Posted on 02/03/2016 1:01:12 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Andrew O'Hehir, Salon - Feb 1, 2016: Why I'm supporting Sanders over Clinton: This could be the moment to reclaim the Democratic Party and reshape history
"...........Is this a moment for realpolitik, as Amanda suggests? Is it a moment to stand outside the tides of populist fervor that threaten to give us Trump vs. Sanders, which would definitely be fun but would also be the weirdest and scariest general-election matchup since at least the middle of the 19th century? Is it a moment to soberly weigh the good with the bad, to embrace the long-delayed promise of a female president and to stand with competence and experience and the withered husk of the party of FDR and JFK?
Or is this, in the words of French philosopher Alain Badiou, a moment that demands a "politics of emancipation," a politics that imagines a world founded on social justice and an equality that goes beyond consumerism, "a world that has been freed from the law of profit and private interest"? Because "if we accept the inevitability of the unbridled capitalist economy and the parliamentary politics that supports it" - and that is precisely the position of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party - and if we do not put an end to the "linguistic terrorism" of the neoliberal age, which has forbidden words and ideas like "socialism," we cannot imagine such a world, let alone create it. But I don't know whether this is that moment. I don't think anyone could possibly know that."
***************************************
Matthews is right that Donald Trump's relatively gracious Iowa speech on Tuesday night, after losing a caucus he expected to win (but had previously expected to lose), made the billionaire populist appear more human than at any time in recent memory. If that was a gratifying moment in dramatic terms, it was also a dangerous crack in the Trumpian facade, a glitch in the software package driving his idiot-Nietzschean persona.
Persona: the way you behave, talk, etc., with other people that causes them to see you as a particular kind of person : the image or personality that a person presents to other people
[Nietzsche's place in contemporary ethical theory]....Sometimes Nietzsche may seem to have very definite opinions on what he regards as moral or as immoral. Note, however, that one can explain Nietzsche's moral opinions without attributing to him the claim of their truth. For Nietzsche, after all, we needn't disregard a statement merely because it expresses something false. On the contrary, he depicts falsehood as essential for "life".
Interestingly enough, he mentions a "dishonest lie", (discussing Wagner in The Case of Wagner) as opposed to an "honest" one, recommending further to consult Plato with regard to the latter, which should give some idea of the layers of paradox in his work."
***************************************
[In his 1987 book Art of the Deal, Donald Trump put it bluntly: "I play to people's fantasies. ... I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration - and a very effective form of promotion."]
****************************************
Game Theory: Persona 4, Nietzsche, the Self and its relation to the game's ending
[SNIP]
"...............Again returning to [John] Adams, he predicted this:
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
And he even provides a description as to how it would happen, which, again, is eerily similar to Sanders's proposed policies that have his flock so incredibly excited: Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavily on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. [emphasis added]
The question is not whether the outcomes Adams predicts will come to pass if Bernie Sanders is elected president. The question, rather, is how much of what he predicts has already come to pass, for we have long ago admitted and accepted as law the notion that "the right to property is not as sacred as the laws of God." Furthermore, what might further infringements upon property rights, much less Sanders' suggestion that we abolish them, mean for our culture and our country?
Just as any reasonable person might understand why a home loan poses less risk for a lender than a student loan, any reasonable person should also recognize the danger in a government with the power to rob successful individuals in order to provide for a preferred class of idle, entitled, and envious grumblers."
This is babble for babble’s sake. Gotta fill the space. Gotta post the post.
Good morning.
Perhaps it will “speak” to others.
: )
Good morning.
Not clicking on it. It might have VD.
It might have some “Python” humor.
You seem to need an argument.
Yes.
“Salon.”
Did you read my comment about it?
".... It's a truism that Iowa doesn't matter. But it's only true until it no longer is. Democrats and Republicans fought hard for Iowa. The amount of energy and anger expended here was not a hollow pursuit.
The battle has shown weaknesses and strengths in all the campaigns that will serve as a learning opportunity.
The Democrats will enter a bitter battle as more left-wing support will begin flowing to Bernie Sanders while the Clinton campaign will go to the mattresses. After Iowa, Trump will likely begin investing in a more conventional campaign. As a successful businessman, he's capable of analyzing what went wrong and drawing the right conclusions. Rubio's momentum has often been mocked in the past week, but he proved that he could take the third spot in a three man race. If Jeb Bush and some other establishment candidates drop out, the momentum could become big enough to take him all the way to the top.
For Ted Cruz, Iowa showed that he could win even while under attack from every direction. This was his test of fire and he survived it. Whatever else happens, he won Iowa despite rejecting ethanol, shrugged off attacks from a popular Iowa governor, not to mention Bob Dole and Sarah Palin, and scored a big victory.
If anyone doubted that Cruz could do more than just talk, Iowa settled that question.
But all three Republican winners in Iowa surprised everyone. Trump, who had not run a gracious campaign, managed a gracious concession speech. Rubio achieved a surprising momentum. And Cruz beat the predictions and the polls, rising from political death to achieve an impressive victory.
All three Republican candidates have been energized by Iowa in their own way. And a clear resolution allows them to move on, even as the Democrats will still be stuck arguing over who won Iowa.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have entered an unexpectedly competitive primary season, but while the primaries are strengthening, training and energizing the Republican candidates, they are weakening the Democratic candidates. Before Iowa, the media narrative was that the Republicans were coming apart. Now it appears that it's the Democrats who are coming apart instead."
: )
Thanks for stopping by.
Maybe it will come to you on the bus.
So now we are posting articles from Salon? What there were no Trump hating articles at DU? Stay classy CW.
"On December 2, 1991, National Review published a cover with the headline "Honey, We Shrunk the Party." It featured "The Two Bobs" - the Senate's Dole and the House's Michel - examining a dwarf elephant under a magnifying glass. Inside were four pages lamenting "The GOP's Good Losers." In the wings waited Newt Gingrich, who had risen to prominence hammering not only the Democrats but also the GOP leadership in Congress, a familiar litany: insufficient conservatism, insufficient steel, excessive generosity in compromise, moral and political sloth.
The more things change . . .
Gingrich would go on to become speaker and to instill in congressional Republicans a more vigorous and confrontational attitude that for better and for worse (mainly better) survives to this day. After a series of frustrating failures, he eventually beat Bill Clinton into submission on welfare reform and won a great deal in a series of compromises that more or less balanced the budget.
Dole and Michel are still with us (both are 92 years old) and Dole has made an ill-advised sortie out of retirement to inveigh against Senator Ted Cruz. The old bulls of the Senate revere the institution itself and its courtly habits, and they detect in Senator Cruz a certain contempt for its traditions, particularly its tradition of collegiality. If Republican senators hate Senator Cruz, well, he hated them first.
But Senator Cruz, the ardent constitutionalist, has performed in office precisely the duty for which senators are empowered and distinguished from the members of the House. The House of Representatives is a steering wheel; the presidency is an accelerator; the Senate is a brake. Shutdowns, gridlock, obstruction, mulish foot-stamping opposition to the president's agenda: These are not defects in our system of government - they are why we have a Senate. Ted Cruz may have rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way, and some of them resent that he started running for president about eleven seconds after he was sworn in to the Senate. (Presumably, Senator Paul and Senator Rubio will forgo that line of criticism.) If you care a great deal about who sits at which table in the Senate cafeteria, that matters a great deal. Ted Cruz, well aware that he is nobody's ray of senatorial sunshine, has wisely declared that while he may not be the guy you want to have a beer with, he's your first choice in designated drivers........"
http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/
Interestingly, the Democrats stopped counting with Hillary ahead by 0.2%, and they still have not finished counting the last 3.1% of votes. The Democrats are as corrupt in their own voting as they are in national elections.
Thank you for this. I've been thinking that what we call "capitalism" is actually just respect for property rights.
Why do Bernie and Donald vie for each others' followers, while attacking Sen. Ted Cruz?
"Never let a crisis go to waste."
[SOCIALISM/Sanders]<-------->[REPUBLICANISM/Cruz] <-------->
[NATIONALISM/Trump]
Heavens! I offer some clarity. Delegate count Cruz 8, Trump 7, Clinton 23, Sander 21. Next time Andrew should stay away from a keyboard and just gaze into the mirror for a couple hours. And we already KNEW Mathews was a jerk. Geez.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.