From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 16:36:49 MST
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:15:35AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien writes
> > [Lee wrote]
> > > To [politicians], the opposition isn't to be hated; it's
> > > merely the total and conscious Opposition. They don't
> > > think anything like normal people at all.
> >
> > I'm not sure I buy that politicians are a breed distinct from ordinary
> > people. ... Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch being personal friends implies an
> > acceptance of the Other which I think includes legitimacy of the
> > opposition.
>
> Quite right. It's as though they're professionals, and
> most of the rest of us are amateur partisans in comparison.
I'm not sure where you're coming from. You're saying normal people hate those
they disagree with, and politicians are playing this game and so are able to
be friendly? That's not how I see it at all. I'm sure Ted and Orrin are
pretty sincere in the beliefs we associate with them, and can be friends
because (1) they're mature (yes, I know I'm talking about Ted Kennedy) and (2)
they deal with each other every day. And I view this as normal civilized
behavior, not a "breed apart".
> > and you see new fascist organizations -- Le Pen, Haider,
> > various neo-Nazis.
>
> Somehow, they seem pretty minor and tame to me.
> But then, if I lived in Europe, perhaps my view
> would be different.
The EU sure didn't think Haider was minor and tame. Well, they are minor and
tame in what they've done, since they haven't gotten real power. They sound
pretty scary though, and owe more to the old fascists than the liberals owe to
Lenin.
> Yes, that's not implausible. Yet there is such a huge overlap
> between leftist and liberal causes that one constantly notices
> things they have in common.
But not rightist and conservative causes?
> No, that's what I meant. These terms you're quoting are quite a
> mixed bag. "Anti-patriotic" is scarcely a meme. "Un-American"
Unpatriotic is a meme, I think. "Love it or leave it." I'll agree these
aren't all-powerful tools of suppression, but then PC-ness isn't either.
> up conservative, as I did, from 1960 to 1990, to feel the almost
> universal suppression in the media of conservative voices.
I grew up with the McLaughlin Group. The MacNeil-Lehrer New Hour... well, if
strong conservative voices were suppressed, so were strong liberal ones.
Really, what I associate with my memories of the mass media is blandness.
> > Take me, for example. I used to be pretty libertarian; I've been turning
> > leftwards economically, based on what I consider the evidence. Leftward
> > meaning social safety net, public funding of education and infrastructure
> > and research, the usual mixed economy stuff.
>
> That's actually shocking. Do you think that you understand the
> key role of **incentives** in economics? Do you appreciate the
> absolutely key role historically of private property, and how
Yes. Mixed economies have incentives and private properties. I also
appreciate the roles of natural monopolies, externalities, human capital, lack
of fear of utter starvation, liquidity traps and Keynesianism, etc. etc. Kind
of like any fabulously wealthy First World country in the world today.
> That sounds exactly right to me. In fact, that's not entirely
> to the good, especially when it comes to "keeping out the Other"
> when the Other is a foreign adversary (e.g. the Soviet Union or
> Saddam Hussein) bent on one's destruction. You've articulated
Well, Brin says "we must go out and crush all those who do not believe in
tolerance and open-mindedness", or something close to that.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 16:43:50 MST