounds.  Which I don't mean condescendingly.  Sometimes I hit, often I miss.  I would hope people would show patience for that sort of thing wherever possible.

Oh, and by the way, metonym, if you're reading this: for what it's worth, I apologize for my starky comment in another thread.  But good grief, stop being so dramatically embattled, and listen to people.  I honestly, truly would love to hear what you have to say.  But I will not invest the energy in my spare time to figure out what your diaries mean when they're written so inaccessibly.  Deciphering inaccessible writing is what I do in my work time.  And I'm more sympathetic than most people, because I actually like a few of the authors in the philosophical tradition you cite.  But you repeatedly state that your overarching goal is to further the progressive cause.  If that's the case, then put forth the effort to make the ideas clear in terms that don't require either agonizing reading or hyperspecialized training.  It takes more energy, but when it works, it's tremendously rewarding.

by arenwin 2005-09-08 09:59PM | 0 recs
Self-Importance
I have similar thoughts about metonym's behavior.

I urge metonym to listen to your friendly attempt to help. It would be wise of this embattled newbie to take a moment and reflect upon the demographics of posters to progressive sites such as MyDD.

IIRC, a study done last year and posted about at MyDD showed that the median income level in the leftie blogosphere was roughly 70k a year along with an education level that more often than not included a college degree. Many of us here have advanced degrees. Yet, metonym talks down to this collection of accomplished, educated, involved individuals as if metonym is a shining star just burst onto the scene that we simpletons just don't get.

That's a mistake. We get it ... and we don't appreciate it. Newbies come into MyDD constantly and many quickly earn respect. But that respect must be earned, and frankly metonym, you haven't earned it.

It is unfortunate that metonym decided to antagonize many longtime posters so soon after arrival. For example, Paul Rosenberg has a uid which indicates he is one of the first 500 to have registered on this site. I don't always agree with Paul but I certainly always give him a careful reading because his past diaries and comments have proven he deserves it. Yet metonym talks down to Paul as well.

Not cool. Not smart. Newbie.

People posting here are smart. Smart people shouldn't need to broadcast their smartness by choosing a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do just fine. Cohesive, logical, readable arguments will be well-received. Pompous, self-important, verbose postings will not. Please chill metonym and perhaps you can rehabilitate your reputation. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time in flame wars because your attitude will have ensured no one will take the time to read the content of your writing.

Delivery counts. Yours needs work. Hopefully, after you've behaved for awhile your antagonists will relent and you'll be able to post without being flamed by off-topic references to your transgressions.

Good luck.

by Curt Matlock 2005-09-08 05:18PM | 0 recs
I think his point was
not that anybody's more worthy because they've been here longer, but that jumping right in and telling everybody else what they ought to be doing is not only arrogant and rude but counterproductive. If you want to engage in productive dialogue, you'll need to learn to adapt to others, not insist that they must adapt to you.

We respect Paul because he puts out good, accessible content and has been doing so for a while. You're not going to gain that kind of respect just by showing up and demanding it.

by catastrophile 2005-09-09 12:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I think his point was
Thank you. Yes. The point was not that longevity is reason for respect, instead, it was that in any social situation people new to the scene would be wise to not barge in and be jerks to the people already there.

I don't have much hope that point will get through.

by Curt Matlock 2005-09-09 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Self-Importance
Your pedagogical approach, if that's what you're attempting here, is oppressive, not liberating.  If you haven't read Paulo Freire, I highly recommend it.
by arenwin 2005-09-09 07:12AM | 0 recs
Self-Importance
<shakes head>

Did you miss this part of my post?

I certainly always give him a careful reading because his past diaries and comments have proven he deserves it

To most readers that would indicate a merit based approach to earning respect, not longevity.

Your comment:

to think that someone should kowtow to others because they happened to complete a membership form before they did

is clearly not supported by my post. I didn't suggest you kowtow, I suggested you stop getting involved in flame wars and show some respect for the MyDD community.

For goodness sake metonym! Do you really want to fight everyone over every perceived insult?

by Curt Matlock 2005-09-09 08:28AM | 0 recs
You're So Cute When You're Condescending!
But aren't you the anti-humanist?
by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Ja(c)k/off
thank you.  and yes, this is this particularly groups response to those of us they would call "the academic elite."  when will they finally realize our importance?
We realize your self-importance.  Does that count?

More importantly: Will there be pi(e)?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
You are writing parody, right?
by Mimikatz 2005-09-08 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Maybe you could just learn to speak in different registers.  Think of it as learning a foreign language.  I think you are writing this way to try to impress Paul because he is so obviously learned.  But I think he would be more impressed by a cogent, clearly expressed argument.
by prince myshkin 2005-09-09 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
Democrats are paying attention to Lakoff?

Where...

I need to talk to them...

by farmergiles 2005-09-08 07:27PM | 0 recs
I Am Working On An Analytic Piece
for the next issue of Random Lengths News. After going through considerable overwhelm from the sheer volume of horrendous facts and even more horrendous lies, I'm starting to settle down to write. (Indeed, I've already had my fist little go, and here I am goofing off.)

What I've come back to is two things. One is Lakoff's point, that what we've seen is a failure of a political vision that never was much of a vision in the first place. (Bush Sr. was remarkable candid in this regard. He admitted he had trouble with "the vision thing." For all his disdain for being put on the couch, at least he had that much self-knowledge. Bush Jr.--he gives dry drunks a bad name.)

The other thing is that we're at a time of hope. This comes from one of the key observation in Kevin Phillip's book, Wealth and Democracy. He points out that the three previous world powers--Spain, Holland and Britain--all experienced severe shocks at the height of their powers, and responded with about two generations of reactionary politics, a time in which the haves did better than ever before, while the mass of solid citizens sunk progressively lower.  

Finally, after roughly two generations, something happened to shift the dynamic, and restore it to a more egalitarian course--to give the whole society a glimmer of hope.  With the British, this was the experience of the Boer War, when they discovered that their recruits were too malnourished to make proper soldiers.  This didn't lead to an immediate, overnight political revolution--but it turned the tide, and the tide never went back.

It looks very much like Katrina is our Boer War.  They will try all their same old tricks, and they will even still work to a certain extent. But, truth be told, Cindy Sheehan had already called their bluff, and they had just spent a full month folding before her, again and again, and again.  Hurricane Katrina is actually a reprieve of sorts. It's easier for them to go up against Blanco and Nagin.  But not easy enough. The spell has been broken.  It's all patchwork from now on.

So, now I've got to sit back and figure out how I weave these together with a respectable helping of more mundane facts, to say something that helps people better make sense of the political hurricane we're smack dab right in the middle of.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-09-08 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I Am Working On An Analytic Piece
Shorter version:  We need government, and we need each other, because modern life is too complicated to expect anyone to go it alone.

Now, some people may insist they can go it alone, assuming someone else pays for the infrastructure, but 95% of the public will understand.  

Our program is simple:  competence, clean government, community, opportunity for all not just a few, security in our lives, at home and abroad.

by Mimikatz 2005-09-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: La(c)k/off
You are a disgusting troll and every utterance you make is odious. Your presence is offensive and a stench permeates every diary you comment on.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-08 01:26PM | 0 recs
It's not
about "blame", it's about accountability. Remember those who usually scream about the "blame game" are those who are usually to "blame".
by Ga6thDem 2005-09-08 01:30PM | 0 recs
Conservatives think human nature = bad
When they can't erase the obvious failure of the no government/individual self-reliance paradigm, conservatives fall back on their belief in the inherent corruption of human nature, inisting that we live in a brutal world and should get used to it.

Progressives believe and assert that we can pull together to overcome the tribulations inherent in human life. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is the historic American paradigm. These wingers want us to wallow in fear; we can do better.

Just finished dissecting a version of this by Timothy Gorton Ash of the Hoover Institution here. Nothing ground breaking, but one of the necessary lines of intellectual defense against the right.

by janinsanfran 2005-09-08 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Conservatives think human nature = bad
So how do we get from here to there?
by farmergiles 2005-09-08 07:29PM | 0 recs
No government could do better?
I believe that a more aacurate translation of the conservative stance is "No government should do better."  The role of government here is to protect and preserve its citizens not to abdicate that responsibility to thje private sector.  

One of Julius Caesar's partners, Crassus, ran a for-profit fire crew in ancient Rome that charged either an exhorbitant amount to put out the fire (usually half the value of the house) or bought the property cheaply before putting out the blaze.  "Market forces" have been consistently disproved as the best way to meet community disasters for at least 2,000 years.  This is an easy win for our side.

Yes, there is a role for government and it transcends the miliyary, the police, and porisons and jails.  Katrina, once more, shows the deficiency of ivory tower conservatisn and the real world superiority of liberalism/progressivism.

by David Kowalski 2005-09-09 02:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------