Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A (modest) silver lining

By

Believe it or not, some good things will come out of Tuesday’s debacle.  There will be plenty of time to talk about what they are and how to take advantage of them.  For now, here’s one: in the last three days, we’ve seen an unprecedented number of new account signups at BMG.  Some of them have indicated that they have been long-time lurkers, but have decided that it’s time to get involved.  Others found us for the first time during the run-up to the election (our traffic has been off the charts for the last couple of weeks) and have decided that they want to stick around and participate.  And, in general, our traffic has of course fallen a bit from the dizzying heights it reached on and just before election day, but it remains quite a bit higher than where it had been for most of 2009.

All of this bodes well for 2010.  One lesson of the Brown victory is that an engaged, highly energized grassroots is a very helpful thing — and that the netroots can and should be a key part of that.  Our friends at RMG did a bang-up job of supplying the latter for Scott Brown.  We need to do the same for our candidates in the upcoming election cycle.  Deval Patrick told the Globe yesterday:

“There are some familiar experiences that I sense between Scott Brown’s victory last night and my own three years ago,” Patrick told reporters. “It was against the odds. It was with all the political insiders saying it can’t happen. And it was about inviting people, many of whom feel disenfranchised, to reconnect.”

He is exactly right about that.  And part of “reconnecting” in this age is smart use of the internet.  

So, to all of our new users: welcome.  We’re very glad you’re here, and we look forward to your vigorous participation on this site.  Scott Brown may have done progressives in this state an enormous favor by waking us up to the possibility of catastrophic defeat.  Well, we’re awake now.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I know this is BLUE Mass Group but listening and learning should be a two way street. I’m sure I won’t convince anyone to think like me on BMG but maybe you can at least believe that my views are sincere and that there are many many other people who think like me, whoever wrong.

    • I watched BMG after finding it from RMG to see how the other side thought. My thought is  your president has destroyed your party with all the crazy socialist ideas that he has pushed on us. I almost feel bad for you guys.  I hope we can have useful dialogue.

          • As I said on another thread, only in the mind of a Republican can someone be a socialist, communist, and fascist at the same time.

            • you would avoid putting anyone on the spot to define Socialism.  The problem with the terms “socialism”, “communism” and “fascism” is that they are terms that, even espoused at length, are always ambiguous.  

              <

              p>Socialism can’t be defined, only described, because it has such a wide range of theories underneath it.  From the Gracchi of ancient Rome to Stalin, socialism evades simple definition.  Couple that with the propensity of people to label themselves socialist or communist (neither of which Stalin actually was, for example) and you further compound the issue.  

              <

              p>So if you think you’re going to be smart and one-line about the minds of Republicans, riddle me this, Kathy:  why not?  If communism is the final evolution of a socialist society, would not one at some level or another be socialist?  Socialism tends to be an economic system whereas communism is more a political system, so operating in unison is not impossible.    They are cousins, after all.  Furthermore, if said society embraces extreme nationalism and expansionism a la soviet socialism, would they not be behaving in a manner that is Fascistic, at least accoring to Robert Paxton’s definition?  

              <

              p>Come on Kathy, try me.  My stupid, ignorant republican mind is DYING for you to enlighten me on this issue.  

              • I have bronchitis and have been in bed the last few afternoons so I got to watch Beck which I usually don’t do. He is certainly different but his special tonight is focusing on socialism and other oppressive situations.

              • Socialism can’t be defined, only described, because it has such a wide range of theories underneath it.

                <

                p>Wow!  You said a mouthful there…   The reason WE (now) often do have difficulty defining socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with the theories beneath it (Marx, that bastard, was pretty clear on what is meant by socialism) but rather because so many differing people usurped the title only to undermine it in practice: NAZI party = National Socialist German Workers, which had few workers and even less socialists; and people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin using the term for their own ends.  And there’s also people in the modern day GOP who throw such terms around without understanding them… often when called on this, GOP gapers then claim, disengenuously, that there isn’t an understanding to be had… oh, wait. You already knew that…

                <

                p>But what you fail to grasp is the solidly defined nature of socialism, an economic and political system, really an extension of mercantilism beyond trade issues, that was thought to be a precursor to a pure communist state, was so well defined and codified that it provided quite a rallying cry for many who were disaffected with capitalism.  The term “National Socialist German Workers Party” was not adopted on a whim, or because they ran out of umlauts.  It was adopted because people knew exactly what “socialist” meant in a Germany where inflation was so out of control that you needed a truckload of money to buy a loaf of bread. It only became apparent later, after the reign of fear had started, that the fascists Nazis were not socialist in the least. It’s kinda like how people now have difficulty with the word ‘compassionate’ after seeing it in the phrase ‘compassionate conservative’.  

                <

                p>But before we get back to being all snide about what you think Kathy is saying about you, let’s be clear what she’s saying:

                <

                p>

                As I said on another thread, only in the mind of a Republican can someone be a socialist, communist, and fascist at the same time.

                <

                p>All these terms are well defined. And, as you point out, it’s possible to be, or at least appear to be, both a communist and a socialist, if with a little difficulty.  But it is not possible, in the slightest, to be either a communist and a fascist or a fascist and a socialist.   The theories say distinct and different things and as matter of historical fact the adherents of fascism were implacably opposed to the adherents of communism.  

                • First of all, at its very base, socialism is the idea of the government controlling the means of production.  Communism certainly adheres to this, as does National Socialism and other strands of what we can retroactively describe as socialism throughout history.  What Marx and Engels use as their definitions are not irrelevent, but they aren’t gospel either, as what they talk about was not really anything new, just they were the first to talk about it in a fashion that found widespread appeal.  

                  <

                  p>The only socialistic economic system that explicitly refers to the labor and production means and government as SEPERATE entities is syndicalism.  In other socialist systems, the line is blurred, and oftentimes no distiction is made.  

                  <

                  p>The line between communism and socialism is similarly blurred.  At best, communism is an amorphous utopia theory that is the result of the final evolution of socialism.  The two theories are nearly indistinguishable in practice.  

                  <

                  p>As far as your comment on being socialist or communist and fascist is rubbish.  Robert Paxton, who is one of the big authorities on the subject (along with Stanley Payne) described fascism in The Anatomy of Fascism as

                   political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

                  <

                  p>Given such, how is it not possible for one to be socialist and fascist?  There is nothing in fascism that contradicts the economic theories of socialism.  The Nazi’s certainly adhered to the economic principles of government control over the economy and central planning, which are pivotol to socialism, and were certainly fascist.  Stanley Payne, numerous times in his writing, mentions that various figures were politically fascist and economically socialist.  For example, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was considered the forerunner of Fascism in Spain, but was a syndicalist, which is socialist.  

                • is not how you simply have no answer for facts, but rather that Kathy is SO lacking in facts, she’s just going to 6 whatever you say, even if its a total duck because you got nothing.

                • Not the zeros.  His classic is to “Zzzzz” people when he runs out of arguments.

                  <

                  p>I suppose that’s better than psuedo-intellectual posts which miss the core of the argument. My favorite is his claim that  “Acting like Jews were traditionally not known as financial powerhouses is being PC for no reason.” Possibly true, but that’s not what the anti-Semites he was defending meant.

                  <

                  p>This latest is another great example.  He entirely misses the point that the people calling Obama a socialist and fascist have no idea what the words mean.

                  <

                  p>This, BTW, is just laughable:

                  <

                  p>

                  At best, communism is an amorphous utopia theory that is the result of the final evolution of socialism.  The two theories are nearly indistinguishable in practice.  

                  <

                  p>One political science course and everybody’s an expert.

      • You can’t have a ‘useful doalogue’ with someone who doesn’t know what ‘socialist’ means.

      • Don’t come into my house and talk nonsensical offensive crap about my family.  The best case scenario is that I merely show you the door without putting my foot up your ass.

        <

        p>Seriously.

        <

        p>

        My thought is  your president has destroyed your party with all the crazy socialist ideas that he has pushed on us.

        <

        p>Let’s break this down, shall we?

        <

        p>1.  Did you renounce your American citizenship?  If not, he’s your president too.

        <

        p>2.  Destroyed my party?  You mean by registering more Democratic voters than anyone in a long long time?  You mean by getting new people to tune in, and to support Democrats?  You mean by running a campaign that resulted in the Dems having the POTUS, and a 60% majority in both House and Senate?  Give me a break.

        <

        p>3.  Crazy socialist ideas?  Really?  Like the one where we’d buy our insurance from private companies?

        <

        p>4.  He pushed?  He’s the president, not the dictator — and he ran on changes like this and won overwhelmingly.  So, actually “us” picked him, as well as the Congress who actually writes laws.

        <

        p>5.  

        I almost feel bad for you guys.

        <

        p>See, and I almost think your entire comment isn’t complete jackasshatery.

        <

        p>6.  

        I hope we can have useful dialogue.

        <

        p>So, there are two possibilities: one, you’re a liar, or two, you don’t have the foggiest idea that when you come onto this site and write a post like you did, you make it impossible to have a “useful” dialogue, because ‘di’ prefix is Greek meaning ‘two’ and that means you’ve got to start the conversation with useful comments — which, in this case, you failed to do.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>

        <

        p>There are a handful of conservative / Republican / libertarian posters in the BMG who provide for real dialogue, real discussion, a real opportunity for all of us to learn and grow and come up with new ideas.  None of them post concern troll nonsensical jibberish.

          • During the height of the “Tea Parties” (for lack of a better term since I think that’s actually an insult to what happened the night of 12/16/1773 at Griffin’s Wharf) there was also the objection to “czars” as if Reagan hadn’t used them too.  These people seem to forget that Communists took over from the Czars and Hitler was staunchly anti-communist.

        • curiosity.  He/she will modify and change some positions after being exposed to new ideas.  Speaking for myself, I have gained two wonderful friendships with Huh and KBusch–even though we may not agree much. I love the banter and I have changed my thinking on some issues.  Don’t run people out if they are sincere about getting to know the site.

          • Curiosity requires reading.  It’s awfully hard to interpret his post as anything but just came in here to throw a bomb.

          1.  Did you consider George Bush YOUR president?  I doubt it.  I didn’t vote for Obama, he’s not mine in any way that I would take ownership of.

          <

          p>2.  I mean by pushing left wing and yes, socialist ideas that is destroying your party from the inside out, better than Karl Rove could have dreamed.

          <

          p>3.  You know damn well his priority was a single payer system.  He couldn’t get that, he couldn’t get govt option, so he is trying to take what he can get and then move to a policy of incremental-ism like the “progressives” always have in the past.  We’re not stupid.  You had a Supermajority in the Senate and 50 seat lead in the House and you still can’t get anything passed, by the smartest President ever.

          <

          p>4.  He didn’t run on anything like this. He pretended to be a centrist.  We ran an old wrinkly white guy, the most attractive candidate always wins the presidency.  He didn’t win because he had better ideas.  He ran on hope! and change!  Well America isn’t interested in the type of change, or transparency he is offering.

          <

          p>6.  Not really concerned about the well being of the lefties.  Just concerned about getting progressivism tossed on the ash heap of history where it belongs.  Obama is really speeding that up faster than I ever could have dreamed!  Thank him for me if you see him.

            1.  Yes, yes I did.  He embarrassed me, but he was all mine, brother.

            <

            p>2.  Well, if by socialist you mean the government as a means to create a safety net, I think the Dems are quite happy to take our socialist ideas like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, and unemployment benefits and put them up against the Republican Party anytime.

            <

            p>3.  Obamas?  He knew he couldn’t get it, so it was certainly not “his priority” and frankly, you have no freaking idea what I “know damn well” so I’ll thank you for not assuming.  As for incrementalism, it’s actually my preferred way to govern but not very popular among liberal activists who tend to fight for it all right now.  Lots of folks on the left are frustrated by the current health care proposal not going far enough, and are arguing that the bill should be killed for that reason.

            <

            p>4.  Really?  I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder.  I saw a guy who wanted to close Gitmo, wind down the wars, push all sorts of green initiatives, fight for expanded access to health care, add protections for Americans from bankruptcies, and so forth.  I’m thrilled that you think that’s centrist, but don’t expect you to own up to it being reasonable policy anytime soon.

            <

            p>6.  Of course not.  So stop concern trolling.

      • I’m actually “one of you”. I am a contrarian here (conservative Republican) to the BLUE people. My other correction would be he is “our” President whether we voted for him or not. Please be active and enjoy the dialogue.

          • I’m glad to see you demonstrating your true commitment to patriotism and the finest of core American values. It seems to be matched only by your display of manners and civility, no doubt learned in the bosom of your upstanding family.

    • People would be much more willing to engage you if you didn’t taunt, gloat, smear, downrate, distort, and misrepresent.  As your differently winged brother, JoeTS said:

      <

      p>

      My reading of JohnD is a consistent habit of taking a good point and putting it in a context where you almost feel you’d do yourself a disservice by agreeing with it.

  2. It’s no small silver lining.  

    <

    p>And while I voted for Coakley and was sorry to see her lose I have to say there’s another silver lining here.  The loss seems to have gotten the lead out of the Democratic political leadership, and the rhetoric from the top is starting to change.  

    <

    p>So what might have been a rout in November (a la 1994) may turn out to be a moment of grace for the Democratic Party!  Here’s me keeping my fingers crossed.  All eyes on SOTU.

    • Beacon Hill pols are entrenched.  How much more difficult have they made Governor Patrick’s job over the past few years?  I’m not jumping on the “dump the bums” bandwagon, but I hope they get the message as well.

      • Logically, that doesn’t make sense because this was a federal election, but many people, including most liberals/progressives, are pissed off at Beacon Hill.

        • Somewhat … I think it was almost entirely that.

          <

          p>The most telling numbers I’ve seen are the significant number of people who voted for President Obama in 2008 and for Scott Brown last Tuesday. President Obama carried Boston with margins of 70+%, while Martha Coakley’s margin was much more like 50+.

          <

          p>Our rightwinged brethren might think that Massachusetts has moved 20 points towards the right. Let’s remember that these are the same folks who think President Obama is simultaneously socialist, communist, and fascist.

          <

          p>BTW, I picked up a good bit of President Obama’s press conference this afternoon. He’s clearly got the message, and I love it.

        • lots of pent up unhappiness because the idiots on Beacon Hill can’t figure out how to do anything but raise our taxes, and on the Federal level because of what Obama is trying to do to the country.

          • Those sales taxes make up for the shortfalls in income tax that are due to the sagging economy, due in turn to massive fraud by Wall St, permitted in turn by hands-off conservative policies that did not want to limit the “creativity” of big banks.

            <

            p>Obama is trying his best to clean up the mess left by the Bush administration’s pals on Wall St. It’s not an easy job. The federal income tax rates are very low by historical standards. If tax cuts were a magic bullet we would be in fat city by now.

  3. Democrats are becoming awake to losing power, which is not commensurate with becoming awake to the problems facing us.  I voted for Coakley, so its not like I am happy about the outcome.  Coakley ran a bad campaign, Democrats and progressive independents did not turn out, and reliable progressive organizations were unable to excite the rank and file.  Democrats control 90% of the legislature, all the constitutional offices, and now all but one Congressional office.  Maybe this loss will create an upsurge in progressives actually primaring incumbents, but I will not bet on it, nor do I think it would ultimately shift the politics of the Commonwealth.

    <

    p>While Deval Patrick has injected the rhetoric of participation and community into Massachusetts politics he has failed to put it into practice as a movement independent of him and his administration.  Town halls, hearings, and forums that release citizen steam and generate no policy are not creating a new kind of politics.  In fact they create the illusion of involvement and redirect the energy of that could be used to build an enduring participatory and active political culture.

    <

    p>And forget the legislature or the actual workings of Democratic party politics in the Commonwealth as being a route to champion and strengthen progressive, critical, or expansive politics.  Pushing for example Decentralization, Community Economics, and Social Justice as enduring principles and pivots of actual policy in the party would be like trying to work inside Exxon-Mobil to get it to go 100% solar and wind.  Its not happening.  

    • So let’s get specific!  What would you do, instead of the town halls that you apparently think don’t advance the ball in constructive ways?  I think the Gov’s office (among others) is genuinely interested in figuring out better ways to get citizens directly involved.

      • I was involved in one of the online budget forums, and from experience I can say that they are a sincere, hardworking group of people who should be better known for their efforts.  My point though, and I even made this point on that forum, is that these forms of participation are limited, advisory, and fleeting.  They can provide access but not power.  There is a potential for these efforts to be linked to a larger project of actually encouraging people to organize themselves, but you would need to look at Latin America or in our past for those kinds of examples.  And being realistic, its possible that these efforts are contributing to that overall movement, which may take an awfully long time.

        <

        p>The governor (any governor) really cannot create an enduring participatory and active political culture unless laws are proposed that make institutions more participatory and the building of independent grassroots movements are encouraged.  Laws covering transparency in government and making agencies seek public input in this case is necessary but not sufficient.  Elections need to be contested, electoral reforms enacted, more power given to town meetings, school boards, and other local sources of political power.  

        <

        p>I would further argue that the reason such a culture ought to be pursued is not necessarily because it will generate the best outcomes in terms of certain kinds of indicators.  The wisdom of crowds idea is fine and I think Patrick sympathizes with it.  My point would be that the reason politics ought to be participatory is because its part of the good life and a fulfilling society.

  4. Since the village just lost its idiot the Republican delegation just lost its most name-recognized member, there’s an empty State Senate seat that’s ripe to be flipped.  Sara Orozco ran a really good campaign in ’08 and got 41% of the vote in Brown’s district, more than any other runner-up in the contested state senate races that cycle.

  5. Although they don’t make up for the likely policy implications of this election – its effects on what will and won’t pass the Senate in the next few years – these are the two things I most like about the election result:

    <

    p>1. Martha Coakley probably won’t ever become our Governor phew!

    <

    p>2. We have a better chance of electing someone really good for this Senate seat in 2012.  Though it’ll take work.

Archives