Does anyone think that Kucinich is going to be elected? No, I don't mean "does anyone think that he's a swell guy, would be a great president, ought to be elected" but think that he's really going to win?
Could you have possibly missed the Kucinich brouhaha we had a couple of weeks ago? Just click the link in the post, my friend, dive into the comments, and behold.
I was thinking of doing a post on this, but you bring it up and here we are: instead of thinking of the Democrats as evil people mouthing lefty rhetoric to placate the masses, it's time the angry left realized that, at the moment, this is a conservative country and the Democrats are the good guys who understand what's going on and are trying to hold the line against the theocratic wing of the Republican party.
(a) During the last half of Republic I, Thrasymachus finds himself dialectically at sea (pummelled by argument, as it were) and yet remains utterly unconvinced of the substantive point, namely, that justice is swell. That was my first thought on reading John Turri's blog: even granting arguendo that the case is solid, well, it's not the kind of case that can do the job. This is just Bob's point, but I thought if I threw in the reference, I'd get mad props.
(b) but the case is not solid. Objection against Kucinich: he can't beat Bush. Turri's replies: (i) well, defeat can further the cause. He withdraws it. (ii) 42% prefer any democrat so..."[p]rogressives should seize this opportunity to help pour progressive contents into that vessel." This seems to mean that the 42% is stable regardless of who the Democrat is. Yes, I know that's what the poll says. It's obviously not true; I suspect it's better to read it as 'prototypical democrat' rather than 'any democrat.' That leaves us with the question of how thecontent of DK's positions affect his support. (iii) There's widespread support for universal health care. Because DK supports it, this counts to his advantage. Only if the programs Dean et al propose don't meet with public support. Turri notes that Dean's plan isn't truly universal. "Voters!" I can hear him saying, "don't support Dean, because you said you liked universal health care, and Dean's plan isn't universal! You're implicitly committed to Kucinich!" We'd have to know if it's universal enough to garner the lion's share of support, no? See the point about Thrasymachus. (iv) Kucinich is from a moderate district in the Nati, yet gets elected. This is at best incomplete. Al D'Amato got elected because he did local favors like nobody's business; yet that doesn't play well on a national level. I'm afraid I don't know the district-- and I'm even more afraid someone will correct this-- but at the very least we'd have to know who the opponents were, why DK is popular, and so on, since there are many competing explanations of the phenomenon that do not involve, entail, or support his electability.
(c) damn. I can't believe I just did that. I really can't. What's become of me?
(d) in response, Ogged, I tend to think: yes. And also: it doesn't matter whether the Democrats are holding the line in good faith or bad, really; what matters is that they're a lot better than the opposition. Or much less bad. I'm still waiting for my apology from the "no difference between Bush and Gore" Nader voters. But the quest for purity continues. We will have instant run-off voting, or we will all stay home.
(e) I have now forgotten why I started writing this post.
it's time the angry left realized that, at the moment, this is a conservative country and the Democrats are the good guys
Conservative in what sense? In favor of lower taxes, less regulation, and somewhat less generous welfare states? That seems to have served us well vis a vis the comparison set (failed Communist states and stagnating European social democracies).
In the sense of being pro-religion? Well, I'm agnostic but not anti-religious, and it doesn't trouble me overmuch that our nation is more religious by your "theocratic" measure than European states. I don't want my kids being taught creationism in school, but post-moral, post-modern scientism is hardly a superior substitute for suspicious, supersticious, pre-modern religiosity.
What's so good about these Democratic guys? Is it possibly the "mad lib" factor, aka "none of the above"?
Does anyone think that Kucinich is going to be elected? No, I don't mean "does anyone think that he's a swell guy, would be a great president, ought to be elected" but think that he's really going to win?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
He seems to be holding steady at the margin of error. And he's a vegan.
Posted by fontana labs | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 2:47 PM
Could you have possibly missed the Kucinich brouhaha we had a couple of weeks ago? Just click the link in the post, my friend, dive into the comments, and behold.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 2:56 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 3:22 PM
I was thinking of doing a post on this, but you bring it up and here we are: instead of thinking of the Democrats as evil people mouthing lefty rhetoric to placate the masses, it's time the angry left realized that, at the moment, this is a conservative country and the Democrats are the good guys who understand what's going on and are trying to hold the line against the theocratic wing of the Republican party.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 3:42 PM
(a) During the last half of Republic I, Thrasymachus finds himself dialectically at sea (pummelled by argument, as it were) and yet remains utterly unconvinced of the substantive point, namely, that justice is swell. That was my first thought on reading John Turri's blog: even granting arguendo that the case is solid, well, it's not the kind of case that can do the job. This is just Bob's point, but I thought if I threw in the reference, I'd get mad props.
(b) but the case is not solid. Objection against Kucinich: he can't beat Bush. Turri's replies: (i) well, defeat can further the cause. He withdraws it. (ii) 42% prefer any democrat so..."[p]rogressives should seize this opportunity to help pour progressive contents into that vessel." This seems to mean that the 42% is stable regardless of who the Democrat is. Yes, I know that's what the poll says. It's obviously not true; I suspect it's better to read it as 'prototypical democrat' rather than 'any democrat.' That leaves us with the question of how thecontent of DK's positions affect his support. (iii) There's widespread support for universal health care. Because DK supports it, this counts to his advantage. Only if the programs Dean et al propose don't meet with public support. Turri notes that Dean's plan isn't truly universal. "Voters!" I can hear him saying, "don't support Dean, because you said you liked universal health care, and Dean's plan isn't universal! You're implicitly committed to Kucinich!" We'd have to know if it's universal enough to garner the lion's share of support, no? See the point about Thrasymachus. (iv) Kucinich is from a moderate district in the Nati, yet gets elected. This is at best incomplete. Al D'Amato got elected because he did local favors like nobody's business; yet that doesn't play well on a national level. I'm afraid I don't know the district-- and I'm even more afraid someone will correct this-- but at the very least we'd have to know who the opponents were, why DK is popular, and so on, since there are many competing explanations of the phenomenon that do not involve, entail, or support his electability.
(c) damn. I can't believe I just did that. I really can't. What's become of me?
(d) in response, Ogged, I tend to think: yes. And also: it doesn't matter whether the Democrats are holding the line in good faith or bad, really; what matters is that they're a lot better than the opposition. Or much less bad. I'm still waiting for my apology from the "no difference between Bush and Gore" Nader voters. But the quest for purity continues. We will have instant run-off voting, or we will all stay home.
(e) I have now forgotten why I started writing this post.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 4:52 PM
Dude, mad props.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 5:05 PM
Dude, indeed!!
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 5:13 PM
Uh. Dude.
yeah
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 12:41 AM
it's time the angry left realized that, at the moment, this is a conservative country and the Democrats are the good guys
Conservative in what sense? In favor of lower taxes, less regulation, and somewhat less generous welfare states? That seems to have served us well vis a vis the comparison set (failed Communist states and stagnating European social democracies).
In the sense of being pro-religion? Well, I'm agnostic but not anti-religious, and it doesn't trouble me overmuch that our nation is more religious by your "theocratic" measure than European states. I don't want my kids being taught creationism in school, but post-moral, post-modern scientism is hardly a superior substitute for suspicious, supersticious, pre-modern religiosity.
What's so good about these Democratic guys? Is it possibly the "mad lib" factor, aka "none of the above"?
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 12:56 AM