Messages in this group:
* Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win
* Hezbollah reach into Israel
* Unseen Al Gore Campaign video
* Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win
* Bad news for the Blogga-Haters!
* Re: how we could win [was Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win]
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win
At around 18/7/06 1:27 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> This is not just the US phenomenon - Europe and Mexico experience the same
> phenomenon, as neo-liberal or conservative candidates consistently win
> elections. South America is a bit more complicated, because left vote is an
> expression of anti-Americanism, which gained popularity, but otherwise
> neo-liberalism seems popular among urban and professional classes. I see a
> similar tendency in Africa - where traditional "left" collectivism still
> holds appeal to rural populations, while urban classes are more attracted to
> liberalism. I am pretty sure you will find the same in India, albeit I
> would defer to more informed opinions on this subject.
>
I would say 'yes', despite the recent punishment that the "India Shining" crowd (BJP, et al) received at the hands of the rural majority. India is replete with language ("percolation effect", better known in the West as "trickle-down") that would be quaint if we didn't know the dangerous ideologies that hide behind it.
The new gods are IT bosses like Infosys' Narayanamoorthy, who revels in skirmishes with politicians, which plays well to the very crowd you identify.
> The bottom line is that the traditionally left-of-the-centre positions are
> for the most part passé, kaput, finito among a large segments of the
> population that see themselves as upwardly mobile and professional. It is
> not that these folks are conservative - most of them are probably not - but
> that they look for something different than the "mass society" that formed
> the basis of the traditional left programs. Thus far, only
> right-of-the-centre parties cater to that demand, while the left has little
> to offer in this respect.
>
> As long as Democrats (or any left-of-the-centre party) cannot provide an
> alternative to neo-liberalism that is attractive to the upwardly oriented
> middle class - they will keep losing elections. They only chance is
> "protest vote" against some unpopular policies -on which they seem to be
> counting. And as long as catering to the pissed off and left behind is the
> main Democrat strategy, their focus on "electable personalities" while
> tacitly deferring to neo-liberalism currently popular with the middle class
> is the right way to go.
You are probably right (unless a highly charismatic and honest leader emerges from the left within the Democratic party). The Democrats (since the DLC?) are (by necessity?) the compassionate conservatives, the party that believes in all the good things (free markets, individual freedom and responsibility, tough laws, family values) with the compassionate side that pays attention to the chronically unsuccessful within the bounds of neo-liberalism.
>From this POV (as defined by you above), as I sort of argued in my
initial post, they will find an electable candidate come 2008. Maybe Jon
Corzine (0 on personality, unfortunately for him) might take a shot at
it. Or someone like that. Hillary, I think, fails to meet the criteria.
How do you explain, however, the success of the "catering to the pissed off and left behind" strategy of the GOP? (after all, "left behind" is, I am told, a popular series of books or some such, within the religious Right). To some extent, the upwardly mobile crowd you describe (who would classify themselves "Independent" in polls) are also a sort of "pissed off" group -- just at different things.
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Hezbollah reach into Israel
The below is a link to a graphic projecting the potential reach of Hezbollah [missiles] into Israel.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kathryncramer/191787960/
=========== Message 3 =========== Subject: Unseen Al Gore Campaign video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29385328971143264
=========== Message 4 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win
Before we go medieval on middle-class arse, a point: I am sure there is work in game theory and those civilization simulations that demonstrates the equilibria that any system of organization and economics will reach? The conflicting views of the middle-class can be explained (to a degree) by their fear that any collective effort will be quickly set upon by parasitic elements. The libertarian attitude or a Machiavellian strategy seems perhaps more parsimonious to them. Even popular biology tells them so, these days.
=========== Message 5 =========== Subject: Bad news for the Blogga-Haters!
Turns out bloggers are just everyday folks posting about their lives and experiences. Worse: they are more evenly represented on gender and race than other areas (including the "regular" media, I would assume).
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/19/pew_study_on_blogger.html Boing Boing: Pew study on bloggers
> The amazing Pew Internet Life project has just released a study on
> blogging in the USA -- it's full of really chunky stats compiled from
> phone interviews with bloggers: "most bloggers are primarily
> interested in creative, personal expression -- documenting individual
> experiences, sharing practical knowledge, or just keeping in touch
> with friends and family."
>
> * The most distinguishing characteristic of bloggers is their youth.
> More than half (54%) of bloggers are under the age of 30. Like the
> internet population in general, however, bloggers are evenly divided
> between men and women, and more than half live in the suburbs.
> Another third live in urban areas and a scant 13% live in rural
> regions.
>
> * Another distinguishing characteristic is that bloggers are less
> likely to be white than the general internet population. Sixty
> percent of bloggers are white, 11% are African American, 19% are
> English-speaking Hispanic and 10% identify as some other race. By
> contrast, 74% of internet users are white, 9% are African American,
> 11% are English-speaking Hispanic and 6% identify as some other
> race...
>
> <...>
;-)
=========== Message 6 =========== Subject: Re: how we could win [was Re: [lbo-talk] how ...
At around 19/7/06 12:56 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> George Scialabba:
>
> I'd settle for a laundry list, if they were only accomplished.
>
> [WS:] The Democrats have been doing just that for the past 50 or so
> years and look where they got. If they continue, they will soon be
> wiped out altogether.
>
This goes against the general pragmatism/cynicism of your main theme! I don't think they will be wiped out (for various reasons, including the obvious one that they are an essential component for the illusion of democracy). They will get their turn once in a while, at times due to Republican hubris or at others due to a blend of personal charisma and centrist concessions (Clinton). They will advance a few items on the laundry list (typically on the social issues, where public permissive entropy will coincide with their agenda). They will lose ground on a few (typically on the economic and justice front where public 'holier and better than thou' will go against them).
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/