On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, David Green wrote:
> I listened to Doug's interview from last week with Michael Lind. He's never
> interested me--he peddles the tired "progressive" TR notion of a "new
> nationalism," devoid of class struggle, which he can never mention--not even
> class alone, not even when he's defining the Democratic Party base, which
> consists of black and Hispanic ethnics, not poor people. I don't think we need
> people like Lind to come up with the idea of investment in infrastructure. I
> think you need a five-year-old of average intelligence. Certainly, Lind's
> concerned about the rise in financial interests, but I don't think he has a clue
> as to why this is. So he gave up being a neocon when the Cold War ended--now he
> doesn't mention foreign policy--too divisive, I guess. And always the assumption
> that somehow Obama just isn't playing his cards right in dealing with the
> Republicans. I don't get what makes this guy the least bit interesting,
> insightful, or helpful.
First of all, I figure I can learn things from people I don't agree with. Lind has always struck me as quite smart and thoughtful. He's way too nationalist for me, but I already knew that. His argument wasn't just about infrastructure in some vulgar Keynesian sense, short-term multipliers etc. - it was about the stimulative effect that lowering transport costs have. But his analysis of the social forces behind the two parties is pretty smart, I think. I don't know where you got the idea that he thinks that Obama isn't playing his cards right - his analysis of the Dems' base in the Rubin wing of Wall Street and in the professional class suggests that Obama is behaving exactly as one might expect.
Doug