Meet the new boss . . .

Arthur Silbur and I definitely don't see eye to eye on many things. But he hits the nail on the head when he writes:

Yesterday, in a post decrying the great haste with which the Democrats moved to accede to the administration's demands (which is, I note again, precisely what the Democrats did with regard to the MCA), Digby said -- with "Deep, Heavy, Sigh" (just so we know exactly how distressed she is):

Obviously, I'm not the only one who can't for the life of me figure out why the congress is doing this.

I suggest we take these leading lights of the progressive blogs at their word: they most certainly do not get it, and they absolutely cannot "for the life of [them] figure out why the congress is doing this."

I also note that, following the Senate cave-in, Atrios has dubbed Harry Reid the "Wanker of the Day." Will all this diminish in even the smallest degree Atrios's, or Digby's, or any other leading progressive blogger's efforts to ensure a huge Democratic victory in 2008? Of course not.

The reason for that is very simple, and it goes to the progressives' central articles of religious faith: The Democrats aren't really like this, not in their heart of hearts. The Democrats don't actually favor a repressive, authoritarian state. The Democrats are good, and they want liberty and peace for everyone, everywhere, for eternity, hallelujah and amen.

I say that not because he is lampooning Democrats--conservatives in recent years have been at the very least as bad in excusing Republicans, although the Bush administration seems to have finally exhausted their goodwill. But there's a more general tendency on both sides to posit a sort of metaphysical, platonic party that doesn't seek to give the government it controls ever more power . . . and then act as if that party were in office, or at least one election away from getting there. By which I don't mean that people hypocritically accept tradeoffs--hello, politics. I mean that people on both sides seem to be genuinely surprised when their party turns out to be fundamentally interested in seeking power for its own sake.

By the way, Arthur Silbur's got some medical problems and needs some financial help. After you read his piece, how about hitting the tip jar?

Comments

I mean that people on both sides seem to be genuinely surprised when their party turns out to be fundamentally interested in seeking power for its own sake.

Exactly right.

It's funny. If you say that our problems are not going to be solved by any partisan victories, and that the system is fundamentally unable to produce lasting change-- that you've got to move outside of the system, to whatever extreme-- you're usually derided as a Naderite, someone who's immature or unrealistic or idealistic. But the evidence that the partisan system is unable to produce meaningful change is all around us. Note that I don't necessarily agree totally with those who would make that argument. But those arguments do tend to be dismissed much too glibly, it seems to me.

Posted by Freddie | August 24, 2007 2:40 PM

What Silber and McArdle don't get in this particular instance is that the Dems aren't 'fundamentally interested in seeking power for its own sake.' They are giving more power to an executive administration that offers the rare combination of Nixonian corruption and Carterite incompetence.

That's what the deep, heavy sigh is about.

Posted by Woody Bombay | August 24, 2007 2:47 PM

Amen to Woody! Also, the Democrats in Congress have been making move after move that are not only unpopular with their base (which elected them) but with Americans across the board. These moves seem calculated to please pundits and the smallest part of the electorate. How does that strategy equal "wanting to stay in power"? The frustration is at a Democratic leadership that seems addicted to being the minority party and doesn't stand up for the people who got them elected.

Posted by J. | August 24, 2007 2:57 PM

But, thanks for the concern trolling and the advice to the progressive bloggers to STFU when their elected officials don't live up to their stated ideals. It's really big of you...

Posted by J. | August 24, 2007 2:58 PM

Not that I'm claiming the Dems would NEVER seek power for its own sake, etc. Of course they could. And of course, Digby and the rest still are well within their rights to be disappointed/frustrated when/if that ever happens.

But anyway, that's just not what's happening here. This is a battered wife whipping up a five-course gourmet meal for hubby.

Posted by Woody Bombay | August 24, 2007 3:04 PM

Arthur is very much in the "pox on both their houses" camp. He doesn't seem to accept that the winner-take-all election system is rigged to prevent third-party candidates from doing anything other than diluting one or the other major parties' vote totals, handing victory to the other major party, and that as bad as they are the Dems are better for him than the Reps. He just sees them both as being equally bad, and that participating in the process and working for change from within is a waste of time. His heart's in the right place, though. He just wants what's best for the country (or more accurately, the people). He has some interesting things to say.

Posted by liberalrob | August 24, 2007 3:36 PM

a wealth transfer from the young and healthy (me) to the old and infirm (arthur silber) in the form of donating to his tip jar, is immoral.

Posted by rageahol | August 24, 2007 4:01 PM

Arthur Silber brought his medical conditions on himself. By being old and sick.

Posted by Schmegan Schmuckardle | August 24, 2007 4:01 PM

The point both of you are missing is more common. Yes, Democrats voted for Iraq, the MCA, and now this. But if a Democrat was president, Congress wouldn't have. That doesn't mean the Democrat wouldn't take steps to take authority (different, more palatable steps). Or that a Democratic power will necessarily undo these horrible things. But these questions are recurring ones, and there's certainly a moral and predictive difference between acceding to something stupid and pushing for something stupid.

I don't know how much longer you will keep a readership if you keep not only stating things people disagree with, but fundamentally misinterpret key ideas, opposing arguments, and otherwise just generally miss the point on a regular basis.

Posted by Justin | August 24, 2007 4:06 PM

"Arthur Silbur's got some medical problems and needs some financial help."

OK, I'll send him a buck. But only because you asked. Beyond that, the dude's completely on his own, as any good libertarian should be.

I'm sure you agree with me on that one.

Posted by Fred Farkle | August 24, 2007 4:26 PM

Who's the party of free trade? That's the one that gets me.

The Republicans sorta kinda stand for free trade. At least they seem to get credit for it more than the Democrats.

But Bill Clinton was one of the best free trade presidents we've ever had.

Like Freddie, I don't think Nader is that far off the mark in his critique. One alternative to going radical (the mainstream is, after all, the mainstream) is to vote for individuals. This can be a pretty lousy deal at the Congressional level, but there are times when the Presidential election offers a clear choice that goes beyond party.

Posted by Henry | August 24, 2007 4:36 PM

Justin,
Megan is quite good at what she does. Don't take the liberal intolerance and threaten someone for having an opposing view. Coming from the Democratic NE, it is becoming more and more tiresome to me and many others in the Great Moderate Majority.

Posted by thePilot | August 24, 2007 7:35 PM

To thePilot: I must be misreading your post. You accuse Justin of trying to "threaten" Megan because he expresses disagreement, and then by the same token, your post is telling him he cannot do this because it is intolerant.

Posted by TrishB | August 24, 2007 9:32 PM

Justin is okay, but I did get a laugh out of this line: I don't know how much longer you will keep a readership if you keep not only stating things people disagree with, but....

Who are these people who find Megan so disagreeable? Are they people like rageahol and Schmegan Schmuckardle who fundamentally misinterpret key ideas, opposing arguments, and otherwise just generally miss the point on a regular basis?

Posted by Henry | August 24, 2007 9:49 PM

Yeah. The reasoning behind Digby's original post is mostly pragmatic: she doesn't understand the possible real gains, in terms of the optics and prospective positioning for upcoming elections, that this particular piece of legislation presents to the Democratic party. The disappointment expressed isn't the result of some sort of naive idealism, it's because going along with that legislation strengthens Republican national security rhetoric while showing the Democratic party to have compromised their putative ideals. (Thus the lead in to the actual post is a bunch of clippings demonstrating the media framing of the debate and a link to a previous post titled "Reflexive Fear of Wimpification".)

That the Democratic party actually compromised their putative ideals enters into it as well, of course, and it's entirely reasonable to be upset because Congress just pissed away the fourth amendment. Implying that it's insufficiently cynical to be upset about that is tremendously immature.

Arthur pretty obviously misread her post.

And you apparently didn't even bother to check what whether what you were posting on was accurate.

Nice job.

Posted by cs | August 24, 2007 10:17 PM

Maybe Mr. Silber could pay for his own medical care if he actually worked for money, instead of spending who-knows-how-many hours composing these interminable blog posts.

I could make $1000 in the time he must have spent writing that thing. Sheeesh.

Posted by Chester White | August 25, 2007 11:05 AM

I am impressed with your chutzpah. Not your logic or your grasp of tax and health policy or your claims that you actually know anything about economics. But you've got chutzpah. kudos.

Posted by David | August 25, 2007 2:42 PM

By the way, Arthur Silbur's got some medical problems and needs some financial help. After you read his piece, how about hitting the tip jar?

I don't want to be too unclassy here -- I like a lot of Silber's writing and he seems like a nice enough fellow -- but I have to point out that this cycle of illness, unemployment and poverty is precisely what the economic policies espoused by "libertarians" would mean for the country as a whole, insofar as they have not made that cycle a commonplace already.

Mr. Silber doesn't like the output of Ayn-Randian economics in his own case, obviously -- and yet he wants those policies imposed in the country as a whole.

Posted by moron | August 25, 2007 4:07 PM

Woody and J, you're both making a fundamental mistake in your analysis -- the same mistake Digby made. You seem to believe that the self-interest of Democratic politicians would only lead them to seek power for Democrats because they are Democrats, and thus encourage them to pursue policies that will win votes.

That isn't true. Democratic politicians in Congress understand their self-interest also includes seeking power for politicians because they are politicians, and thus it is in their interest to pursue policies that increase the power of the government whether or not they are popular with the electorate.

Politicians of both parties share the basic goal of making the government more powerful, because making the government more powerful makes politicians more powerful. They will only compromise on this goal insofar as it is necessary for them to remain members of the class able to exercise power.

As long as you ignore that "politician" is a social class with its own class interests, you will remain deluded into thinking that this sort of thing is like "a battered wife whipping up a five-course gourmet meal for hubby," instead of recognizing it for the deliberate, intentional, and self-interested effort on the part of the political class that it is.

Posted by Lunatic | August 26, 2007 6:57 PM