Replies

Stromberg is making the same mistake DiLorenzo makes: he ignores or dismisses anything that's not economics and not likely to provide a basis for condemning the Republicans. His conclusions are the result of his biases, not of an objective analysis of the facts.

This implies that the economic data condemns the Republicans.

But let us take a look at the modern world for just a moment. How important is "Abortion" to the Democrats? Is it more important than the money they make from government power?

How important is LGBT/homosexual stuff to the Democrats? Is it more important than the money they make from government power?

How important is "black lives matter"? Is it more important than the money they make from government power?

What all these things have in common is different constituency groups who will vote as a coalition if their interests are served.

I offer that the Democrat leadership does not really care about any of these issues beyond the utility to them of getting votes as a consequence of these constituency groups.

I may be cynical, but I believe their primary motivation is money and power, and these other issues are merely vehicles to obtaining that goal.

Do you think I am right about this motivation of the Democrats, or do you think they really deeply care about these issues as a matter of bedrock foundational principles near and dear to their heart?

This implies that the economic data condemns the Republicans.

No. It implies that if you throw out all non-materialistic factors, you can skew the economic factors to make your case -- if you're biased enough and unscrupulous enough.

Businesses can make out well from wars - if their side wins. But that doesn't mean that they wanted war or that they were the driving force behind the war.

Cochran and Miller - Stromberg's cited source -- explicitly say as much. Stromberg -- and you -- just throw out all evidence that doesn't confirm what you already believe and then are surprised that what's left confirms your theory.

I may be cynical, but I believe their primary motivation is money and power, and these other issues are merely vehicles to obtaining that goal.

By that logic you and everybody who agrees with you is also a cynical opportunist or else a dupe.

If you have some general theory about human motivation, what makes you (and maybe a few people who agree with you) the exceptions to that rule?