After you're done performing the auto-cranialrectotomy, you might want to remember that one of his first salvos (11.12.2003, pasted below. ) in this debate was his desire to see the Busheviks humiliated. That means as thorough-going a defeat as possible, including in 'safe states'. That way, even if the Busheviks win on their electoral college strategy, they may still lose the popular vote. He didn't spell it out in quite this way, but figuring it out doesn't take much more effort than it does to, oh gosh-a-golly, prove that "Dog shit is not peanut butter" with a jar of each and a box of crackers.
Doug explained himself clearly then, and yet you've repeatedly misrepresented him as uncritical of the democrats. You are doing it even now, in this post, accusing him of being different from Max. You suggest that Max wants to criticize Dems and Doug doesn't. What horse shit. Why insist on dividing people like this? It's some weird debate tactic where you try to marshall others by flattering them, so they'll shut up and not take sides with Doug against you? What?
No matter what, this continual misrepresentation is not principled discourse and I don't know why anyone should put up with it.
>>Doug: I hear very little about buidling an organization that will last
>>beyond November 2.
>
>Yoshie: I don't think that you are personally interested in getting
>involved in building an organization, and you said as much:
Lookee: YOU are the advocate of building a left social movement. YOU seem convinced that your work, in your sig, is somehow different from the work Doug described below. Why? I'm honestly curious. Carrol and I've discussed this offlist, briefly, and we have come to the conclusion that our views aren't incompatible. Which is to say, I think what Doug does _is_ contributing to building a left social movement, it's just that he's not involved in the day-to-day activities of a particular party or organization. And this is somehow just not enough for you. It really chaps my ass that the very people who are supposed to have a structural analysis--say, understanding that people work long hours--find what Doug is doing somehow not enough. Excuse me? If that's the way you think, then FKMFA. Accusing him of failing because he doesn't personally get involved, when he's already donating lots of time to provide people with analysis and a forum on his show, not to mention this List, is pretty insulting, not to mention counterproductive to your own self-interest. If you set the bar for political participation so damn high, who will possibly want to join in all the riotous fun?
Further, since YOU are so sure that building a left movement must be on the basis of party-building (which, to my knowledge, Doug doesn't seem to advocate), then YOU need to defend your reasons for voting for Ralph on the grounds that it contributes to building this left social movement now and post-11/2.
>I spend a lot of my life writing economic analysis for far-below market
>rates, and doing a radio show that takes a full workday to put together
>every week for free. That's my political work, and I do a lot of it. And
>I'm not really interested in becoming a shill for any political party. It
>would compromise my credibility and risk destroying my brain.
>
>Doug
Message-Id: <p05200f1bbbd855e287c0@[192.168.0.196]> In-Reply-To: <20031112153836.78100.qmail at web21509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031112153836.78100.qmail at web21509.mail.yahoo.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:43:00 -0500
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>Fact of the matter is that when we go in for lesser
>evil politics, as I, like Doug, am doing this year,
>you can't be too picky.
No kidding. I have no illusions about what a Dem president would do. My expectations are low, and despite that I wouldn't be surprised to be disappointed. But that's not why I'm a member of the Almost Anybody But Bush (AABB) club. Of course there are ways in which a Dem president would be significantly better - Nathan's persuaded me about things like the NLRB, for example. Most of our revo-plotting Trotobots don't think about things like that. The rich wouldn't be quite so coddled, and the general discursive atmosphere would improve. But as I've said before, it's much better to have politics be fought over the guys in charge not doing enough than it is to fight to defend the social gains of the 20th century. And like I've also said before, it encourages radical opposition to have a "liberal" of some sort in control; problems are more easily perceived as systemic than partisan.
Plus the Bush gang is horrifying and repulsive and I want them humiliated.
Doug