Magical Thinking and Blind Partisanship versus Common Sense and Decency

[Armstead]

(Okay...Maybe this is a little "burp" after digesting all the news of the last couple of weeks. But I'm trying to synthesize what is happening, in my opinion, of course. Plus this was a response in an excellent thread by Tom Rinaldo, which you all should look at. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=163063&mesg_id=163063 )

Frankly, I think DU reflects a basic problem that has infected all politics and the public discourse. We yap back and forth at each other whether Obama is a great guy or not, or how awful republicans are or whether we need to be "pragmatic and moderate" or "go left" blah,blah.

All of that crap misses the larger points -- which is the need to totally change our thinking from the set of economic and political and social assumptions that have become embedded since Reagan. It's no longer a matter of "right and left" or liberal and conservative or even republican and democrat.

What I believe we need at this point is to actually strip away the stupid labels that are used to divide the populace, and get back to looking at these things in terms of common sense and decent values.

I don't mean we cave in. Just the opposite. Rather it means getting back to an assumption that honest liberals and honest conservatives may disagree on strategies, but that we all need to reassert decent human values and realistic assumptions again.

I also don't mean we need some some kind of radical utopia socialist paradise. But we need to get back to moderate common sense and common decency. Unfortunately, that has been so overshadowed by the "magical thinking" of the 80's and 90's that it seems radical today.

In that sense I agree with Obama. My major disagreement with him is that he is too "centrist" (a code word for corporate conservative) which actually perpetuates the nasty personal side of politics. I think politics might actually become more workable if he took the same desire for bipartisanship -- but actually stood for a clear liberal alternative.

I think that politics would actually get MORE civil of D's and R's were actually contesting over real policies. I read someone who made a really good point. When the real differences in ideology becomes too blurred, the personal aspect of partisan politics becomes nastier, and compromise becomes LESS possible.

Maybe that sounds too idealistic and politically naive. But I think that part of what is needed is to get back to a sense of shared basic values instead of this "my team versus your team" approach that politics has devolved into.

Believe it or not, honest moderate republicans actually may have more in common with a DU progressive than either would recognize or acknowledge....I don't mean they would necessarily agree on every issue -- But they might share a lot of similar basic values and ultimate goals.

I think of my father, who could be labeled a republican moderate conservative, but who was also very decent and open minded. He died in the mid-1980's, but he was appalled by the excesses of Reaganism and Jack Welch Corporatism because it offended his sense of decency and it was an insult to his intelligence. He actually said at the time that he basically agreed with everything Jesse Jackson said regarding social and economic justice.

What do I mean by Magical Thinking? In my opinion, the US bought into a set of assumptions that were based on conservative fantasy and the magical thinking of supply-side economics and Chicago School Right Wing Conservatism.

Do you remember all the nonsense that was being promulgated back on the 1990's? "The end of history" and the notion that there would no longer be economic cycles because the economy would just continue to grow forever, and we would all benefit.

In that environment, there was a feeling that liberalism was dead because it was no longer relevant or necessary. After all, the economy would be generating wealth that would spread to everyone, and government was merely an impediment. Democrats helped to spread this pixie dust as much as republicans did.

Oooops. Turned out we were wrong. Homes that we thought were money machines suddenly lost their value. We kept shipping jobs overseas and then -- ooops, now we're biothching that there are no more jobs.

Those benevolent corporations and financiers that we allowed to do whether they wanted. Ooops. Turns out they were immoral and greedy and, in many cases, stupid and reckless. And they gained far too much control over the economy. And they almost singlehandedly wrecked the economy. Ooops.

This may sound muddled. It's hard to boil it all down, but I hope to see more discussions here and elsewhere that actually acknowledge that we all have to cast off the stale stereotypes on all sides.

[frazzled]

1. One problem with your theory is that ...

People always think their position is the one of common sense and decency, while they view the other side as being locked in blind partisanship and magical thinking. I think you betrayed that a bit yourself, in what was otherwise a good post.

[SunsetDreams]

3. this...

Thank you frazzled. I liked the post, but couldn't quite put a finger on what I wanted to say.

Armstead, otherwise your post is very well written :)

[Armstead]

4. We're all stuck with human nature, but we can open up a bit more

We're all a mix of better and lesser.

As for me -- Well I'm just as guilty as anyone. I can get rabid and assume that if everyone would just agree with me, this would be a better world. O8)

But I also has another side that can be more objective. I actually can see the validity of conservatism, and I understand why democrats feel the need to be "centrist."

I can also recognize that if everyone agreed with me this world would probably be even more f****d up. :evilgrin:

Basically, what I'm saying above is that we all (society, not just DU) ought to collectively try take a step back from our lesser natures, and be a little more objective about things. A tall order I realize, but the more we can do that the better....In my opinion, of course. O8) :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

2. While I certainly agree with you

Americans aren't and doesn't look like they will
deal with the continuing effects of the chicago school
and supply side.

I'm genuinely at a loss.

[existentialist]

5. My thinking is muddled too.

Your thinking does sound a bit muddled.

That's OK.

I don't agree with everything you said, and I think a part of the problem is that Obama too it a bit too close to and influenced by the Chicago school of economic thought to understand how much we need to trash that paradigm and try to move on, but mostly I agree with you, and I suspect that a lot of my thinking on such points sounds pretty muddled too.

Which gets us to the muddle theory, which I have heard better expressed, but which I will attempt to restate here anyway.

When theory fails us--as any theory of politics and economy will if pushed far enough--it is possible for a nation of laws and some shared norms and basic decency, to muddle through or temporize for a period of time on pragmatism, and a perception of necessity and decency until a better guiding paradigm can become accepted.

I don't know if we can do this, largely because I see incredibly little good faith or decency from the right these days. But if we can't then I believe the United States is itself on the way to becoming that horror of horrors, a "failed state."

[Armstead]

6. A "better guiding paradigm" has already existed -- Liberal populism

I realize this sounds more partisan than my OP. But I do believe that the basic principles of a liberal counterbalance to right wing corporate conservatism that I grew up in is a fine guiding paradigm.

Economic behavior that is considered normal today would have been considered outrageous when I was younger. That's something I believe moderates and ,yes, honest conservatives could find some common ground on.

[Hamlette]

7. the problem with hating on big corporations

and I hate them myself because they have real power, is that they have real power. We saw it with the car companies recently. If we let them go under, 3 million people lost their jobs and all that goes with that. Corporations have been hold that over our heads for years. There have to be some concessions, and not just because they buy elections.

[Armstead]

11. It's not a matter of "hating" corporations -- It's holding them accountable

Corporations have always been a part of the economy, and always will be. They do some good things, and serve an important role. But they can also do some horrible things -- especially when the natural tendency towards monopolistic excess takes over.

Over the last 30 years, we have allowed them to gain far far too much power. And many have been behaving very badly.

I don't think -- with the exception of the corporate elite and a certain percentage of right-wing fanatics -- most people would disagree with that, regardless of their ideology.

Reining them in, and restoring the balance of corporate interests and the public interest AND -- perhaps more important -- encouraging a return to actual COMPETITION and free enterprise is something that a majority would get behind.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

8. And yet many Democrats suffer from Magical Thinking

I am shocked by the enthusiasm for people who seem to be
merely shouters. Grayson seems amazingly violent in his language,
not thoughtful. Al Franken is manipulative, also violent
(and rather stupid). And there are others.

But good people trust them? Why?
It does seem to be because they're desperate for some answers,
and this is all they hear.

But is it because differences in ideology are not expressed clearly enough?
I think not. For example, we suffer now
from a great many monopoly abuses in health care,
others in our legal structure, and our education system.
But who ever talks even about health monopolies?
And so people who haven't got the training
to find the real cause of the suffering
are forced to turn to any powerful voices, to charlatans
on the left and the right.

So I see your concern about the charlatans.
But I think that the solution involves more knowledge.

[SunsetDreams]

9. "Al Franken is manipulative, also violent"

Do you have examples?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Franken and Grayson strike you as violent?

I think you need to define and cite.

[Armstead]

12. I agree that more knowledge is needed -- We suffer from an information deficit

[Bluenorthwest]

14. We suffer from bullies and imprecise slanders

standing as comment.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Just fyi

You post is what I call passive aggression, which is aggression married to cowardice. It is used by bullies who run by and shout 'stupid' and other unsupported slanders and run away before they can be called to answer for it.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

19. Grayson's violent comment about "don't get sick...die quickly"

That is extreme, don't you think?
Some Republicans think that way. Not all.
Moreover the Democratic plans will also hurt many people.
And they have allowed the situation to get much worse.
For instance, whom have you ever heard promoting health education?
And so no one tries to solve the problem of unnecessary ignorance.
No one until recently talked about health inflation.
Now they want to promote cutbacks in access to care.
And people have died needlessly and will die needlessly.
Partly the Democrats fault.

Sorry, but we don't have an issue here where our guys are angels
and the others are demons, as Grayson, a millionaire lawyer,
seems to say.

Al Franken also seems very extreme.
There's his violent war with one talk show fellow,
there's the Big Fat Idiot title of another book.
Unusually aggressive, to say the least, even if
you don't like the people in question.
(I'm pleased that no one took exception to the idea
that Franken is not very bright.)

More important is the lack of principle.
For example, Franken was once told by Paul Krugman that
doctors' high salaries were part of the reason for our high health costs.
This is quite true, it's a major cost. But Franken
wasn't interested. He told Krugman that he had no problem with that.
And that's simply wrong. You don't quarrel one abuse, because
it bothers you personally, and then
accept other abuses because they benefit you or your friends.

Please, everyone, these aren't the leaders we're looking for.
Yes, we're in trouble, but part of the reason we're in trouble
is because some of the best of us are too good and too trusting.
I suggest that we need to listen less to rabble-rousers, to shouters,
even when they seem to shout the right things. We need look
more to the sharing of knowledge.

[prairierose]

15. Armstead, I agree with much of what you say...

I do not understand how anyone can still subscribe to the magical thinking that underlies the chicago school economic theories. But more importantly, their jettisoning of common decency and any concept of social justice has made me , for years, believe that it is an evil idea.

One of the underpinnings of liberalism is the idea of common decency and the common good. That social justice is important and that education and reasoned thinking can take us further than greed and selfishness. Yet, greed and selfishness have been the watch words of politics and much of the political substance for most of the past 30 years. The corporate welfare that underpins what has become our economy has never worked and has led to a global economy that is shaky. It has led to trashing the commons, resources, clean water, clean air, of the whole world. Without the idea(l)s of common decency and the common good we have reverted to a neo-feudalism that enriches the powerful and leaves all others to fend for themselves.

Some how we must bring back the ideas that decency and the common good and social justice are for everyone not just the rich. We must educate people again, that taxes are the price we pay for civilization and that everyone must pay their fair share not just the poor and middle class. And that businesses that use the commons, highways, streets, clean water, postal service, fire departments,ports, public schools are also responsible for paying for part of the commons. And that the public treasury is not a checking account for the private sector.

OK, now I think that I am getting muddled so I am going to stop before I really get in trouble.

[Armstead]

16. Good post -- very concise and not muddled at all

[prairierose]

20. I completely lost track of what I was trying to say...

I knew there was another point there but it got lost in the ether somewhere. It still hasn't come back either.

[Armstead]

17. Why don't the "unrecommenders" come out say what you disagree with?

If I'm getting poor marks for verbosity and muddledness -- I'll cop to that.

But if it is simply the usual knee-jerk reaction to anything not totally supportive of Obama and the Democrats,that's just sissypants nonsense.

[winyanstaz]

18. This is an excellent post and a very good idea....

The fact is.."Msgical thinking" is a good thing...in that it can focus energy on a problem once you get enough people thinking along the same lines.
We have been using "partisan thinking" and we can all see the mess that has brought us.
We are all in this together.

[Armstead]

21. I'm gonna give this one little kick since it's the start of the week

Just one, I promise....I realize it's a little convoluted but i worked hard on writing it yesterday.:)

(Unless there are any responses to reply to)

[hfojvt]

22. I'll say it again

I used to be furious at the M$M in the late 1990s. They kept talking as if all of America was rich. 'Look at the prosperity' they crowed. So many of the economic numbers were good, but there I was in Iowa, unable to find a job that wasn't a 'temp' job. From Jul 1998, when unemployment was mostly at record lows and the economy was humming along, until August of 2001, I was working as a temp, mostly at the same factory.

Even in the longest peacetime expansion, prosperity hadn't really extended to everyone. I was not the only long-term temp at that factory either.

[Armstead]

23. Look at all of the small tiowns and cities that practiucally died during that period

Factory after factory was shuttered in the 80's and 90's, and many communities hit the skids as the economic rug was pulled out from under them.....Sure some places boomed, such as the high tech corridors. But many regions struggled even as they were told how great the economy was going.

I think the message was often that "If you're struggling, then it's your fault."

And then the "new careers" came along like call-centers. Then ooops -- even those jobs were shipped to places like India.

If we had taken this bull by the horns earlier, the cuerrent recession would have been more managable.

But at least, with the knowledge of hindsight, we have to stop looking at the same old "answers" that helped to create this mess.