Michael has asked to stop the sniping. That's fine. I'll keep the adjectives out of this and concentrate on the more interesting stuff. (For the record, I said that arguing about the way we argue was uninteresting, but was asked to elaborate.)
Jim wrote: > I responded in reference to _Clinton's_ record, not the DP's. The allusion to Clinton was in the context of the unions' willingness to spend their money supporting the Democrats. For "nothing," according to Doug. Now, did the unions had perfect foresight to check Clinton's record as a president prior to their supporting him? I don't think they did. The unions had experience dealing with other Democrats -- and Republicans! And they used it. Given that much is at stake for unions (and working people) in a presidential election (because presidents can make a difference on the life of unions and working people), it's easy for me to see why the unions (and working people) choose not to support their Republican overt enemies (the Tataglia candidate) or sit on the fence, but rather bribe the enemy of their enemy, which isn't necessarily their friend (the Corleone candidate), to advance their interest. Please forgive the jargon, but when people make a choice, the goods outside of their opportunity set are not feasible. They are choosing between alternative goods inside of their opportunity set. Anything good but outside of their opportunity set is irrelevant to their choices. (A sophist, no allusion to anybody personally, could argue here that at the present our perception of opportunities may be limited, so we may not note that a good is inside our opportunity set, and yet deem it outside. Yes, but the limits of our perception are part of our opportunity set now. If our perception can shift, then we're not talking about *now*, we are talking about *over time*. Another -- or the same -- sophist may introduce here the irrelevant argument that *over time* the opportunity set may expand or contract as a result of choices we make now. Indeed, but that's over time. Now, you can choose only what's *inside* your opportunity set.) I say this because it makes absolutely no sense to speak of the "lesser evil" as if it were in any way different from the "better good." No. The lesser evil *is* the better good. The lesser evil is the optimal. "Evil" and "good" are not specific points, but pointers, opposite directions along the welfare continuum (whatever your definition of welfare may be). If you can do any better than the lesser evil, then that is not the lesser evil. At any given time, the productive force of labor at our disposal is always finite. And we have to deal with it. > The Reagan/Bush/Bush records on union-busting is not analogous > to Clinton's record on employment. Nobody was drawing any analogy. What I wrote was that the strength of unions is only one element in the workers' power vector. Employment conditions is another one, typically one workers hold at the top of their priorities. Political influence in Washington, however diluted, is another one. Etc. I was making the case that you cannot just look at the union density rates during the Clinton administration to determine the overall state of workers under Clinton. It is a more complex picture. But I won't say anything about ways of arguing. > That's a much better argument [my pointing to the fact that > people don't have perfect foresight, that unions cannot know > in advance the record of a candidate at the end of his > tenure] 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. On a typical Monday morning, I also have very strong opinions about how Eli Manning could have managed the Sunday game better. It usually involves the completion of several Hail Mary passes in a row. But I tend to forget it all by the time I'm huffing to complete my 4 daily push ups. Next time I'm born, I swear I'll be joining the Giants just to show everybody how that game is really supposed to be played. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
