The Spectacle Blog
We’ll call it: “What the Heck is Matthew Yglesias Babbling
About?” For today’s episode,
read this:
The default state of things in the world is for the levers of state to be dominated by the people who already possess social and economic power in order to protect and expand their sphere of privilege.
Conceding the point for sake of argument.
The contention of progressive political reform is that it’s possible to organize, educate, and mobilize sufficient quantities of people to overcome the power of the few and instead implement policies that benefit the many.
This is an excellent insight into how idealistic (and
historically disabled) progressive political reformers are. Despite
the aforementioned (and justified!) skepticism about the nature of
politicians, there is a categorical fascination with how the
government might somehow come up with the best possible solution to
the problems of the many. Yet what do we know about governments?
They are inherently noncompetitive. The larger they get, the less
responsive and precise they can be. These are all qualities that
run against the grain of anything we know about good
decision-making.
Further, if we understand that those who are in power are only
trying to protect and expand their sphere of privilege, then why
would we cede to them more control of our lives,
particularly the poor?
Then this:
…Which is to say that of course effective progressive political leaders need to be - and, historically, have been - good at “playing the game” but they’ve also been good at cutting through the smokescreen and refocusing attention. That’s how Bill Clinton managed to survive and even thrive during impeachment.
If there was one thing Bill Clinton was not good at,
it was cutting through the smokescreen, primarily because he drew
the smokescreen so often (Wag the Dog, anyone?). He was a
disaster for progressives because of this. He sold them
out every time he used his power recklessly. The reason that the
Democrats cannot attest to a strong leader in the White House for
the past 20 years is because of the man’s failure to advance the
goals of his party. In this regard, Barack Obama is entirely
right.
I think his point was that the right tends to employ more
deceit than the left. If that’s true, I wonder why most liberals
don’t just refer to themselves as out and out socialists?
View all comments (2) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/09/11/this-should-be-a-new-regular-f
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
pigment Red | 4.5.10 @ 10:52PM
pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com
Although Obama has run his campaign Organic Pigmentsalmost completely as a to the administration of one George Ink Pigments the parallels between their campaigns are apparent.