[lbo-talk] Why Obama doesn't suck

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 11 08:52:48 PST 2010


Marv: "I evidently can't persuade you or Charles or Woj that the

administration was in a stronger position than the Republicans ..etc."

[WS:] This is because you are arguing a rather difficult to prove position - namely that the counterfactual would necessarily happen. At best, you can demonstrate that your counterfactual was possible, had a different course of action been taken - which I buy. I am just not sure how successful it would have been.

I found SA's analogy to Nitze's "escalation dominance" strategy very useful.

In fact, the other side has amassed a far greater arsenal at its disposal than the liberals has. True, the mainstream press may be liberal - but virtually every other media outlet, especially TV and all tabloids, is staunchly pro-business, pro-Republican, and conservative. Furthermore, you need to look at the strategic deployment of these forces. The liberal dailies like NYT, WP, LAT, or Boston Globe are, in a way, like the Maginot line - guarding against conservative attacks in liberal strongholds (such as New England or CA,) where such attacks are least likely to succeed. Outside those strongholds, the Fox news, Murdoch's rabidly anti-liberal tabloids, not to mention churches, business leagues, and conservative associations of various stripes have overwhelming dominance.

So with that it mind, it was quite rational for Dems to expect to be out-gunned if confrontation escalates, and try to prevent escalation in the first place. Whether that strategy worked is an altogether different story.

Lord Chamberlain pursued a similar strategy and "appeased" Hitler by handing him Czechoslovakia. That only emboldened the Germans, who put forth new demands (the "corridor") and eventually started the war. From the hindsight, it is easy to blame Chamberlain for not seeing it coming. But I am not sure if the counterfactual (standing ground on Czechoslovakia) would have produced different results, and if so, what those results would have been. Perhaps WW2 would have started in 1938 rather than in 1939 and run its course as it did, or perhaps it would have not started at all and the Nazi regime would have stayed in power as long as those of Franco and Salazar. Who knows?

The same can be said about O's strategy of "appeasement." In the hindsight, we know it did not work - but that was not so certain in 2008. And I am not sure if a different strategy would have produced different outcomes, as the Reps had the capacity of outflanking the liberal Maginot lines anyway. Nor do we know what the final outcome of this war will be - perhaps wiping out blue dog Dems in 2008 and the pain inflicted by austerity measures imposed by Reps will produce a "Stalingrad" in 2012.

And one final point - I am not swallowing Dem party line, in fact, I would gladly support any serious alternative to them, had it emerged. I am just trying to think strategically and take into consideration the deployment of forces on the ground. SA is absolutely correct by saying that this deployment favors Reps by a significant margin. Perhaps O made a tactical mistake, but the blame for the failure of his strategy falls squarely with the electorate.

Wojtek


>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list