Laying Bets: W Will Win

[Steve Perry]

i remember *right turn,* but is the
picture entirely the same as when it
was written, back in--what, '86? seems
to me that the parties have become even
more indistinguishable since then. the
repub's must think so, anyway, given what
they're trying to do with the so-called
"75 percent club" this time. (and see
russ feingold's op-ed piece if you're
not familiar with the 75 percent club:
<http://www.startribune.com/viewers/qview/cgi/qview.cgi?template=opinion_a&s
lug=fein11)

anyway, it was yr snotty tone in
rebuking carroll's point that got my
dander up. he was right (if typically smug),
in my view--there is no good and
considerable harm in letting oneself
be drawn into the fiction that it
makes some palpable difference to the
vast majority of americans, or the vast
majority of lefties, which of these clowns
heads up barnum & bailey's.

it does to you, doug, because you're a
journalist specializing in economics, and
the internecine tussles of capital are
journalistic bread & butter to you (and to
me as well sometimes, when i'm doing
journalism). but i would submit
that most of these day-to-day machinations
don't mean a damn to the long-term saga
of capital or the ground-level efforts of
people opposed to or oppressed by it. so
why piss about somebody's indifference to
the outcome of bush v. gore? if it weren't
for the presence of nader & buchanan and
what their like portends for the
destabilization of dems & repub's, i'd
be absolutely as indifferent as carroll.

so now then, *tell me why i shouldn't be.*

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 12:38 PM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: Laying Bets: W Will Win

Steve Perry wrote:


>doug: and where do they differ appreciably
>in their proposed programs of capital
>stewardship?

Ferguson & Rogers covered this territory in Right Turn: the Reps have
historically favored low-wage, more nationally oriented, and smaller
biz, while the Dems have been the party of internationalizing,
higher-wage, higher-tech biz. Thus the greater Rep emphasis on dereg
and tax cutting.

There's also the matter of personality and mass psychology. I know
it'd be hard to prove, but I think Clinton's optimistic, indulgent
temperament had more than a little to do with the Wall Street mania.
The image of him yakking on the phone with a lobbyist, eating pizza,
and getting blown by Monica, all almost simultaneously, seems like a
distilled image of America in the 90s. Bush pere was a perfect guy to
preside over the Katzenjammer from the 80s. Bush fils or Gore would
be good guys for the Katzenjammer of the early 00s.

Doug