On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Doug quoted his opening comments to a panel:
> I was cast as the wet blanket. I served the role, but it was no fun.
> It's no fun to rain on parades, even if they're badly in need of a
> dousing. Most of other panelists remained critical of Obama, but
> still thought there was some way in which he was a catalyst to
> building a movement, and that the excitement surrounding his campaign
> should not be disparaged. Well no, but millions of people are
> experiencing some sort of misplaced enthusiasm, and they're almost
> certain to be disappointed. And how the excitation of voters can
> translate into a movement, when its object could well become chief
> executive of the bourgeoisie, is never revealed.
Could it be possible that your theory that disappointment is salutory for building the left, and their (well theory might be too strong a word -- let's say heartfelt hope) that Obama will be the "catalyst to building a movement, and that the excitement surrounding his campaign" will be the force that brings this about" -- could it be that these are simply two sides of the same proposition?
I mean, if you really think disappointment will help the left, then you're agreeing that the election of Obama will contribute towards building a movement, no? Because for you, that's what a left is by definition -- a movement, right?
If I remember your argument, the reason the left does better under Democrats is that people build up huge progressive hopes for the Democrat, and then (and only then) realize that electing a Democrat won't bring them about -- and then (and only then) are convinced that they need to do something else above, beyond and outside electing Democrats.
So aren't you simply providing the causal step that these "hope is good" people can't come up with themselves as to how the election of Obama will help the left? You're answering the question that they can't when you pose it to them.
So consequently, shouldn't you be all for people like this building their hopes as high as possible and not shooting them down until afterwards? On the theory that the bigger the disappointment and the more elaborately progressive the hopes, and the bigger the impetus towards building a left?
It seems you're throwing grit in your own dialectic here. :o) And that the two sides of this argument more complementary than opposed. It seems to me you aren't saying these people are wrong. You're saying they are leaving out the hugely ironic way this process actually works. But you agree it works.
So when they say this enthusiasm shouldn't be disparaged, on some level,
it would seem intellectually you'd have to agree. Even if personally
that's something you just can't resist :o) You're like a someone whose
seen the movie and feels impelled to tell newcomers how it's going to end
:o)
Michael