me: >> Julio, please don't attribute opinions to me >> that I don't have.
Julio: >And where exactly did I say that you made claims that you didn't make?< You did so when you wrote the passage that appeared immediately above my comment above: >>> The unions, instead of trusting their direct, raw, undigested experience >>> (telling them unequivocally that Democratic administrations were not as >>> anti-union as Republican ones), should have waited for Jim to sort out true >>> causes.<<< I have never advocated such a thing (i.e., waiting for me). Nor did I say that the DP was just as anti-union as the GOP. In fact, it's the latter that I was responding to. In my previous contribution to this thread, I argued that what the argument about was NOT the equal evilness of the two players in the US political duopoly but rather about the labor movement's unfortunate role in that process. I had said: >> In my experience, it's best to be skeptical >> about "direct, raw, undigested experience." Julio now responds: > Well, I'm skeptical about your experience. hmm... thanks for bringing back memories of childhood experiences on the playground in elementary school. I had said: >> Now _there's_ a argumentation technique that's >> guaranteed to promote rational discussion: make >> it personal! (irony intended.) By the way, such >> personal attacks simply cause flame wars. I'm >> not interested in one of those. Julio now responds: > I'm not criticizing who you are as a person. I'm criticizing your views (as > stated or implied), which are your *personal* views. So, it's personal. You > sign what you write.< Well, if my opinions are wrong (which they may well be) please _criticize_ them in some sort of intellectually-respectable way: Jim's opinions are illogical because _____; Jim's opinions contradict known facts, i.e., _______; Jim's approach is one-sided since it leaves out considerations of _________; etc. FWIW, I do not feel personally insulted when people personally insult me (e.g., saying that I use "sophistry," that I "feign innocence," or that my statements are "disingenuous"). I just don't think such personal attacks belong in this forum. Julio adds: > It's funny when people feign innocence. We're not talking philosophy of > science here. Your references to sticking pencils into glasses with water, > etc. are not less tedious and patronizing than my rants.< You say that I am "feign[ing] innocence"? so are you saying that I should stop doing so and thus _admit_ to being wrong, engaging in deliberate deceit, etc.? Aren't _you_ the one who's supposed to be arguing against my opinion, not me? I'd like to see evidence that I've been feigning innocence. This seems another personal attack, another implicating that I am engaging in deliberate deceit. My analogies about the difference between appearances and reality may be tedious, but that does not mean that they are wrong. Do you think that personal experience always gives an accurate perception of reality? Are you saying that perspective is never needed? (BTW, I use analogies that may be familiar to the person I'm directly responding to (and are thus "tedious") because I don't just talk to him or her but to the entire list.) > We are discussing *the judgment of the unions in supporting Democratic > presidential candidates*. You interjected yourself in that discussion with, > inter alia, the claim that Clinton's record on employment (and equity, but > I'll leave that alone) didn't have to do with his being a Democratic > administration. If you meant something else, then you should have clarified > it. Since you didn't, then an interpretation based on context is not > unreasonable.< For what it's worth, I didn't mention "equity" at all. I "interjected" myself (which is how pen-l works, BTW) in response to Julio's comment that >>>>I imagine that, under Clinton, the inertia of union decay (as well as >>>>income, etc. variation within the class) continued, but improvements in >>>>other areas compensated somehow. >>>> Taking all that into account, it's still not entirely clear that the >>>> union's insistence in supporting the DP in presidential elections is a >>>> foolish waste of their resources.<<<< I responded in reference to _Clinton's_ record, not the DP's. The DP of Clinton and Obama is different from the DP of Kennedy, Johnson, or even Carter. Part of what I've been saying is that the DP has been shifting to the right (as it were) over the last few decades. It has become _more_ like the GOP, but _not_ identical. (Part of this shift is _due to_ the decline of the labor movement, but in turn this shift has encouraged that decline, forming a vicious circle.) (By the way, as I've said before, the convergence between the DP and the GOP is much more true on the class dimension of politics than on the race or gender dimensions.) Julio now writes: > Now, I don't need or want to argue that Clinton's record in employment has > everything or much to do with his being a Democratic administration or with > his specific policies. If you read the exchange between Doug and I, those > weren't the issues. For all I care here, it could have been sheer > coincidence, just like the Reagan and Bushes' records on employment or union > busting could have nothing to do with theirs being Republican > administrations.< The Reagan/Bush/Bush records on union-busting is not analogous to Clinton's record on employment. Union-busting is a specific policy of government, while employment is a result of not only policy but also of macroeconomic matters like monetary policy, the state of the accumulation process, flows of funds across borders, and the like. In any event, taken in isolation Clinton's fiscal policy was a lot like union-busting on the macroeconomic level, in that all else constant fiscal surpluses impose recessions on workers. > The point, in case I need to make it clearer, is that the judgment of the > unions to support Clinton could *not* be based on ex post evidence of > Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof. The unions had to make their > decision a priori, on the basis of their previous experience with the > Democrats (and with the Republicans). < That's a much better argument and I agree. But, as has been said, the leadership of what's left of the labor movement could have thought more strategically. By being too loyal to the DP, they simply encouraged the DP elite to take them for granted. > It's really tired and disingenuous to argue that you "_never_ said that DP > administrations were as anti-union as GOP ones and I don't think that's true." more accusations of dishonesty!! In fact, I have _never_ said that and I _don't_ think that's true. I know no-one remembers old pen-l discussions, but I posted a missive a few months ago that _rejected_ the "lesser of two evils" argument with respect to the DP and the GOP. I said something like "Dubya proved that wrong." > Well, what do you imply then, that the unions make their political choices in > a laboratory vacuum where the historically concrete Republican party doesn't > exist?< no I don't. See the comment about strategy above. That's enough e-mail discussions for the day. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
