> Brad De Long wrote:
>
> >Nothing's wrong with it, if you think that there was no difference between:
> >
> >John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon
>
> Missile gap and supply-side tax cuts vs. food stamps, guaranteed minimum
> income, and EPA.
>
> >Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater
>
> Peace candidate who killed 1-2 million Indochinese.
First a flight into realms of theory, then a return to earth.
The flight:
I want to make a plea for post-modernism here. Not the Francophile lit-crit, science-envy psuedo-radicalism that flies under that flag, but the actual condition which Robert Keegan discusses in a cognitive-developmental context *In Over Our Heads*, and which Walter Truett Anderson discusses in an engaging overview in *The Future of the Self: Inventing the Post-Modern Person*.
What I mean is this -- there's a side of me -- more than side, in the postmodern sense -- an entire persona which agrees entirely with Doug and would say the same exact thing. But where Doug and I might differ -- perhaps only on some days, depending which other persona of mine (or his) showed up -- is on what comes next.
And the quality of our discourse -- and more importantly the praxis that comes out of it -- depends very much on our ability to encompass the diversity of those various selves we carry inside us. This is not to say that all of them are equal, much less equally right. But the only way to adequately respond to the world today is via a multiplicity of selves, not by demonizing and suppressing those that don't follow the correct line.
Jim Devine laid some very important groundwork re rational discussion which threaded through his response, and called on others (most notably Brad) to respond with arguments that address the points in contention. In essence, he was MODELING the kind of debate which he and I would like to see replace the kind of "debate" that Brad was engaging in -- the same kind of "debate" which defines politics in the present moment.
The form of post-modernism I despise regards Jim's project here as hopelessly outdated -- a symptom of modernist naivite. But in fact, what Jim's arguing for is all the more essential in the post-modern condition. The greater the diversity of personas -- both within each of us, and in the cultural/economic/political universe we inhabit -- the greater the need for finely articulated understandings.
The return to earth (stage one):
I think JFK was unquestionably better than Nixon, but both were very much constrained by their times. JFK DID out-Nixon Nixon, and Nixon in turn out-JFKed JFK. Therefore, I can agree with Doug's critique (and would make it myself in some situations) and Brad's assesment (and would make it myself in some situations), while arguing that neither point is particularly relevent. What it's really all about is what we can do to change the constraints, and I suspect that Doug and many others on the list would agree with me, at least this far, though we might disagree about how to do that.
I don't want to allow tactical and strategic differences to obscure more fundamental points of agreement -- or even those of disagreement, which are far more worthy of our continued engagement.
The return to earth (stage two):
The Greens in New Mexico already have the Democrats attention with the two seats the Democrats lost there. The more widespread this worry becomes, the more POSSIBILITIES this creates. If Hamburg's support is the margin that Davis loses by, Brad will count that a BAD THING, but I will count it as -- potentially, at least -- A GOOD THING, because it will spread concern about the growing power of the Greens. (This is not to say that I want Lundgren to win, it's just that I don't see that as an unqualified disaster if a large Green vote is a factor.)
Without this pressure, we can look forward to nothing better than a continued march to right by the Dems, always a lesser evil than the Republican headlong plunge toward the Midddle Ages, but quite arguably an essential ingredient in facilitating the success of the Republican neo-fuedal agenda.
The return to earth (stage three):
Boxer/Fong is not at all equivilent to Davis/Lundgren. For now, for me, the larger context I have sketched out above leaves sufficient space for making case-by-case decisions, and the differences between the Boxer/Fong Senate race and the Davis/Lundgren governors race make that rather easy for me.
Last little flight:
Postmodernism means being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do it. It's not that hard. We don't all have to do it the same way. Our disagreements can illuminate our progress. They need not stymie it completely. Rather than getting in a circle and shooting each other, we can take different angles of attack on our common enemies.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"