[lbo-talk] Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

[shag carpet bomb]

speaking of, does any one remember the name of the reviewer who complained 
that Robin dared to include a chapter in his book that he no longer agrees 
with. After reading Robin's chapter and his introductory comments to it, I 
thought the critic was a real putz to ding him on that. Robin notes that he 
could have revised the chapter in light of his changed position and new 
learning. I thought it was pretty upstanding that he left it in there, as a 
kind of testament to the horrid academic ideal of the horrid academia: that 
people learn and change their minds.

At 09:18 AM 4/6/2012, shag carpet bomb wrote:


>Reminds me of the book review someone pointed me to recently and about 
>which I posted because it was another book playing on the whole "mind" 
>bizzo. In this case, it was called The Righteous Mind. The author, a 
>member of the Righteous Minded himself, points to research that shows that 
>a conservative is capable of accurately representing how a liberal thinks 
>about an issue whereas a liberal is completely befuddled by conservative 
>thinking.
>
>This flies in the face of the typical assumption of the Righteously 
>Minded, no? That the Liberal is special because he is observant, caring, 
>attuned to the Other, thoughtful, rational, brimming with the spirit of 
>equanimity.
>
>But apparently not quite - not when it comes to understanding the world of 
>conservatives.
>
>I'm also reminded of Robin's chapter on conservatives who turn against 
>conservativism. They're not exactly _for_ anything in its stead. Though 
>Robin says he actually thinks differently about this breed of conservative 
>than he used to, so I'm not sure if that would be his current thesis. He 
>never makes that clear either.
>At 08:38 AM 4/6/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>I would like to see someone propose a program, opposing Democrats from the
>>right, and providing campaign fodder as it were, that is NOT lunacy. I think
>>it can't be done. The DP has so occupied the whole political spectrum to the
>>extreme rational right that there is no rightwing program possible other
>>than various brands of lunacy.
>>
>>Also, on Congressional voting. Doug's statistics are of course simply
>>meaningless, for reasons Michael has  given. What would be meaningful would
>>be a two-step process.
>>
>>1. Prepare a list of the 10 major acts of Congress over the past 20 years
>>that have been fundamental in determining national policy.
>>
>>2. Check the voting on those 10 acts.
>>
>>That said, the whole debate is meaningless in reference to left needs and
>>aims. It is the DP and the DP alone that for 45 years has been the main
>>stumbling block to recruiting left activists. Without overcoming that
>>barrier the left isn't -- that is, it isn't A Left but a collection of
>>leftists individuals and small scattered groups. And that is why yakking
>>about "the right" is destructive (in addition to be about as meaningless as
>>one can imagine any yakking to be).
>>
>>
>>Carrol
>>
>>P.S. If my premise re 'room to the right' of the DP is correct, then the DP
>>can move further right  only by attracting more lunatics.
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>--
>http://cleandraws.com
>Wear Clean Draws
>('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)