I wonder if people who make these kinds of arguments follow the same sort of logic in other arenas of human activity.
You're diagnosed with cancer. The doctor says: If you get this surgery, your probability of surviving the cancer is 60%. If you don't get this surgery, your chance of surviving is 20%. Most people would get the surgery, and increase their chance of survival by 40%. A lot of the differences between Obama and Romney are like that. So, to say that there is not a direct line, is not to say much. There are a whole bunch of issues that most progressives care about. On some, there is a very clear-cut difference. On some, the difference is quite murky. On some, it's clear that there is a difference, although exactly how great the difference will be is very hard to say with much confidence. If you only care about the issues where the difference is quite murky, then maybe it's a wash. But if you care about the issues where the differences are clear-cut, and/or the issues where there is a clear difference whose exact size it is impossible to know, then it's clearly not a wash. Unless you have an aggregation function that assigns all the weight to the murky issues, the aggregate effect is clear. It's certainly true that having Democrats running government can have a tendency to demobilize progressives, so that's a cost. But most progressive activists would weigh that cost as relatively small, compared to the cost of having Republicans running government. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of trade union activists, women's rights activists, civil rights activists, and environmentalists weigh it this way, as one can readily see from the choices that they have made in every national election for the last thirty years. Overwhelmingly, people who don't vote aren't leftists who are disgusted with the choices. They're people who are depoliticized. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > There is seldom if ever a direct or even a circuitous route between what > presidential candidates say and what they will do if elected. > > We can know for certain _one_ result of Romney's election: Left liberals > will suddenly began to think how they can rouse public opposition to U.S. > domestic and foreign policy instead of defending those policies when they > are those of the Obama Administration. > > We can know for certain _one_ result of Obana's re-election: Left liberals > will continue to support the exact policies they would oppose if initiated > by a President Romney. > > It is fairly clear that the _lesser_ evil is Romney. > > Carrol > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman >> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:48 PM >> To: Progressive Economics >> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Will Mitt Romney's 47% Remarks Sink His Campaign >> >> Well, isn't it a big part of the story that for a lot of people, what >> Romney said and what it meant isn't fully "revealed" yet. For people >> that closely follow politics, it's an earthquake. But if you don't >> closely follow politics, you might just see it as more noise that >> you're not really paying much attention to because you don't see it as >> potentially having a huge impact on you. So maybe what is needed isn't >> so much more such revelations as more work drawing the lines for >> people between what Romney said and what the practical consequences >> for working people of what Romney said are. >> >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Michael Meeropol <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I wish I could be optimistic that the fact that Romney insulted large > swaths >> > of the white working class in his 47% remarks would lead to many of them >> > waking up to their need to be in solidarity with the poor, people of > color >> > (poor and non-poor), and to break their connection with the right-wing >> > fat-cats. Here's why I'm not optimistic. WHen Romney refers to those > who >> > are dependent on government and refuse to take personal responsibility, > the >> > white working class (and the right-wing white retirees) say to > themselves: >> > "That ain't me." >> > >> > The unwillingness to entertain a different way of looking at the world > when >> > facts that contradict your world-view are thrown right into your face > (as in >> > Romney's comments) seems to be a constant --- It will take many more >> > revelations such as Romney's speech to create the solidarity that the >> > working class demonstrated in the 1930s and the next 30 years or so ... >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pen-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
