On 2011-01-16, at 10:06 AM, Lakshmi Rhone wrote: > Is Obama pro-business? Of course. In the old terminology of Marxist theories > of state, he is pro-business for both structural and instrumental (Daley) > reasons. > Does he give business a lot for the weakest of reforms, e.g. insurance > companies millions of new customers without much regulation or a public > option? Of course. > But are the meager reforms unacceptable for many businessmen? > Yes. That is why they have bought Boehner and company. > Is a right wing opposition more likely to gain power than a left wing > opposition at this point. Seems that way. Does paranoia about Obama's secret > agenda > for reparations and devotion to the umma, his not really being an > American-born citizen, have anything to do with that? Yes a lot. > Why would anyone in their right mind not understand that when Sheriff Dupnik > calls for more civility he is pointing to the dangers of paranoid, racist > illegal alien > hating paranoia? Is the left going to define itself in opposition to Dupnik? > How stupid would you have to be do that? > Why would anyone deny this danger in terms of its effects on paranoid > schizophrenics and the American people as a whole? > One would have to be idiotic, out-of-touch leftist to do that.
We can discuss this - dare I say it? - more civily. You seem to not understand that Boehner and company don't represent the tea party. The Republican establishment is in fact alarmed that the latter's "paranoid, racist, illegal alien hating paranoia" is doing more to isolate the party than to strengthen it, and polls, media accounts, and the failure of tea party candidates to win other than the most conservative congressional districts, substantiate their fears. Like the dissident liberal left in the DP, the radical right in the RP is more likely to be tamed than to mount a serious challenge to the leadership in present circumstances. I admired Dupnik for his forthrightedness. You are right that it would be stupid for the left to define itself in opposition to him, but I've nowhere seen him criticized by the left for his bold statements. Declining to join in any hysterics about the imminent danger of a far right takeover of America is not tantamount to a repudiation of Dupnik. You're also failing to distinguish between the Democratic party leadership and its base which rests on the unions, blacks, hispanics, and other national minorities, and single-issue organizations representing women, gays, environmentalists, human rights and antiwar activists, etc. I've always paid sympathetic attention to these constituencies in the US and outside of it; they are for the most part our these constituencies, and we support their programmatic demands, though there will always be disagreement about how these can best be pursued. Growing numbers of the DP's liberal intellectuals and activists have been openly critical of the Obama administration's policies since shortly after it was elected, and anything which can contribute to their further self-organization and political coherence ought to be encouraged. The widest circulation of unabashedly pro-business statements by Daley and other Democratic leaders, it seems to me, serves this end. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
