Interesting discussion on Yglesias:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/winner-take-all-politics/Yglesias:
Last, Hacker & Pierson diagnose the political problem as in part driven by a waning level of interest among leftwingers in income inequality as the central political problem. I am, in that case, part of the problem. In broad terms, I’m more much more worried about the interrelated issues of peace, trade, migration, climate change, third world economic development, and the international spread of liberalism than about the problems Hacker & Pierson are writing about.
Or to look at it in historical terms, I think if you looked at the United States in 1970 and said “raising the relative social status of women and the range of opportunities available to them is a higher priority than increasing the quantity of consumer goods available to the typical middle class family” I don’t think that would be an erroneous judgment. And guess what? Since 1970 the range of opportunities available to women, and their social status relative to men, has gone way up. Between feminism in the developed world over the past 40 years, the enormous economic progress in the developing world over the past 30 years, and the massive reduction in the risk of global nuclear annihilation I have a difficult time with the idea of recent history as a big political sob story. That’s not to say this isn’t a good book, or that these aren’t interesting and important issues, but I think progressives should resist the idea that the rise of postmaterial politics is a right-wing triumph rather than a correct response to changing conditions
Commenter:
I don’t necessarily want to kick anyone out. I look at like this: In parliamentary systems with proportional representation, everyone forms their small, ideologically homogeneous parties, then after the election they try to cobble together a majority by forming a coalition with other parties. In the U.S. because of institutional features that basically require a two-party system, the process is reversed. You have to form your coalitions first, then the two biggest coalitions (the two parties) fight it out in the general election.
I don’t mind forming a coalition with Yglesian neoliberals. I just want to be clear that we represent two very different factions of a very heterogeneous Democratic party. And I want to stop using terms like “progressive” to sweep the differences under the rug. We can ourselves “labor democrats” or “social democrats” or whatever. Yglesias is our enemy withing Democratic primaries. But I don’t mind forming a united front against a far-right GOP that becomes crazier by the day.
Especially after the insulting treatment of the 10/2 rally I agree fully with the commenter. We need to have two large wings of the DP, one similar to the UK Labor Party, and the other similar to the UK LIberal Democratic Party (similar to Yglesias).
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(68 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
