Dec 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Discuss Amongst Yourselves
I understand that liberals are either outraged by something Steve Hildebrand said, or else think that it was a really clever trick to reframe progressive goals as centrist ones. Which do you think?
82 Responses to “Discuss Amongst Yourselves”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 9th, 2008 at 12:59 am
It may be tactical, but it’d be nice to not be treated like the smelly cousin of American politics when we actually get our guy elected.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I thought I had mono once for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I think Hildebrand is a douche. Most people on the left don’t seem to be very upset with Obama, but there’s this constant narrative on the right claiming we are.
It’s actually very aggravating to be told that you’re angry when you’re not. And it’s irritating because there is nothing the right loves more then to piss off the left.
Here we have won a major election, taken over the country, are about to implement all these wonderful liberal policies, and what do we get? A bunch of dead enders telling us “we” are angry, and a bunch of “sensible centrists” claiming that Obama is somehow screwing us, just because they wish he was.
On top of that, liberals have been disappointed in our leadership acting stupidly accommodating time and time again, including after the 2006 election. So we’re naturally a little edgy.
So Hildebrand is just a moron for swatting at the hornets nest for no reason. Hildebrand’s hectoring screed wasn’t going to calm anyone down or quite down any criticism, so I have to wonder why he bothered to make it.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I think it’s a slow news week.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I think this would be a good time for liberals to rediscover Flaubert’s L’Éducation sentimentale
December 9th, 2008 at 1:18 am
i think steve hildebrand has more “skin in the game” than most of his critics. he helped talk obama into running in the first place, and was there all the way. so he knows obama in a way the critics don’t, and has actual credibility they don’t have.
i liked hildebrand’s response to the kefluffle, where he told TPM’s greg sargent, “You guys can do what you want. That was my opinion, not a directive.” i mean, the gall of this guy to criticize people who are criticizing obama. doesn’t it really go both ways?
December 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I wrote this email to Andrew Sullivan only an hour ago about his role in advancing the idea that liberals are angry with Obama every time they criticize him.
———————————————
I am in avid reader of yours and of the liberal blogosphere: Dailykos, MyDD, Openleft. I was quite disappointed with your support of McArdles article on progressive bloggers. Not because our politics are different, which they are, but because you as a conservative who breaks with the Republican party should understand the value of principled criticism. Megan’s article was poorly researched and perpetuates the false meme that the progressive blogosphere is irrationally angry at Obama.
Megan quoted the Politico which quoted piece by Chris Bowers “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?” This makes much more sence in context. Bowers was referring to Obama’s choice of Jones and Gates for his security team. This single quote was picked up today by the conservative media like Hannity and it’s being used out of context.
What progressive bloggers are angry about is being told that they can’t criticize the president. They’re not angry with Obama, in fact in general most bloggers are pretty happy, that’s not to say that every living liberal blogger is. They are pretty colectively angry at Steve Hildebrand who wrote in the Huffington Post that “[t]his is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making.” He attacks the Left in much the same way that the Politico article cited by McArdle did, with straw men, you can read Chris Bowers oppinion here.
Thanks
-Karl
December 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am
The same day that Obama says he supports workers who are staging a sit-in over unpaid benefits at the Republic Windows plant the left of the netroots is obsessing over a comment on the Huffington Post by a political advisor. I’ll have to get my scorecard out to tell me who is the real DFH here and who is the insider elite.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:42 am
who’s Steve Hildebrand?
December 9th, 2008 at 1:43 am
I do encourage everyone to go read the article, because it really doesn’t make much sense except as an order to shut up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-hildebrand/a-message-to-obamas-progr_b_149089.html
And I have been defending Obama’s picks and I feel that way.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Why don’t till actually policy has been enacted before we start criticizing the President Elect.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Which do you think?
Now is not the time for thinking comrade.
This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making.- Steve Hildebrand
Comrade Hildebrand is right. Let there be vigorous debate among the unwashed masses but the left wing of our Party must refrain. Only the great Obama knows how his super secret plan is supposed to work; we are but minions at his feet.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Bleghh. I think Hildebrand is just a guy mad at being passed up for a job with the administration, and not getting enough credit for the campaign (I don’t remember hearing his name being thanked in any of Obama’s speech, can you say I’m-actually-the-architect-of-the-ground-game-not-that-Plouffe-guy-why-don’t-you-ever-mention-my-name), and is just acting out to get some attention.
BTW, if it really is a “clever trick to reframe progressive goals as centrist ones”, it might help if Matt and other leftie bloggers stop talking about it. Baiting and switching only work when the other side doesn’t realize what is going on. If you guys are screaming it to the world, people might actually take notice, you know.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:49 am
clever trick.
But first let’s get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world. What a great president Barack Obama will be if he can work with Congress and the American people to make great strides in these very difficult times.
“Fuck you liberals! Sit down, shut up and let us do everything you want” is music to my ears.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Well said righteous lycanthrope.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:04 am
http://icantfly.com/swf/audio_player.swf?audio_file=http://www.tumblr.com/audio_file/63772110/
December 9th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Spare me the phony outrage at what Hildebrand said. Anyone who actually listened to Obama during the campaign knew he was a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Hildebrand addressed the issue because others made it an issue and for no other reason. Obama is destined to make many decisions that unfortunately have no alternative that will make everybody happy and my greatest hope is that he has the courage to make those decisions based on his intellect and not political posturing. Up until now, he has done just that.
href=”http://chaosoutoforder.wordpress.com/”>
December 9th, 2008 at 3:23 am
BTW, if it really is a “clever trick to reframe progressive goals as centrist ones”, it might help if Matt and other leftie bloggers stop talking about it. Baiting and switching only work when the other side doesn’t realize what is going on.
Yes indeed, if there’s one thing we can count on it’s people’s willingness to practice self deception rather than face reality.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Spare me the phony outrage at what Hildebrand said. Anyone who actually listened to Obama during the campaign knew he was a pragmatist, not an ideologue.
The pragmatic definition of pragmatism is that pragmatism consists of whatever you agree with and ideology is whatever you don’t.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Irony of course being that pragmatism is itself an ideology, the ideology of washington insiders who frequently let ideology get in the way of pragmatic solutions.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:56 am
the ideology of washington insiders who frequently let ideology get in the way of pragmatic solutions.
Yes and on the flip side let’s not forget that the constitution is an ideological statement and it gets in the way of many a pragmatic solution. Moving forward we may discover that we can no longer afford such luxuries.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:12 am
west coast FTW. (I had exactly the same question, but for better or worse, west coast published first.)
December 9th, 2008 at 6:34 am
This is too cute by half. It would be one thing if the last democratic president hadn’t essentially treated us all like child molesters and turned their back on everything they promised us. IF that hadn’t happened, there might be some room for talk like this. As it is, there’s just no trust between the base and the establishment.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Glenn Greenwald weighs in (rather more heavily than Matt, even though I think Matt outweighs him by fifty pounds):
Gen. Hayden and the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/08/hayden/index.html
December 9th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Anyone who actually listened to Obama during the campaign knew he was a pragmatist, not an ideologue.
Pragmatism vs. Idealism. The biggest trope in politics.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I know a lot of liberals, and none of them are angry right now. We’re all taking a break after being angry for 8 years.
Everyone thinks Obama is a brilliant strategist, and we’re waiting on the edge of our seats for his strategy to unfold.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am
http://liginmaclari.blogcu.com/10-aralik-carsamba-dinamo-kiev-fenerbahce-sampiyonlar-ligi-macinin-golleri-dinamo-kiev-fenerbahce-sampiyonlar-ligi-macinin-gollerini-izle-dinamo-kiev-fenerbahce-sampiyonlar-ligi-macinin-gollerin-ozet-goruntuleri_30773341.html
December 9th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Left anger is, at the moment, mostly a non-issue. It might become an issue later on, when real issues appear on Obama’s desk and he doesn’t always play left.
As a moderate, I’m happy about Hildebrand’s comment. I’m as suspicious of the far left as I am of the far right. But I haven’t even heard any far left groups upset. Has someone called NAMBLA for a quote about their disappointment at being left out of the Obama administration?
By the way, MY: someone was floating an idea that Obama take up Sen. Snowe’s offer of elevating the Small Business Administration Head to a Cabinet-Level position… and then putting her at the head of it. And then letting the Democratic governor of Maine appoint a Democrat to the Senate from Maine. What do you think?
December 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am
The Hildebrand piece started out alright but then becomes quite incoherent. I’ve read it several times and tried to plumb its depths of meaning, but it strikes me as very poorly written, and only succeeds in sowing confusion. It’s all fine up to: “this is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making.”
What does that mean, exactly? That the left wing of the party is unequipped to have informed opinions at this stage of the game about the people being appointed? When should people on the left start drawing conclusions about appointments, i.e., formulating judgments about those appointments?
But then things get really impenetrable:
Some believe the appointments generally aren’t progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn’t the way he thinks and it’s not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn’t, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people – not just those on the left.
I really don’t understand at all what he is saying here. When he says “that’s not the way he thinks, and its not likely the way he will lead,” what are the referents of “that” and “it”? What’s not the way he thinks? Is he saying that Obama doesn’t think of people in terms of category labels like like “progressive”? Or does he mean that Obama does believe these appointments are progressive enough? Or does he mean that Obama’s judgments about a person’s “qualifications” are completely ideology-free, and independent of any actual value positions the person might hold about what kind of society we should build? Or is he just saying that we shouldn’t expect progressive picks of any kind, because Obama is now “president of all the people”?
I think there is probably some coherent message Hildebrand intended to deliver with thi sop-ed, but failed to deliver. My guess is that it was supposed to be something like, “There are big, large problems to address early in the term, and to address them Obama needs people with the insider heft, connections and experience necessary to move the heavy wheels and levers of our national institutions. And that means he needs a lot of establishment people who have been in the center of these institutions, not out working the progressive hustings.”
But as I said, I’m guessing. Hildebrand’s actual piece just sows confusion.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Not surprising, I remember having the same feeling during the Clinton years-all the young people that got him elected were soon ditched for the Wall Street insider crowd.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Let’s face it –there’s two kinds of Democrats. The ones who work hard in campaigns ,give money, and make self-sacrifices for the good of the country — and then there’s the self-publicizing, non-ideological ass-kissing sellouts who’re in it for the money and to advance the agenda of some sugar daddy.
Those who say we should ignore Obama’s appointments are, in my personal opinion, either fools or among the deceitful butt-kissers jostling for a job. As are those who are tactically remaining silent.
We have just come off 8 years of having a president who continually escaped consequences of his malign acts by claiming it was the mistakes of subordinates. And of having helpful subordinates who stood up and took the blame.
Anyone who knows anything about Washington DC knows that deceitful play-acting to con the country is the prevalent mode of operation in Washington DC today.
Appointments like Hillary Clinton, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Robert Gates,etc are not the sign of someone wanting to reform things — they’re the sign of someone laying the groundwork for maintaining the status quo , with a few cosmetic changes to fool the rabble.
How many federal workers –with a family to feed –go around a political appointee at the head of their Department and protest a policy to the President so that the President can do the right thing?
We replaced the Republican-controlled Congress in 2006 with a Democratic one. Has that Democratic Congress shown any reluctance to throw $Trillions of our dollars to Wall Street? Although my understanding is that all those sick people without health care will need to wait a few years. Maybe decades.
Has that Democratic Congress shown any inclination to investigate how this financial disaster happened? Anyone under indictment? Come to think of it, anyone hear Barney Frank or Chris Dodd shouting warnings about the irresponsible “risk taking” of Wall Street and Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae in years past?
Ending the war in Iraq is not a “Liberal objective”. It should be the objective of any loyal American who thinks our soldiers should not be ordered to their deaths just to create a puppet government for Chevron and Exxon.
Or, in the case of Hillary, because Haim Saban thinks it would be “good for Israel” and because keeping Haim Saban happy is good for the Clintons’ pocketbook.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I think it’s wise to ignore all political-vaporware discussions of this sort. The only meaningful politics is about policies–not about abstract (which is to say nonexistence) aggregations of policy-and-appointments-and-ethos.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Obama is appointing the very people who enabled our economic and military disasters — Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton — to his Cabinet while ignoring the people who got it right. How can Hildebrand claim that that is “valuing competence”?
By the way, what does foreign policy advisor Samantha Power think of Obama appointing a “Monster” to be Secretary of State?
December 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Lefties like the front pagers at Open Left have been crying about how Obama is a conservative all year. Their critique doesn’t seem to comport with reality very well (when did reforming health care, fighting global warming, preserving abortion rights, making massive investments in clean energy and infrastructure, raising taxes on the wealthy, withdrawing from Iraq, and engaging in diplomacy with enemies like Iran and North Korea become conservative?), but hey at least they are consistent.
Certainly Obama is not above criticism. I’m not thrilled with some of his cabinet selections (especially Clinton and Gates). He has, however, made it crystal clear that he not his cabinet secretaries will determine the direction of policy. Since he is not President yet, it seems reasonable to wait until he takes the oath of office and actually has the power to do something before we start criticizing him as some kind of horrible sell out.
I get the feeling that some commentators at Open Left and elsewhere wouldn’t be happy even if Feingold or Sanders had become President. They can’t seem to grasp the fact that the Presidency is a political office not a philosopher or policy analyst at a liberal think tank or media institution and therefore he can’t narrowly toe a certain ideological line 100% of the time.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am
i’m pretty sure this is trolling. but seriously, NAMBLA has far more in common with selfish libertarianism than it does with anything on the “far left”.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Re Ron E’s comment “They can’t seem to grasp the fact that the Presidency is a political office not a philosopher or policy analyst at a liberal think tank or media institution and therefore he can’t narrowly toe a certain ideological line 100% of the time.”
————
A President has a VERY LIMITED AMOUNT of time for any one problem. He depends upon his appointees to warn him of problems, to brief him with detailed information, to give him good advice and good solutions, and to faithful execute his directions.
Does anyone seriously think that Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates are even CAPABLE of that? After decades of public life –you will notice I don’t say Service — Why should they start now?
Isn’t it more reasonable to expect that they will continue to grind the axes of the cabals which have sustained them for decades? To sabotage government actions which go against the cabals agendas, to leak like crazy and to always –always — keep their thumbs firmly on the scales in Executive discussions?
December 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Center Right, Obama nefariously nominating Clinton and Left v Obama are all contrived and honestly I’ve stopped paying attention.
k1
December 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’m sure it’s occurred to most people that at least one side benefit to Obama on all of this is that he looks less like a Marxist radical when the “left” is mad at him, and that commentary on the right has been gleeful (indeed they seem to be saying “he’s secretly one of us”) and that that sort of reaction would be very useful to a politician who is trying to move the definition of the “center” to the left (which is what I think Obama is trying to do, and which is certainly the right strategy for our particular country and population).
By the same token, I think a lot of people who identify as bleeding heart liberals or radical progressives or what have you aren’t all that interested in moving the center–there’s a certain identity thing in considering yourself out of the mainstream. And these days, I almost reflexively want to choose the side that David Sirota is NOT on.
Some of these offended net rooters also have the kind of nose for the slightest sign of disrespect that they might as well be trigger happy street thugs. If they are serious about their causes, it would probably be better for them to work at those productively than complain that they aren’t treated like kings.
That said, most on the “left” are not complaining more than usual, and it’s just a small (though as usual loud) minority who are making the noise.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“Who’s playing tonight?”
“the Shitty Beatles”
December 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Matt, you left out one option: the viewpoint that Hildebrand is totally correct.
Crazed left-wing bloggers are pretty much attention whoring. OpenLeft is interesting oftentimes, but we all know that they only reason it’s had such an upsurge in media coverage recently is their hard line, extremist positions.
Obama ran consistently as a centrist and a pragmatist, and we shouldn’t expect him to act otherwise. And as far as his appointments go, sure, he’s put in a couple conservatives. But liberals have Clinton and Geithner. It’s a balanced administration with multiple viewpoints.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
DTM,
That is true–and probably just as well, since thin skinned leftists are no more likely to melt away than hard line right wingers, so let’s make them productive somehow.
Still, there are times when I’m skimming the comments at dkos and thinking to myself “aw, don’t you guys know you’re being played?”
December 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Re JMS’s comment “Still, there are times when I’m skimming the comments at dkos and thinking to myself “aw, don’t you guys know you’re being played?” ”
——————
Hmmm. “Being played” eh?
Any guess re who Illnois Governor Rod Blagojevich will appoint for Senator as Obama’s replacement?
You may recall that Democrat Blagoejevich ran as a reformer in 2002 when he defeated Republican George Ryan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_us/blagojevich_corruption_probe
December 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think it is a positive that they are paying attention to progressives at all. When is the last time we were addressed directly? Even if its dismissive, that is still progress right?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
December 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
And these days, I almost reflexively want to choose the side that David Sirota is NOT on.
Awesome! I’ll sign you up for the Torture, Endless War, and Crony Capitalist Party. Your table’s over there, with Dick Cheney, Richard Holbrooke and Alan Greenspan.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
And these days, I almost reflexively want to choose the side that David Sirota is NOT on.
Damn straight. The front pagers at Open Left, et al, are incredibly annoying, and almost always wrong about everything. I’ve not read Hildebrand’s column, but anything which pisses off Matt Stoller is alright in my book.
And can we stop talking about “progressives”? I have no idea what that term means. It’s pretentious and annoying and must be destroyed.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
There’s a fascinating psychological phenomenon at work among liberal Democrats right now. It’s more than mere denial; at this point it’s a willful suspension of logical and rational faculties in order to better adhere to a belief system that’s wildly at odds with reality. If cultural conservatives built their political strength over the last three decades out of manufactured outrage, then American liberals are destroying whatever’s left of theirs with manufactured stupidity.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I’ve not read Hildebrand’s column, but anything which pisses off Matt Stoller is alright in my book.
This is a perfectly sound and rational line of thought, right up there with “Michael Moore is fat, so let’s invade Iraq.”
December 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Re John’s comment “And can we stop talking about “progressives”? I have no idea what that term means. It’s pretentious and annoying and must be destroyed.”
——————
What’s pretentious is someone presuming to post on an American political tradition that’s over a 120 years old, announcing that he doesn’t have a fucking clue what the movement is, and then saying that he would like for it to go away.
Some remedial reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States
If you need more, ask your sixth grade history teacher.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Actually, the Progressive movement dates from the founding of the Republic:
———-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
————
Mr Jefferson left out the part about the shotguns — although he did get around to the subject in a later document.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
My general desire to piss off Matt Stoller is, I suppose, not a particularly valid exercise in anything. I will say that Matt Stoller and his ilk have repeatedly been shown to have awful, awful political instincts, and, in general, seem to have no idea how politics in the real world works. They have been right about a few things (Iraq, whatever else they’ve been right about) but that is no particular reason to expect them to be right about other things, given how frequently they’ve been wrong.
Basically, I do not respect political analysis written by people who have no actual understanding of politics besides an abiding faith in their own righteousness. This, so far as I can tell, is all that the Matt Stollers of the world have to their credit, and, as such, when I find a Matt Stoller disagreeing with other people on the left side of the spectrum, my instinct is to assume Stoller is wrong. This is obviously not always true, and we should be careful not to dismiss something merely because Stoller supports it – but I do think it’s good practice, in general, to assume Stoller is wrong unless there is good reason to think otherwise. That S. Jones and Don Williams and the rest seem to agree with Stoller provides even stronger motivation in that direction.
Don – I of course know that the term “Progressive” was used in the early 20th century by people like Theodore Roosevelt. That meaning of the term has absolutely no relevance to politics since the 1920s. I also know that the term “Progressive” was used by Communist fellow travelers like Henry Wallace after the Second World War – again, that meaning has little resonance today, except among a certain class of crusty campus types, I guess. The current usage of “progressive” seems to be largely by self-proclaimed “activists” of the Matt Stoller variety who use it a) as a symbol of ideological purity; and b) because the Republicans have made them scared to call themselves liberals. Beyond that I have no real conception of its specific meaning in a current context. Again, it is tedious and pretentious, and should be avoided.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Don’s post number 51 shows exactly how useless the term “Progressive” is – claiming the founding fathers as the basis for whatever political ideology is the last refuge of someone with no actual argument.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Comrade Heywood R:
Oddly enough, that is also the ideological definition of pragmatism.
Meanwhile, Dan Kervick wins the thread.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
We replaced the Republican-controlled Congress in 2006 with a Democratic one. Has that Democratic Congress shown any reluctance to throw $Trillions of our dollars to Wall Street? Although my understanding is that all those sick people without health care will need to wait a few years. Maybe decades.
I think we need a new label for people like Don Williams, who oppose massive government interventions that are designed to save our economy, simply because the money goes “to Wall Street.” That doesn’t evince even a coherent philosophy about the role of government, much less a “liberal” one. My request to Chris Bowers and his ilk is stop pretending that your views define liberalism, progressivism, or the Democratic Party. Some of us take those terms seriously, and we understand them to mean something more than animosity towards large corporations and rich people.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Re John’s comment “Don’s post number 51 shows exactly how useless the term “Progressive” is – claiming the founding fathers as the basis for whatever political ideology is the last refuge of someone with no actual argument.”
————-
I didn’t cite the “Founding Fathers” –several of whom (e.g, Alexander Hamilton) were corrupt whores similar to what we have at present. I cited Thomas Jefferson.
I would ask you who was the co-founder of the Democratic Party but I suspect an AP exam in American History would not be your finest hour.
PS The Progressive Movement was forced underground by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson — and Attorney General Palmer. As well as the usual two-faced sophists on the Supreme Court. See Eugene Debs, Imprisonment of.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Re RS’s comment “I think we need a new label for people like Don Williams, who oppose massive government interventions that are designed to save our economy, simply because the money goes “to Wall Street.” ”
—————-
What is the term they use in the training classes now for deceitful misrepresentation of an opponent’s position?
Ah, yes. “Framing”.
What I have opposed is dumping several $Trillion in additional debt onto the common citizen. Given that our economic problem is the result of a malign concentration of income and wealth, your bailout will only make things worse.
What I have argued is that the government instead needs to levy heavy taxes onto the rich fuckers who caused this trainwreck in order to raise money for the bailout.
And distribute the money to the workers –where the demand side of the curve resides — so that they can buy the things they need. I don’t think we can drink enough Cristal to float ourselves out of this mess. Although the CEOs of banks and investment houses obviously have been trying.
Or does RS want to argue that Wall Street was really working for Ma and Pa down on the farm all this time?
December 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Re RS’s comment “Some of us take those terms seriously, and we understand them to mean something more than animosity towards large corporations and rich people.”
—————
By “us” are you referring to the ineffectual bootlickers who do politics for a living?
December 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What is the term they use in the training classes now for deceitful misrepresentation of an opponent’s position?
Ah, yes. “Framing”.
No, I think you’ve got that wrong. “Framing” is a meaningless term that pseudointellectual internet “liberals” have fixated on as an explanation for any and every political phenomenon, and used as a rhetorical shield in the most inapposite of contexts (see, e.g., your post), to avoid having to discuss actual policy issues, about which they’re able to say little beyond vacuous attacks on wealthy corporations and individuals (e.g., “rich fuckers”).
Given that our economic problem is the result of a malign concentration of income and wealth, your bailout will only make things worse.
What I have argued is that the government instead needs to levy heavy taxes onto the rich fuckers who caused this trainwreck in order to raise money for the bailout.
I’m all for increased progressivity in the tax code and policies that promote greater income equality, but I don’t see how those goals are furthered by allowing the collapse of the financial sector of the economy, upon which the businesses (and, consequently, the workers) of America depend.
Of course, I can’t make out what your position is. You seem to be saying both that the bailout is a terrible idea, and that we should give money to consumers (who are supposed to start making business loans with their personal funds?), but also that the bailout is okay, as long as it is accompanied by a tax increase on “rich fuckers.” Yes, I surely wish that Obama had eschewed Geithner for someone with this kind of incisive reasoning.
By “us” are you referring to the ineffectual bootlickers who do politics for a living?
As I live in the DC area, I know many of these ineffectual bootlickers, and while they’re deserving of your scorn and mine, that doesn’t mean that brainless apes like Chris Bowers aren’t also deserving.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Re RS’s comment “Of course, I can’t make out what your position is. You seem to be saying both that the bailout is a terrible idea, ”
—————-
1) I have been clear in the past re what I think should be done. Which is for the federal government to set up its own bank and lend money to real businesses that need it and can present a decent business plan for paying the money back. This isolates the real economy from the contagion –from the derivative virus in the investment (and regular) banks.
2) I would let the parts of the financial sector that are bankrupt die. Or let the “free market” sort things out among the creditors and debtors.
3) Paying off the gambling debts of irresponsible, self-serving people like Robert Rubin is not “saving the economy”. It is not “investment”. Quite the contrary — the massive debt you incur saving the parasites will be a dead weight on the productive sectors of the economy for years to come.
4) And yes, we should levy heavy taxes on the rich and distribute the money either to government programs that help the common citizen or to the common citizens themselves as a middle class tax cut.
5) George Bush’s claim re the rich needing a tax cut in 2001 so they could create jobs was deceitful bullshit — government data shows the rich invested the money IN CHINA , not the USA. Bush and Congress stole $3 Trillion our of our Social Security accounts to fund that tax cut and to grab the oil deposits of IRaq for Houston.
6) Now you want to give several $Trillion more to the rich in covert transfers that disguise who is getting the taxpayers money. Paulson and Bernanke told Congress itself to piss up a rope when Congress asked where the Fed loans were going.
How is any of this an improvement on the Bush Administration. If I had wanted to be fucked for the sake of giving money to rich people, I would vote Republican.
7) We KNOW how all this huge debt is going to be paid off — heavy taxes on middle class IRAs/401s.
Those assets of which are recorded in detail in government databases, are locked up by law, and are in “before tax” dollars –hence, can be taxed at 80 percent if need be.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Re DTM’s comment “Of course if the government set up Don’s bank, it would then have to hire people to run it. Likely it would show a preference for hiring people with banking experience. Don would then go nuts about those people being hired.”
—————-
Making up strawmen is another hammer in the toolbox, no?
I wouldn’t have a problems with any setup that was run half-way decently and geared for the national interest — as opposed to letting campaign donors pull their trucks up to the back of the US Treasury. Which is what Obama and the Democratic Congress are supporting at present.
The government could set the bank up in various ways — it might even simply use the banks the FDIC is taking over. Fire the incompetent management, tell the shareholders to go fuck themselves, and keep the low level employees who actually do real work, who are reasonably honest, and who don’t sit around plotting ingenious ways of stealing money.
Government did a reasonably ok job of running the Resolution Trust Corp for the S&L problem in the early 1990s.
Given that you all are being buttfucked to the tune of $1.5 Trillion –no, make that $7 Trillion , I think quibbling over the addition of a few employees to the Civil Service is a red herring.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
And can we stop talking about “progressives”? I have no idea what that term means. It’s pretentious and annoying and must be destroyed.
I like the word “progressive”. It connotes a belief in always seeking ways to improve the way things are.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hildebrand’s article didn’t do any favors for Obama. It’s one thing to reach out to your partisan foes who actually share key concerns with you, i.e. national security. Being gratuitously dismissive of the way that part of your base expresses its concerns is quite another. But the reality is that Obama’s appointments so far have tilted toward experience and professional competence at the slight expense of ideological purity, and that’s a wise trade-off — especially when you consider that there are few if any people on the left of the Democratic Party, with experience equivalent to those who were appointed, who could have been, for example, Treasury Secretary or National Security Advisor. Remember that Obama and the Office of the Presidency itself are both brand new to the job of managing the nation’s financial system — he absolutely needed an insider like Geithner. And remember that Obama is brand new to the job of managing relationships with the defense and intelligence establishments of the 20 or 30 countries that are our key NATO and other allies, while Gen. Jones knows that professional landscape like the back of his hand. Obama won’t be a puppet of his inner circle. But he needs their tactical expertise.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Once again, it’s easy to sum up the situation in one word:
Suckers.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Well deserve penis enlargement device review and pills review. Visit now http://www.penizenlargement.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
penis enlargement medicines reviews and consumer choice best penis enlarging products for natural penis size enlargement, sexual enhancement, male enhancement and longer, harder penis size without any side effects at http://www.penisenlargementmedicines.com
March 13th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra