Where the Fascists Are (was Henwood vs. Cockburn)

[Steve Perry]

Or: Reagan and Clinton are both dancing to a tune scribbled
by the same composer, so it's misleading and disingenuous
to talk about either of these apparatchiks as though he
was a first cause/leading agent--and crazier still to try
to pin a lion's share of the blame on either of them.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:10 PM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: Where the Fascists Are (was Henwood vs. Cockburn)


>>> Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> 11/16/99 01:19PM >>>
Charles, you slay me!  Which is it?

(((((((((

Charles: Sounds like a false dichotomy here. Didn't mean to kill you.


> From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Nov 16 10:12:53 1999
>
> Without what Reagan's crimes, Clinton couldn't have committed his crimes.

or


> They both are to blame.

((((((((((((

Charles: We must have different conceptions of logic. These are not
contradictory propostiions. So , "Which is it ?" is a false dilemma.

Reagan's crimes are a premise for Clinton's AND they are both to blame.

Maybe some legal logic would help. With respect to crimes there are "but for
"causes and proximate or culpable causes. An event can have more than one
"but for" cause. But for Reagan's actions, Clinton's actions and their
results could not have occurred. However, Clinton's actions are also "but
for"causes of "the end of welfare as we know it" , etc.

The same and single event can be the basis of convicting two people of a
crime. Two people can be blamed or culpable for the same event.  If Bonnie
and Clyde rob a bank, C.J. ( or whatever his name is) can be convicted of
the bank robbery for driving the getaway car, a but for cause of the bank
robbery.

((((((((((

Is Clinton powerless to do damage without Reagan's legacy, or not?

((((((((((((

Charles: Clinton could do some damage without Reagan's legacy, but he
probably couldn't and wouldn't get as bad as he has without the premise of
Reagan's legacy. For example, Clinton probably could not and would not have
abolished welfare as we know it if Reagan hadn't carried out the welfare
queen propaganda and the earlier cuts in welfare as a premise for Clinton's
further steps.  Clinton wouldn't be bombing Iraq , if Bush hadn't waged war
on Iraq.

(((((((((

Fully caffeinated,

((((((((

CB: I drink coffee too.