A Daniel De Groot Golden Oldie
From Sep 04, 2010. Original HERE.
Note: This is actually more sTiVo's post than Daniels, but it was Daniel's choice as one of his top posts of the year.
In response to my quick hit on UK public opinion strongly favouring having the Labour party abandon the "New Labour" neoliberal agenda, sTiVo has the following to say:
The thing about Britain is that their debate is closer to the real meat and potatoes of what this argument is all about. Ours is frustratingly diverted into "Like or Dislike Obama" or "Is the Tea Party Racist" and other tangential questions.
Britain makes it clear: it's really about social democracy vs. neoliberalism.
It is important that [Open Left] understand this. This is the debate that is barely allowed to be mentioned on our side of the pond but it's the crucial distinction.
When Paul Krugman argues for Keynesianism he's taking the social democratic side of this argument. But he's not allowed to say so, or at least not willing.
The mistake of our side in the past period was in not understanding how strongly our opponents believed in the other side of this argument. It was indeed their central rationale. It wasn't "just politics".
cont
In response to my quick hit on UK public opinion strongly favouring having the Labour party abandon the "New Labour" neoliberal agenda, sTiVo has the following to say:
The thing about Britain is that their debate is closer to the real meat and potatoes of what this argument is all about. Ours is frustratingly diverted into "Like or Dislike Obama" or "Is the Tea Party Racist" and other tangential questions.
Britain makes it clear: it's really about social democracy vs. neoliberalism.
It is important that [Open Left] understand this. This is the debate that is barely allowed to be mentioned on our side of the pond but it's the crucial distinction.
When Paul Krugman argues for Keynesianism he's taking the social democratic side of this argument. But he's not allowed to say so, or at least not willing.
The mistake of our side in the past period was in not understanding how strongly our opponents believed in the other side of this argument. It was indeed their central rationale. It wasn't "just politics".
cont
It's the depth of hypocrisy to blast people for using quick hits to call out other site members only to turn around and do the exact same thing he's taken others to task for. I mean, is it merely ego at play? Is Bowers the only one allowed to engage in snark? Or maybe he just needs to grow up and engage in honest discussion for a change.
STATE BLOGS
