Friday, November 19, 2010

I'm pretty sure I've said this before...

...but it still confuses me, so I'll say it again.

I was just reading one of the liberal blogs I read for amusement, and they were going on and on about Bush (because he's conveniently back in the public eye, ready to distract, right when even the blandest of liberals are really pissed at Obama), and they were talking about all of the horrible things his administration was "responsible" for--wars, economic disaster, and so on.

And here's my thing--even if you accept the premise (which I don't, obviously) that there is some kind of huge difference between Clinton (in this example) and Bush, and their respective administrations, or similar differences between any two consecutive administrations in our political system, and you think that those differences can lead to wars that kill millions of people and economic crises that impoverish millions more, and so on and so on and so on...

...then doesn't that mean that democracy, especially in a country as hugely powerful as the U.S., is a horrible way to run things? I mean, I don't disagree, as far as that goes, but I think most liberals would at least say they did.

News from the corporate world #4 should be coming shortly.


Jack Crow said...

Perhaps that's where Matt Yglesias - for all that is wrong with him - comes out the better advocate of liberal power, in comparison with some of his democratist compatriots.

Matty at least understands that the symbols of gubmint are different from actual governing.

Which is why he can openly advocate for an American Monarchy - as a distraction for the consuming public.

He's a liberal, so he's not close to completely honest about his motives or the consequences of his worldview. He doesn't outright call it "distraction."

But he's twice now made a case for establishing a monarchy.

And that's as openly Hamiltonian (and therefore not totally, monstrously deceptive) a liberal as is likely to be found, these days.



AlanSmithee said...

Pwoggie bloggers like Matt don't have any actual influence with our corptocracy. He gets paid to provide the illusion that there are substantial differences between the two corporate parties. The illusion that liberals have clout and can influence policy. And thus the illusion that we peons can influence our corporate owned government by voting for the right corporate owned party.

Jack Crow said...

No doubt, Alan. No doubt. I just think his advocacy occasionally has a flare of honesty that wouldn't be found with those who gum up the works with hallucinations of universal democracy.

Peter Ward said...

I think the Leninist way of thinking is common to liberals, perhaps integral to liberalism--they aren't really democrats, even thought the often have to pretend to be. They don't believe people can govern themselves hence when we let the mob vote they vote for idiot Republicans and all goes to pot. Liberals want a totalitarian state al la Plato's Republic.*

*Obviously they are deluded thinking that in such as state they would be given the role of Guardian--such as the anti-Semitic intellectuals who were duly executed by the Nazi's when their usefulness was exhausted.

Justin said...

I'm sympathetic to the critique, not the recommended 'fix'. This is what sometimes kills me about mainstream liberal criticism; all they can see is the tip of the iceberg and that is where their focus is. If only we had better politicians! journalists! talking heads! Why oh why can't we have a better ___________!

When you think about it, the real problem is the context in which these various spokespersons exist, something that goes much deeper than a single personality.

On our politics, there are two explanations for why things are the way they are. Either...
1. Party bosses shunt away Voters and citizens from political power or influence in political parties using any number of tools at their disposal for the task.
2. Liberals grossly overestimate their fellow citizens, and the parties are more or less a reflection of their voting constituencies wishes.

The first explanation is a damning indictment of our system and implies that it may be incorrigible. The implications of the second explanation are much the same as the first.

miguel said...

..then doesn't that mean that democracy, especially in a country as hugely powerful as the U.S., is a horrible way to run things? I mean, I don't disagree, as far as that goes, but I think most liberals would at least say they did.

Public liberals complain about democracy all the time, they just don't do it explicitly. I mean, if you want to find out how democratic at heart the average liberal is, just say 'Ralph Nader 2000'. Or listen to them after election day, complaining about how stupid and apathetic Americans are when contemplating a political result they don't like. 'Americans have the government they deserve' is a common refrain.

Randal Graves said...

So if we're gonna have a monarchy, does this mean they're bringing back powdered wigs? Might as well go whole baroque.

Heh, "Ralph Nader 2000" never ever ever fails to elicit frothing mouths.