CB: > Brownie didn't have much to do with neo-liberalism. I don't know
that the economics/finance personnel of Bush II or Clinton are that
much less "rational" than Obama's.<
FEMA's Brownie was one symptom of a "give individual businesses what
they want" kind of neoliberalism (under which the more powerful
businesses get more of what they want, of course). This prevailed
under Reagan and Bush II. The Clinton/Bush I/Obama version of
neoliberalism has a longer-term perspective. But of course these
things are mixed: Clinton, for example, rationalized some of the
excesses of the Reagan revolution, but he also allowed finance free
rein (getting finance to where it was in 2008).
Bush II's government finance was less rational (with less long-term
perspective) in the sense of simply paying off his rich buddies with
tax cuts and the like, with little or no regard for long-term social
stability. Jamie Galbraith aptly calls Bush II's style of government
"the predator state." It's good for a lot of individual capitalists,
but not so good for stabilizing capitalism.
The neoliberal style of politics is a lot like that of unfettered
capitalism itself. Capitalism rushes ahead, trying to jump economic
and social barriers to garner profits and more profits for individual
capitalists. But that leads to crisis (hurting profits), which
eventually causes retreat and consolidation.
CB: > However, surely u never expected social democracy stronger than
the New Deal in this period ! From Obama , Hillary Clinton or anybody
else.<
Of course not. I don't know why you'd think I expected social
democracy from Hillary. Why would anyone think such a thing?
CB: > The Warren Court was an aberration ( a good thing) in the
history of the Supreme Court. ...<
yes, it was an aberration, which I explained in historical terms (in
my previous missive).
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I think about it, the Supreme Court doesn't
> address very many political questions.<
Almost every issue is political.
> I don't think Scalia's stuff is successful because of his superior _logic_
> or _thinking_ <
I never said such a thing, nor did I assert that "Scalia is smart and creative"
me: >> In any event, it's a bad idea to rely on the mistake of our
rulers (e.g., the appointment of Warren to the Supremes) to produce
"progressive" results.<<
CB: > My point was not relying on a mistake . It is that claims that
Obama's appointments "move the court to the right" are anti-O biased
guesses.<
I never said that Obama's appoints "move the court to the right."
Rather, it's that Kagan seems to be to the right of Obama. Of course,
she could turn out to be the reincarnation of William Z. Foster, but
that would be a total fluke. We can't rely on such randomness to save
us.
And it's incorrect to suggest that leaving out the _possibility_ that
a Supreme Court nominee could be different from her appearance is
somehow "anti-O biased." We have little choice but to try to
understand reality by reference to empirical facts and logic. An
appeal to randomness as a potential savior sounds a bit like the
religious phrase "God moves in mysterious way" (we don't understand
Her, but She could be benevolent).
CB: > I'd say Obama's SC appointees are likely to defend the right to
abortion ( I'll make that prediction)<
You could be right on that one, but we should also expect them to be
pro-business. Currently, the DP is a version of the GOP back in the
1970s (think Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York): it's pro-business,
largely free-market oriented, in favor of projecting US imperial power
internationally, but in favor of liberalism on social issues like
abortion rights.
Me: >> That's your reading. Please don't presume to be able to read my mind.<<
CB: > I love u Jim, but _sometimes_ u are ..huffy...stuffy. Just say
what u _were_ doing.<
huffy? do _you_ like being patronized?
> If u read your comments on what I say u will find plenty of stuff I could say
> is "presuming to read my mind".<
no, I do not respond that way: I quote people directly as much as I
can, while one of the reasons my missives are so long is because I
reproduce a lot of what I'm responding to in the midst of my comments.
Also, I qualify any assertions about someone else's opinion, using the
subjunctive case, etc. I often use phrases such as "if you believe X,
you must therefore think that Y." (Often, this is because I just can't
believe that someone believes X or Y because to embrace such beliefs
is so obviously wrong.)
--
Jim Devine
"Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
