Nathan Newman wrote:
>What perplexes me about the debate over eminent domain is that it is such a
>minor issue effecting those who already are rich enough to own property.
>Yet orders of magnitude more renters get evicted from their homes as
>redevelopment hits their communities, and there are no flurries of state
>legislation across the country protecting them from eviction.
-C'mon, this is absurd. Why is this an either-or thing? Why is ED a -"distraction" from the real important stuff? Why can't we think of -two, even three things at once? And why is ED so unimportant if, as I -spent the weekend showing, it's been central to the planning of New -York and other urban areas for decades?
Actually, a lot of the stuff you talked about, such as subsidies to the Apollo Theater, had little to do with ED.
But the point is one Carroll brought up, the fact that you were mentioning ED is because you were following the talking points of the rightwing that want to make ED the main topic of public debate. They set the agenda through their national campaigns, the left debates the pros and cons of their campaign, while other issues get pushed to the side.
There is only so much public attention and when progressive folks pump up an issue championed by the right, it helps them dominate the public sphere. This is their explict strategy and they know folks like those like you will fall right in, thinking that because you are willing to spend hours on end debating all the other issues that newspapers and public forums will have room for the also-ran issues like renters evictions.
But the reality is that message discipline matters, which the rightwing recognizes and happily exploits the lack of it on the left. They suck up public oxygen with their issues, knowing a significant portion of the left will be drawn in with specially designed wedge issues framed in exactly the way this debate has gone. They promote bills to completely shift power over eminent domain from cities to states, get Doug to rail against eminent domain, which supports the rightwing campaign goals, even if Doug at the very end of the discussion says he doesn't support the rightwing bills. But that last kind of comment never makes it into the public version of the debate, just the left "support" for the rightwing campaign.
That's the game and they win playing it. Which is why LBO is spending all this time talking about eminent domain and not renters evictions.
Nathan Newman