At around 13/2/06 1:40 pm, Julio Huato wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>
>> Since I still continue vacillating between the two positions could you
>> summarize why ABB was absolutely correct? There are some obvious
>> arguments in favour of it and I think Chomsky outlined strong reasons on
>> why W is a special case (are your arguments similar ones?). Additionally
>> the arguments against ABB are non-obvious, though, to my mind, not
>> irrational. Also, is Leiberman admitted under ABB?
>
> I wasn't the one who started this rehashing of the old debate.
> Anyway, my rationale in arguing for the need to cooperate with the DP
> in the 2004 elections was a pretty rough cost-benefit calculation:
>
Ok, thanks for the response. Of course it needs to be tempered by the
oft-repeated counter-argument about life for the less privileged under
Clinton and other Democrats (in the US and the ROTW).
I tend to buy into Chomsky's arguments (and yours too, from what I read
in your post) to treat Bush II as a special case and support any lesser
evil.
However, generally speaking, I think phrases like "superficially
radical", "useless ideological purity" are unfair and irrelevant (*if*
applied in the general argument against supporting the Democrats).
Gradual progress is often accompanied by gradual regress and life is not
a pleasant thing for many on either slope.
I (personally) do not think the answer is a revolution (which is not to
say that I think a revolution will not work, but only that I have no
opinion on revolutions). I do think that the answer has to include
radically (there is that word) reconfiguring certain inherently lopsided
arrangements. For example, I do not see any amount of support to
Democrats changing the lack of "one person, one vote".
--ravi
--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!
