[lbo-talk] delusional

[Alan Rudy]

The Republicans only have escalation dominance because the Dems are chicken,
have tied themselves to a losing horse and can't defend their positions
because their positions aren't substantially different than the
Republicans.  Despite Dredmond's point being spot on, the Democratic Party
had the support and conditions to do things that were substantially
different and could have provided arrows to deflate that purported
escalation dominance.
SA keeps on providing us polling data and facts derived from points AFTER
the Democrats had already thrown away the advantage they could have
maintained.  Both data points SA appeals to are after the oh-so tame
stimulus that was oh-so tamely promoted, after Obama refused to aggressively
note that the bail-out was Bush's, and after they'd been weak, irrationally
bipartisan and invisible on health care.  After they threw their advantage
away its not hard to see how they'd have difficulty deciding whether it was
safer to try to win it back - in significant part by turning on the blue
dogs and telling them that if they want to get re-elected in their
previously-red districts they're gonna have to toe the line (remember how we
heard that Rahm was good at that and how we've since heard that Pelosi runs
the House like a feifdom? well, what's the evidence? unless they didn't want
the advantage they had and preferred to be Republicans light.)
Clinton figured that he could win by appealing to economic unrest in
traditionally Democratic ways, on the one hand, and by appropriating
traditionally Republican and neoconservative discourses on social services,
on the other.  Obama's appropriated the traditionally Republican neoliberal
economic programs Clinton actually developed and intensified the
traditionally Republican neoconservative discourse on social services and
the anti-individualist, anti-protestant work ethic and un-American culture
of poverty.  With all of that, however, I kinda thought he'd try the kind of
neoliberal version of the New Deal he clearly had the option to advance and
that he'd use his speechwriters to constantly call for bipartisanship in the
name of America's greatness (I know, puke, but we're talking Democrats here
not us) while calling the Republicans on their refusal to join in to save
the nation.  Republicans may be increasingly reactionary but Democrats are,
by this point, inherently reactive rather than pro-active.  They have
utterly and completely ceded the terrain to Republicans and now simply try -
when the conditions are right - to win away games.  It's like when the
Yankees were playing in Shea Stadium... or when Buffalo plays in Toronto...
every game's on enemy turf (though, its pretty clear that they've met the
enemy and it is them... man, I miss Walt Kelly.)

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, michael perelman <
michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:


> You are correct so long as the Democrats refuse to speak with a strong
> voice.
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:54 PM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is what I mean when I say the conservatives have escalation
> dominance.
> > They have more weapons and more forces and in a confrontation they are
> much
> > more likely to win.
> >
> > So are you really so certain Obama and the Dems are wrong (from their
> > narrow, politician's POV) to take the positions they're taking on the tax
> > issue?
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
*********************************************************
Alan P. Rudy
Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
Central Michigan University
124 Anspach Hall
Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
517-881-6319