Comments on: Third Parties as Infantilism http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:16:39 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34833 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:12:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34833 Matt, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You say, and you admit that you say: "The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right." I say, "If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right..." What the hell are you saying that you think I have so horribly misinterpreted? Are you saying that the debate has shifted to the right but the center is still at the left? I still don't know, even after repeated screeds about how I'm misrepresenting you. I then make an extended response to MSG who keys off that point a manufactured consent argument. I thought Nick was complaining about that. But what are you complaining about? You go on and on without telling me what you did mean. You quote yourself but it still looks to me like you said exactly what I responded to. What do you mean when you say "The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right."? You go on to defend the sentence. Do you not really mean it? The only possibility I can see is that you see it shifting to the right but still think the center is 'on the left'. But you surely don't make that clear. Even now. Matt, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You say, and you admit that you say: “The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right.” I say, “If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right…” What the hell are you saying that you think I have so horribly misinterpreted? Are you saying that the debate has shifted to the right but the center is still at the left? I still don’t know, even after repeated screeds about how I’m misrepresenting you. I then make an extended response to MSG who keys off that point a manufactured consent argument. I thought Nick was complaining about that. But what are you complaining about? You go on and on without telling me what you did mean. You quote yourself but it still looks to me like you said exactly what I responded to. What do you mean when you say “The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right.”? You go on to defend the sentence. Do you not really mean it? The only possibility I can see is that you see it shifting to the right but still think the center is ‘on the left’. But you surely don’t make that clear. Even now.

]]> By: Matt McGrattan http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34832 Matt McGrattan Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34832 Sebastian, you are just straight out lying now... I quote below the bulk of your post in question [the one Nick was quoting in his response to you]: {begin quote} “The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right. This isn’t unique to the US. The UK has seen the same sort of thing and, to the extent that the current Labour party does sometimes enact legislation with a redistributive element it tends to do so by stealth. This makes it incredibly frustrating for people who, 30 years ago, would normally have thought of themselves as centrist or as of the moderate centre-left — there’s no mainstream political representation left for them. Changes in the political system can counter this — in Scotland, for example, a more proportional system of representation has led to power via coalition for the mildly left-of-centre Lib Dems and relatively large number of seats for the Scottish Nationalists, the Socialists and the Greens…” If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right, why in the world would we want to make changes in the political system to counter this? {end quote} This was posted at 5.26am and everything inside the quotation marks is quoted by you, from I post made BY ME. Not by MSG later at 7.28am as falsely claimed in your response immediately preceding this one. It is in response to the quote from me that you write as part of the same message: "If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right..." It was this line that Nick raised in his criticism of you above and the one under discussion in the preceding couple of messages. So don't weasel around claiming that it was someone else you were responding to - someone who happens to have conceded precisely the point that I'd NOT be prepared to concede. Nick made the point that you were misreading what I said. You were. End of story. I don't really see much point in continuing this particular line of debate since you don't seem to be prepared to conduct it with much intellectual honesty. Sebastian, you are just straight out lying now… I quote below the bulk of your post in question [the one Nick was quoting in his response to you]: {begin quote} “The whole political spectrum has been pushed to the right. This isn’t unique to the US. The UK has seen the same sort of thing and, to the extent that the current Labour party does sometimes enact legislation with a redistributive element it tends to do so by stealth. This makes it incredibly frustrating for people who, 30 years ago, would normally have thought of themselves as centrist or as of the moderate centre-left — there’s no mainstream political representation left for them. Changes in the political system can counter this — in Scotland, for example, a more proportional system of representation has led to power via coalition for the mildly left-of-centre Lib Dems and relatively large number of seats for the Scottish Nationalists, the Socialists and the Greens…” If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right, why in the world would we want to make changes in the political system to counter this? {end quote} This was posted at 5.26am and everything inside the quotation marks is quoted by you, from I post made BY ME. Not by MSG later at 7.28am as falsely claimed in your response immediately preceding this one. It is in response to the quote from me that you write as part of the same message: “If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right…” It was this line that Nick raised in his criticism of you above and the one under discussion in the preceding couple of messages. So don’t weasel around claiming that it was someone else you were responding to – someone who happens to have conceded precisely the point that I’d NOT be prepared to concede. Nick made the point that you were misreading what I said. You were. End of story. I don’t really see much point in continuing this particular line of debate since you don’t seem to be prepared to conduct it with much intellectual honesty.

]]> By: Piotr Berman http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34831 Piotr Berman Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:15:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34831 British Militants basically failed, and American Religious Right basically won in their infiltrations. A thought: could a progressive (or true liberal or whatever) defeat a DINO senator in primaries in one of the states? And the primary winner would then become a Senator? Or could, in some jurisdiction, a district attorney be defeated because he/she was more devoted to transparent political grandstanding than to justice? In the age of internet, a worthy candidate could gather several million dollars and a bunch of volunteers. Democrats do not have centralized Leninist party structure of New Labour, and the winner would be a serious player on the national scene, nudging "the common wisdom" in the leftward direction. British Militants basically failed, and American Religious Right basically won in their infiltrations. A thought: could a progressive (or true liberal or whatever) defeat a DINO senator in primaries in one of the states? And the primary winner would then become a Senator? Or could, in some jurisdiction, a district attorney be defeated because he/she was more devoted to transparent political grandstanding than to justice? In the age of internet, a worthy candidate could gather several million dollars and a bunch of volunteers. Democrats do not have centralized Leninist party structure of New Labour, and the winner would be a serious player on the national scene, nudging “the common wisdom” in the leftward direction.

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34830 mc Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:15:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34830 "Since free speech is undeniably not as protected in Europe, if we are going to posit manufactured sentiment shouldn’t it be Europe which is more likely than the US to fall into it?" Sebastian, would you care to expand on that with a few instances of how "free speech" is not as protected in Europe, and how does, for instance, a major US tv network holding back news on the request of a DOD General square with that assertion? Or perhaps you were thinking of "free speech" being more guaranteed in the US as in the right for, say, overtly neonazi organisations to be legitimate and hold marches and distribute material and so on? Because that's just about the only formal difference in terms of what is and is not allowed out in the open in the US and Europe. But if you know of others, please do tell. Sorry everyone for going off topic, I'm just curious. “Since free speech is undeniably not as protected in Europe, if we are going to posit manufactured sentiment shouldn’t it be Europe which is more likely than the US to fall into it?” Sebastian, would you care to expand on that with a few instances of how “free speech” is not as protected in Europe, and how does, for instance, a major US tv network holding back news on the request of a DOD General square with that assertion? Or perhaps you were thinking of “free speech” being more guaranteed in the US as in the right for, say, overtly neonazi organisations to be legitimate and hold marches and distribute material and so on? Because that’s just about the only formal difference in terms of what is and is not allowed out in the open in the US and Europe. But if you know of others, please do tell. Sorry everyone for going off topic, I’m just curious.

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34829 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:34:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34829 I was quoting MSG at 7:28 a.m. He was quoting "“…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…" and then offered his own comment "that's probably accurate" That's probably accurate is not a quote from someone upthread, because it does not appear upthread from the quoted passage. The next line is "How much of that sentiment is manufactured?" Which goes right in line with the idea that the author thinks it is accurate that the sentiment has gone rightward AND that the sentiment is manufactured. If that isn't what you meant, that still seems to me to be what you said. And you haven't dealt with any of my responses to your idea of 'manufactured sentiment'--which I think was the main point of the post, and the main point of my response. I was quoting MSG at 7:28 a.m. He was quoting ““…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…” and then offered his own comment “that’s probably accurate” That’s probably accurate is not a quote from someone upthread, because it does not appear upthread from the quoted passage. The next line is “How much of that sentiment is manufactured?” Which goes right in line with the idea that the author thinks it is accurate that the sentiment has gone rightward AND that the sentiment is manufactured. If that isn’t what you meant, that still seems to me to be what you said. And you haven’t dealt with any of my responses to your idea of ‘manufactured sentiment’—which I think was the main point of the post, and the main point of my response.

]]> By: Matt McGrattan http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34828 Matt McGrattan Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:43:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34828 Sebastian you are cheating now... Here's the first part of your quote containing Nick's response : {begin_quote} “If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right… Er, no, Sebastian, he’s not doing that at all. Try reading for a change.” {end_quote} This ['if you are correctly...', etc.] refers to MY message above. The line Nick quotes is from a message by you quoting and responding to me. The second part: {begin_quote} Nick, I’m quite willing to reevaluate my reading of a text, but what issue are you taking within my reading of: “…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…” That’s probably accurate. What are you saying that I misread? {end_quote} The 'that's probably accurate' line quoted here is a quote by someone ELSE other than me. Your selective quotation implies that <i>I</i> agreed that the actual political centre - i.e. the views of the American people - had moved to the right. It's THIS that Nick is calling you on. It's dishonest. Or, being charitable, sloppy. As a matter of fact I don't think that the actual political centre has shifted to the right. There's always a possibility of a distinct difference between the political platforms of the parties in an election and the views of the electorate and there are good institutional reasons why that might be the case. Two-party systems are particularly likely to be vulnerable to this. There can, theoretically, be two parties that don't really reflect the views of ANY of the electorate and yet people might still overwhelmingly support the party which they see as the least bad option. This doesn't necessarily have to have bad consequences -- advocacy of the death penalty or of blatant racial discrimination are not on the platform of any major party here in the UK, for example, and yet both would command the support of a significant percentage of the electorate. I'd just want to make the general point that political parties can shift either to the right or the left without that shift reflecting any 'real' shift in core attitudes in the wider population. Sebastian you are cheating now… Here’s the first part of your quote containing Nick’s response : {begin_quote} “If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right… Er, no, Sebastian, he’s not doing that at all. Try reading for a change.” {end_quote} This [‘if you are correctly…’, etc.] refers to MY message above. The line Nick quotes is from a message by you quoting and responding to me. The second part: {begin_quote} Nick, I’m quite willing to reevaluate my reading of a text, but what issue are you taking within my reading of: “…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…” That’s probably accurate. What are you saying that I misread? {end_quote} The ‘that’s probably accurate’ line quoted here is a quote by someone ELSE other than me. Your selective quotation implies that I agreed that the actual political centre – i.e. the views of the American people – had moved to the right. It’s THIS that Nick is calling you on. It’s dishonest. Or, being charitable, sloppy. As a matter of fact I don’t think that the actual political centre has shifted to the right. There’s always a possibility of a distinct difference between the political platforms of the parties in an election and the views of the electorate and there are good institutional reasons why that might be the case. Two-party systems are particularly likely to be vulnerable to this. There can, theoretically, be two parties that don’t really reflect the views of ANY of the electorate and yet people might still overwhelmingly support the party which they see as the least bad option. This doesn’t necessarily have to have bad consequences—advocacy of the death penalty or of blatant racial discrimination are not on the platform of any major party here in the UK, for example, and yet both would command the support of a significant percentage of the electorate. I’d just want to make the general point that political parties can shift either to the right or the left without that shift reflecting any ‘real’ shift in core attitudes in the wider population.

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34827 Sebastian Holsclaw Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:33:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34827 "If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right… Er, no, Sebastian, he’s not doing that at all. Try reading for a change." Nick, I'm quite willing to reevaluate my reading of a text, but what issue are you taking within my reading of: <blockquote> “…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…” That’s probably accurate. </blockquote> What are you saying that I misread? “If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right… Er, no, Sebastian, he’s not doing that at all. Try reading for a change.” Nick, I’m quite willing to reevaluate my reading of a text, but what issue are you taking within my reading of:
“…the vast majority of American political sentiment is center or center-right…” That’s probably accurate.
What are you saying that I misread?

]]> By: Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34826 Dave Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:54:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34826 <i>Are you ready for the revolution?</i> No way. Those "rednecks" have all the guns. Are you ready for the revolution? No way. Those “rednecks” have all the guns.

]]> By: boban http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34825 boban Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:56:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34825 Dave makes the most relevant point regarding the likely outcome of a sustained electoral challenge by a third party situating itself to the left of the Democrats: The Democrats will simply move right. If the Greens were the source of such a challenge, for example, we could expect the environment to suffer as Democrats begin to advocate more offshore drilling, drilling in Alaska, snowmobiles in Yellowstone, killing wolves in Wyoming, etc.... Dave makes the most relevant point regarding the likely outcome of a sustained electoral challenge by a third party situating itself to the left of the Democrats: The Democrats will simply move right. If the Greens were the source of such a challenge, for example, we could expect the environment to suffer as Democrats begin to advocate more offshore drilling, drilling in Alaska, snowmobiles in Yellowstone, killing wolves in Wyoming, etc….

]]> By: decon http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34824 decon Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:44:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34824 Overrepresentation of red state rednecks -- through the Electoral College, and through equal representation in the Senate -- is, unfortunately, a Constiutional right of American rednecks. Changing these two institutional features of our so called democracy -- by threat of extralegal action, including secession if necessary -- will do more for progressives than will any other changes. Are you ready for the revolution? I'm not, but it would be entertaining. Overrepresentation of red state rednecks—through the Electoral College, and through equal representation in the Senate—is, unfortunately, a Constiutional right of American rednecks. Changing these two institutional features of our so called democracy—by threat of extralegal action, including secession if necessary—will do more for progressives than will any other changes. Are you ready for the revolution? I’m not, but it would be entertaining.

]]> By: Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34823 Dave Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:21:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34823 <i>Again, to simply cede institutional control to your opponents is not just ill-advised, it’s pretty close to suicidal.</i> Even moreso, to act/vote based on principle when doing so effectively generates a situation that is contrary to your goals is stupid. Here's another thought - if the "progressives" secede from the political process, the Democrats will have to go <i>farther to the right</i> to pick up enough of an electoral base to win. Again, to simply cede institutional control to your opponents is not just ill-advised, it’s pretty close to suicidal. Even moreso, to act/vote based on principle when doing so effectively generates a situation that is contrary to your goals is stupid. Here’s another thought – if the “progressives” secede from the political process, the Democrats will have to go farther to the right to pick up enough of an electoral base to win.

]]> By: burritoboy http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34822 burritoboy Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:03:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34822 Additional supports to Brad's argument is something else that has also always irked me about the "our co-op/free health clinic will save the world!" school of thought: There's the obvious and long-elaborated criticisms that many of these types of "local activism" really are just hobbyhorses for wealthy liberals to exorcize their guilts in various ways. I don't always buy that in every (or even most) cases, but it is true enough times to be meaningful. These groups often don't add up to a meaningful whole. Yes, the xxth Ave. Free Health Clinic does great work on xxth St, but it doesn't help the housing needs of the people living on xxth St. Meanwhile, on yyth St, the poor have housing, but no healthcare. Again, it's great that these things exist, but only government has the resources to be able to really change things on a mass scale. Or organizations that are quite quasi-governmental (unions in Europe, the Church in the Middle Ages, etc). And government can (and must) do things that are simply too unpleasant or impossibly scaled for tiny non-profits. Fixing the sewers and imprisoning violent criminals, for just two of many examples. Essentially, BE would renounce even having an sustained, organized impact on such things - that are often as important, if not far more important, than the xxth St. Free Health Clinic. Giving away power over these things entirely is a great way to empower and entrench your opponents. Also, all of the co-ops and etc. that BE is enamoured of, operate entirely inside a framework designed by the government (in cooperation with other major societal forces). Your non-profit operates the way it does partially because the Congress has made charitable donations tax-deductible. That part of the tax code could disappear tomorrow, or be greatly expanded tomorrow. It's the composition of Congress that makes the difference. Change who's in Congress and the environment for your co-op could be vastly better or worse in months. Again, to simply cede institutional control to your opponents is not just ill-advised, it's pretty close to suicidal. Your opponents could make your entire system of legal supports illegal in a day, and everything you've worked for would disappear in an instant. BE would dismiss policy wonkery. Admittedly, it's hardly fun, but that's hardly the point. If you want politics to be fun (or more broadly, some sort of expression of your authenticity), then you're not only deluded, but close to self-destructive. Even if there would be a Revolution (TM), that wouldn't negate the need for policy wonkery. We always need to worry about incremental change, even in tyrannical regimes (yes, it's always bad to have a murderous dictator but it's better to have one who kills a few than one who kills many). Stalin and Breshnev were both leaders of a bad regime that needed to go, but the difference between them is also vast and important. Gladly, we're in far better of a position here and now, making incremental changes that much more critical. Additional supports to Brad’s argument is something else that has also always irked me about the “our co-op/free health clinic will save the world!” school of thought: There’s the obvious and long-elaborated criticisms that many of these types of “local activism” really are just hobbyhorses for wealthy liberals to exorcize their guilts in various ways. I don’t always buy that in every (or even most) cases, but it is true enough times to be meaningful. These groups often don’t add up to a meaningful whole. Yes, the xxth Ave. Free Health Clinic does great work on xxth St, but it doesn’t help the housing needs of the people living on xxth St. Meanwhile, on yyth St, the poor have housing, but no healthcare. Again, it’s great that these things exist, but only government has the resources to be able to really change things on a mass scale. Or organizations that are quite quasi-governmental (unions in Europe, the Church in the Middle Ages, etc). And government can (and must) do things that are simply too unpleasant or impossibly scaled for tiny non-profits. Fixing the sewers and imprisoning violent criminals, for just two of many examples. Essentially, BE would renounce even having an sustained, organized impact on such things – that are often as important, if not far more important, than the xxth St. Free Health Clinic. Giving away power over these things entirely is a great way to empower and entrench your opponents. Also, all of the co-ops and etc. that BE is enamoured of, operate entirely inside a framework designed by the government (in cooperation with other major societal forces). Your non-profit operates the way it does partially because the Congress has made charitable donations tax-deductible. That part of the tax code could disappear tomorrow, or be greatly expanded tomorrow. It’s the composition of Congress that makes the difference. Change who’s in Congress and the environment for your co-op could be vastly better or worse in months. Again, to simply cede institutional control to your opponents is not just ill-advised, it’s pretty close to suicidal. Your opponents could make your entire system of legal supports illegal in a day, and everything you’ve worked for would disappear in an instant. BE would dismiss policy wonkery. Admittedly, it’s hardly fun, but that’s hardly the point. If you want politics to be fun (or more broadly, some sort of expression of your authenticity), then you’re not only deluded, but close to self-destructive. Even if there would be a Revolution™, that wouldn’t negate the need for policy wonkery. We always need to worry about incremental change, even in tyrannical regimes (yes, it’s always bad to have a murderous dictator but it’s better to have one who kills a few than one who kills many). Stalin and Breshnev were both leaders of a bad regime that needed to go, but the difference between them is also vast and important. Gladly, we’re in far better of a position here and now, making incremental changes that much more critical.

]]> By: Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34821 Dave Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:00:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34821 Sorry for the multi-post, by the way. Sorry for the multi-post, by the way.

]]> By: nick http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34820 nick Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:03:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34820 <i>If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right...</i> Er, no, Sebastian, he's not doing that at all. Try reading for a change. If you are correctly identifying the fact that a majority of people have moved to what you identify as the center-right… Er, no, Sebastian, he’s not doing that at all. Try reading for a change.

]]> By: Detached Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/11/third-parties-as-infantilism/comment-page-2/#comment-34819 Detached Observer Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:36:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1858#comment-34819 <em>"...I have difficulty in seeing any evidence whatsover of infantilism in the piece that he quotes..."</em> Uh, the complete and utter disgregard for real world consequences? The disqueting obsession with feeling good about your vote, most importantly of all? You are right to point out that some coherent arguments cane be gleaned out of Ehrenreich's essay. But the essay is not the only piece of evidence DeLong cites to argue that Ehrenreich is infantile -- only one of many. “…I have difficulty in seeing any evidence whatsover of infantilism in the piece that he quotes…” Uh, the complete and utter disgregard for real world consequences? The disqueting obsession with feeling good about your vote, most importantly of all? You are right to point out that some coherent arguments cane be gleaned out of Ehrenreich’s essay. But the essay is not the only piece of evidence DeLong cites to argue that Ehrenreich is infantile—only one of many.

]]>