This uninformed post can best be understood as
a futile effort to deny that non-revolutionaries
have a serious interest in reducing inequality
and supporting the working class. There must be
a lot of grounds for criticizing Rorty, but none
of them are found in this post.
LP:
. . . there has
been virtually no movement to root out these conditions in places like
Alabama and Mississippi, the third world within our borders. . . .
[mbs] Evidentally LP hasn't heard of the AFL's campaign
on behalf of the strawberry workers in CA. One might
criticize the manner in which this campaign was
prosecuted, but "virtually no movement" is not
a remotely accurate characterization of what was
attempted.
LP: " . . . In today's NY Times, Rorty finds himself on the wrong side of a
key domestic policy question. He provides backhanded support for those who
would weaken if not eliminate Social Security as an "entitlement". Although
Rorty's op-ed piece is directed against legislation that would allow
retirees to supplement their income, the logic points in the direction of
turning the entire Social Security system into a "means" tested program:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] Not really. Allowing elderly persons to work and receive
benefits makes the program less redistributive to a modest
extent. Opposing the earnings initiative is still 180 degrees
removed from supporting means-testing or privatization.
It could be argued that allowing more earnings strengthens
the entitlement, rather than weakening it, by making it less
vulnerable to means-testing.
LP clips the body of Rorty's column, which happens to be
a pretty good rant against inequality. This is nice to
see on top of the NY Times op-ed page.
LP: . . . The problem with Rorty's tacitly "redistributive" proposal is that
it dovetails with rightwing advice that Security Security be privatized. . .
.
Rubbish. Redistribution is precisely the opposite
of privatization. This is just an excuse to go into
a rant against Buckley and indict Rorty by spurious
association.
LP: . . .
So, perhaps it makes sense to describe Rorty's op-ed piece as one that
resonates with both the liberal and conservative establishment, which after
all has been exactly the agenda of the Clinton administration for the past
8 years.
By now LP's argument swallows its tail, criticizing
Rorty for his resemblance to Clinton, in the context
of a story about him opposing a Clinton initiative.
mbs
