|
Edited on Mon Sep-29-08 09:18 PM by readmoreoften
1) It's hysterical and offense. There is nothing wrong with opposing the bailout as it stood. A number of the Dems did for good reason. Both the bailout and a laissez-faire approach will critically impact the US economy. Economists of all stripes are torn and confused.
2) Stop saying "Oh I'm only talking about the people who say 'let it burn.'" I think everyone is fully aware of how dire this situation is and what it will mean. But Paulson's bailout is not going to put out the fire. Paulson's plan is to put out the fire with a massive force of gasoline. The Democrats have pointed out that water can be used to put out the fire. But the Bush Administration will not permit the use of water because they own gasoline futures. The Democrats argue and finally come to an agreement: We'll let you put out the fire with gasoline, because we need to look like we're doing something, but you have to give all our constituents Chiclets. The Bushistas agree. The Republicans think it will help their image to disagree with Bush, so they do. Scores of bloggers on DU rail about how "Something must be done" and blame those who disagree with the bailout for not lobbying Democrats to force the Bushistas to use water (like they haven't, like this would do anything) and for sitting around all day and posting on an internet forum. Which is exactly what they do.
3) The "let it burn" has zero to do with people wanting or expecting a 'glorious revolution' and everything to do with wanting to put an end to phony rhetoric, phony solutions, and posturing. It's time for neoconservatives and neoliberals to except reality. Their ideas are piss poor and they don't work. Average citizens are demanding that something PRAGMATIC be done. If not, then "let it burn" because we know it's going to burn anyway. Better to lose everything and face reality so you can go about the business of survival than to lose everything and waste time living in a fantasy world. The American people are sick of living in a fantasy world.
4) Frankly, the cries of 'let it burn' only reflect how deeply people distrust both the Bush Administration and the Democratic Party. The thinking seems to be: "However bad a situation is, if the Bush Administration is ramming it through Congress, whatever they are asking for is far worse than the problem..." as well as "The Democrats cosign everything the Bushistas do without fighting for us, so why should they be trusted?" This is not "ideology." This is pattern recognition. The fact that some Republican scammers are also against the bailout means nothing. They'd vote for live executions and mandatory pink bow ties right now if they thought it would distance themselves from Bush. They are irrelevant.
5) The problem is not one of "IDEOLOGY VS PRAGMATISM". Ideology means nothing more than "a set of ideas" or a "world view." The Bushista ideology is what has brought us to this point. The fact that the Democrats operate from a position of desperate pragmatism within the Bush system--and in more than a few cases are in ideological sync with the Bushistas is how we got here. We have been ruled by one violent ideology for almost a decade now, with no system of ideas or worldview strong enough to fight it. Yes FIGHTING a violent ideology with your own system of ideas is not pretty. People die. Things get broken. Suffering abounds. But let's be real: under the yoke of the Bush ideology people die, things get broken, and suffering abounds. Could there be more death and suffering if there were a clash of ideas? Perhaps. But there could also be more suffering if there is no clash of ideas and the Bushista ideology is permitted to continue with no competing ideas offered. Without a clear idea of what we stand for we will forever do nothing but simply react to a conservative, Friedmanite ideology backed by theft.
6) Dreaming of world peace--or even a 'good enough' world, which usually means "a world where I do not suffer or associate with those fated to suffer"--without a set of actionable political beliefs (i.e. ideology) is a postmodern utopian fantasy. While living in a world without 'idea systems' may be the best of all possible worlds, that world is preconditioned by not having to fight a fascist ideology. Dreaming that the American political system is 'perfect' with the small exception that lunatics have commandeered it, is not rational. Whether or not it looks good on paper or feels right in our hearts, the fact that Friedmanite ideologues can take over our system through financial force is a flaw that must be reckoned with. The fact that Friedmanites cannot be put down by "good capitalists" or "honest government" or "reasonable voters" means that our system--our ideology, if you will-- is too weak against well-financed authoritarianism to stop its own destruction.
Welcome to a world with no ideology other than brutal power. All ideas have failed except (perhaps) the bad ones. There are no heroes. No glorious revolutions. No practical widgets to save the world or prop up the economy. When the material world crumbles and there are no practicable measures that can be taken to stop it, the only thing left are your ethics and your common sense. For me, going along with the Bush administration violates both. My position is not "let it burn." My position is: it burned a long time ago and they've already looted what was valuable, let's accept this and try to create something beautiful and human from the ashes--and when they try to stop us, next time let's fight a little bit harder. Our choices are this: we suffer in the short or we suffer in the long. Our real wealth is in our creatvity, in our talents, and in our ideas. Our real poverty is that we mistake cleverness and charisma and cunning as meaningful social contribution.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
