Asymmetrical Information

Probably suggesting his fustration more then anything.

Opposing the Republican party is OBVIOUSLY more important than discussing policy. Haven't you been paying attention to the last 5 years? Heck, even stating facts gets you in trouble these days if they don't include "Bush is Evil" as a closing statement.

Was it just me, or was it really hard to tell whether Scheiber had read the book past the table of contents? The review mentioned some sort of governmental 401(k) plan and some nebulous ideas for worker retraining, but never engaged with either.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" is symptomatic, not basic. It stems from two other, more fundamental maladies:

-- An unslaked lust for power and its perquisites;
-- A ravening fury over having been repeatedly proved wrong and rejected by others.

Americans will not be able to come fully to grips with the insanity and evil among Leftist politicians and activists until they accept that basis, and permit themselves to pronounce a judgment of anathema upon it.

Hmm, interesting thoughts on BDS. But there has to be more to it than that. Perhaps coupling the identified factors with the basic liberal mentality? Who was it who said that a liberal knows intellectually that water runs downhill but hopes that it never reaches the bottom?

And they absolutely hate it when someone points out the water at the bottom.

I see some comments suggested that partisan hatred of Bush reflects the intellectual limitations of the left.

Does anyone remember the 90's (impeachment, accusations of murder)? The intensity of Bush and Clinton hatred suggests to me that whoever is President they will be demonized by a significant chunk of the population. Perhaps this is due to the reduction in ideological range in this country.

As a side note, Chris, your example has retracted her incorrect statement. She was not "stating facts."

Tom

The contemporary Left is absolutely obsessed with the idea that their only problem is their marketing. They think that if they can frame their message properly the voters will trot after them like sheep. This idea springs from the fundamental contempt with which most Leftist hold the general population. It never seems to occur to them that people understand their message just fine, they have lost confidence in the kind of solutions that Leftist propose.

I think the strange emotional intensity that Leftist show in politics springs from Leftist over ego-identification with politics. For many Leftist, political ideology has become a facet of their primary identity. It has replaced other identity generators like religion or ethnicity. When the electorate rejects Leftist ideas at the polling booths Leftist interpret that as a personal assault. They feel as if their individual status and significance in society is being undermined.

Shannon, that's a rather long way of saying "the personal is political" -- and that was coined something like 40 years ago ;-)

Yeah Tom, I can't help but think that the Republicans kind of set up the current overly partisan atmosphere. The republicans win the legislature back after being out for 1/2 a century then almost immediately try to topple a fairly popular president. It almost worked, then, but it looks like the democrats are reading from that same playbook. Of course, the difference is that the republicans were IN power when they attempted it and with the democrats out of power I think it looks more like flailing than progress.

Shannon, I think you're spot on, too. It does seem like the democrats are all marketing and no policy. All I seem to hear from democrats, today, is opposition. They're very vocal about what they oppose but don't seem to have many feasible counter-proposals. (There being a few exceptions, e.g. Gov. Napalitano of Arizona.) What's become of the Democrats? They used to be a respectable bunch, even if I do disagree with them on many points.

I'm rather underwhelmed by the book. Started off nice by talking about free trade and the need to balance free trade by concern for displaced workers.

but then the book becomes a laundry list of every conceivable program and a short blurb on why they're good. Throw in a dash of self-back patting on the good days of the clinton adminstration.

Sperling also pretty much washes his hands on the Social Security debate. His compromise is a 3% tax hike on all income for folks over $200K. Democrats will compromise by means-testing SS benefits.

Just not a serious policy book once he gets past the trade debate.

If one really believes in left-wing ideas, of course getting conservatives out of office is morally more important than having a slightly-better policy proposal. From a utilitarian standpoint, I hardly care at all what tactics liberals use as long as we end up being in office and preventing huge numbers from starving to death.

Mindles, it seems you missed the point of the review. Scheiber (a friend of mine whom I'm feeling a bit loyalty-bound to defend) does not at all say bashing Bush trumps policy. Noam is a policy wonk's policy wonk, and politically, extremely moderate (google anything he's written). There is frustration in the review; frustration that playing sensible moderate with the Bush administration gets you taken for a chump. Scheiber is saying he admires Sperling the wonk, but can only pity Sperling the political naif. That seemed clear to me from the review.

Comments are Closed.