Battlepanda: Haloscan stupidity


Always trying to figure things out with the minimum of bullshit and the maximum of belligerence.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Haloscan stupidity

First it ate my comment. Then (since I cleverly remembered to copy it first) it refuse to let me repost because "you've said that already!" Grrr...

Here it is, guys, a reply to some of your comments from the prev. post. Gotta run out of door now...

It'll stop when the prospect of continuing the war looks very troubling for the ENTIRE ruling class or we just plain abolish their rule.

Good point, but I deviate slightly in interpreting it. We live in a democracy after all. The war does not have to bankrupt the country or kill all our young people. It only has to become unpopular enough that politicians can gain a definite advantage by being strongly against it. They, craven as they are, they'll all be against it apart from those so deeply invested that they cannot extract themselves.

Surely it depends what your goals are, yes? A libertarian, for instance, can't currently work within the 2 party system, as both parties are now committed to larger government.

Look at what the evangelical christian's goals are. Faced with two secular parties, they picked the more conservative and made it theirs. Yes, the republicans didn't give them everything their heart desires, but they are still a lot closer to getting their agenda accomplished than if they stayed outside of the system.

I don't see that the street protests did much good to stop the war in Iraq, but I also don't see that those who sought to work within the system did much good to stop the war in Iraq.
To paraphrase Brad Spangler, this war will stop when it becomes politically untenable for the ruling class to continue it. In this sense, I think we've already come a long way. Public opinion of the war has been plunging, and it is taking Bush's popularity with it. Hugely negative public opinion is going to stop this war, and nothing else.

And really, the political advantage of this unpopular war (associated with Bush) is far too profitable for Democrats to squander by forcing a withdrawal.
I agree. It's easy to put yourself in the place of an establishment dem and think:"Huzzah! Bush's polls are down. The war is really unpopular. Best let him twist in the wind for a while...if we push for withdrawal, he could blame the failure of the whole thing on us and we'd be the unpatriotic defeat-monkies. And if there's one thing the American public do not like, it's defeat-monkies."

I'm not saying that the screws should not be put to centrist Dems, but it should be put in a way that makes sense. I thought Sheehan made an enormously effective figure spreading her anti-war message at the beginning of her campaign because of her story and the everywoman figure she cuts. With every antic, every heckling, every protest she's dragged away from as dead weight, she's undermining her power. I don't think an ordinary American can really identify with her anymore. Look, she sets my teeth on edge, and I'm a liberal.

I suppose I should qualify my statement of working "within the system". It is not the same as putting our trust in centrist dems! It means recognizing the fact that we have a two-party system and so one of the parties will have to be the instrument of accomplishing our goal.