Comments on: Prophecy

By: msg

msg — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:39:38 +0000

Goethean- Working with the more obvious meaning of “Naderite”, as someone who voted for Nader or would, and who espouses his principles and ideas as dogma, I’ve got to say you’re wrong. It’s unlikely I’d vote for him, and I didn’t last time. The United States began when people were no longer able to select a compromise from the lesser of two or three or four evils. When the only viable solution was itself another type of evil, war. This country began in a war of revolution. An option that’s probably not going to be on the ballot. Anybody Fox News and Time and Newsweek all put forth as a viable and acceptable candidate is not the lesser of two evils. Howard Dean was assassinated in full public view, they just let him live. Bush at this political moment is no longer the Chosen One, is in fact unelectable. Whatever chose him in 2000 seems to have laid its blessing on John Kerry now. The easy gloss is this thing is some kind of sports contest. It may be, but it would help to remember that there’s always a third club represented on the field. The owners. That would have been the, essentially minor and tangential, point.

By: goethean

goethean — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:21:19 +0000

Who now seem to be ready to slide their saddlebags over onto Kerry’s willing back, in this mid-stream election year. Oh, lord god. Fucking Naderites.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:12:29 +0000

“Physically, mentally, and temperamentally” harks back to “smarter or more virtuous or stronger.” So the temperamental counterpart of “physical prowess” would have to be virtue. We don’t usually call that “temperamental prowess,” but I guess we can. Anyway, this makes Hampton’s point extremely startling (though I’m not familiar with her larger argument).

By: Dave F

Dave F — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:52:50 +0000

How true, and of course no one would surely say that by virtue of his political authority, Tony Blair would be considered a street-fighting man. But they would be wrong … The two things go together like, well … musclepower and the governorship: don’t forget wrestler Jesse Ventura got there first.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:46:53 +0000

Chris, can you elaborate on “temperamental prowess”? Temperament, sure—but “prowess”? The ability to display one’s temperament in a manner that effectively manipulates others? Or do you just mean self-control or ability to roll with the punches?

By: Charles V

Charles V — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:28:40 +0000

Of course Arnold isn’t considered a political authority because of his physical prowess. He’s considered a political authority because of his party affiliation.

By: msg

msg — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:40:08 +0000

cdm- you grabbed it right out of my hands. – Lou Ferrigno would make a fine senator, as long as Bill Frist and his ilk are in there. – There’s a strong urge to denial everywhere now – that Arnold S. was placed before the public as a token for other less visible powers is not a comfortable idea for anyone. But how can anyone deny that? All this fixation on Bush as cause, when he’s obviously what Reagan was, a relatively predictable marker, in place and solidly backed by the real powers that be. Who now seem to be ready to slide their saddlebags over onto Kerry’s willing back, in this mid-stream election year.

By: cdm

cdm — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:24:26 +0000

I, for one, would love to know what Janis Joplin thinks about the issues of the day.

By: djw

djw — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:29:21 +0000

I’ve been reading CT for a while now, yet I’ve somehow missed the posts and discussions in which Martin Sheen and Barbara Streisand are cited as authorities on all matters political, and entreated to run for public office. Perhaps I’m not paying close enough attention. Or perhaps, some posters have a stock image of the left, which they throw around with reckless abandon and without reference to any actual facts or arguments.

By: mondo dentro

mondo dentro — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:20:57 +0000

What does anything I said have to do with “cultural relativism” and “absolute values?” Criticisms of cultural elites by the left have often been deflected by counter-charges of “cultural relativism” and admonishments that one needs to recognize that certain belief systems are simply superior. If one believes in “absolute values”, one is not a “relativist”. They’re bullshit categories, obviously—but part and parcel of typical attacks on “left wing intellectuals”. But surely you knew all this, right?

By: dw

dw — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:12:28 +0000

[I]”… and despite the best intentions of university professors to change their better nature, new better”[/I] Yes, new better indeed.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:51:40 +0000

“are you really this humor deficient? And this dense?” As dense as what, exactly? You seem to be denser than a lead brick, that much is for certain. Didn’t your eyes alight on the following before you hit the post button?

“In point of fact, Jean Hampton’s actual statement is more subtle than the interpretation some would like to place on it. It is true enough that Schwarzenegger ought not to considered “by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority”, but then the same goes for lots of other characteristics people on here would presumably find unproblematic.”

“Gosh. You sound like a cultural relativist! Silly me, I actually believe in absolute standards of achievement and qualifications for leadership. Movie stars picked by some power elite for their ability to fake out the voters don’t cut it.” And you sound like a halfwit attempting to look clever. What does anything I said have to do with “cultural relativism” and “absolute values?” And what exactly do you mean by those two stale phrases anyway? You sound like someone trying to catch up with 1990.

By: mondo dentro

mondo dentro — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:49:51 +0000

Well, what else is this but elitism? Is the implication that anyone with muscles as big as Schwarzenegger’s is necessarily an idiot, incapable of governing? Gosh. You sound like a cultural relativist! Silly me, I actually believe in absolute standards of achievement and qualifications for leadership. Movie stars picked by some power elite for their ability to fake out the voters don’t cut it. Furthermore, I believe in absolute notions of logic, whereas you seem to think it is culturally determined based on politics. Explain to me how you can take this: If someone has greater muscle strength than another, does that mean that he gets to rule the other? No: Arnold Schwarzenegger is not considered, by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority. to be an “…implication that anyone with muscles as big as Schwarzenegger’s is necessarily an idiot, incapable of governing?” I think your parsing software is busted. See? Everyone can play “absolute values” game. It’s easy! It’s fun!

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:09:53 +0000

I posted on this just because I thought it funny that Hampton used AS as an example given subsequent history. But, yes, obviously , her point here is an anti-elitist one: she’s arguing against a natural aristocracy based on physical or intellectual or temperamental prowess.

By: son volt

son volt — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:29:25 +0000

Half-seriously: obviously, Arnold’s physique wasn’t his sole qualification; otherwise, Lou Ferrigno and Lee Haney (American bodybuilding champs for the ESPN-challenged) would also be potential officeholders. But winning the 1975 Mr. Olympia contest (or whichever one was chronicled in Pumping Iron) certainly, in hindsight, was, though not sufficient, certainly a necessary condition to Schwarzenegger’s political rise, as that documentary started it all. Of course winning a bodybuilding tournament then (as probably now) was unthinkable without the copious consumption of steroids. Kinda makes Bush’s SOTU remarks about ‘roids seem a tad ironic, indeed ungrateful, given that the GOP owes the California governorship to steroid abuse.