<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Politics in America I</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/purple_people/politics_in_america_i.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/purple_people/politics_in_america_i.html</link>
	<description>what is the vertiginous chapati saying to me?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dani</title>
		<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/purple_people/politics_in_america_i.html#comment-1938</link>
		<dc:creator>dani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/uncategorized/politics_in_america_i#comment-1938</guid>
		<description>i know you're using political short-hand to cram a lot into a little space, and there IS overlap, but "the left" and "the democrats"  aren't reallly interchangeable.  (the lines got especially blurry during the time leading up to elections, what with moveon.org and everyone else rallying around kerry out of a state of emergency but swearing that they really liked him...)  i think it's quite possible that many on the left have given up on/ disassociated with the democrats  and that accounts for a lot of disunity...also i don't think it's a parallel: i think that both 'the left' and the democrats actually tend to be more knowledge-based than the right, which could be their downfall.  respectable journalists sputtered around for months, years even, listing appalling fact after appalling fact in disbelief, trusting in the power of those facts, of that knowledge, to reach and influence the popular mind.  oops.

i know you're trying to be a good, impartial anthropologist, but bush IS evil, and it's precisely the democrats' inability or unwillingness to articulate that strongly and unflinchingly (using plenty of help from facts and figures, the objective kind ) that got us in this mess in the first place.   i can't think of a more beatable running mate than bush.   it's like running against the fucking creature from the black lagoon.  everything he has ever touched has turned to shit for the average american and there are many, many ways to prove it statistically, without being a raving partisan lunatic.  the grassroots really needs the balls and the means to combat the barrage of bullshit and communicate to the whole country what's really happening in a way that is not threatening or reactionary but matter of fact and confident.    liberals aren't sitting around congratulating themselves on their virtue, they're spinning off in morose, defeatist analysis of what it all MEANS (present company excluded of course).   facts, if disseminated, could go a long way.  not with the born-agains, who would vote for jack the ripper if he said he loved jesus.  but with the millions of regular folk who simply believed the hype.
besides, some dude at the central voting computer  just hit backspace a couple of times in all the right places.  to me the real anthropological study would be finding a time in american history when resignation and cynicism reigned as supremely as they do now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i know you&#8217;re using political short-hand to cram a lot into a little space, and there IS overlap, but &#8220;the left&#8221; and &#8220;the democrats&#8221;  aren&#8217;t reallly interchangeable.  (the lines got especially blurry during the time leading up to elections, what with moveon.org and everyone else rallying around kerry out of a state of emergency but swearing that they really liked him&#8230;)  i think it&#8217;s quite possible that many on the left have given up on/ disassociated with the democrats  and that accounts for a lot of disunity&#8230;also i don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a parallel: i think that both &#8216;the left&#8217; and the democrats actually tend to be more knowledge-based than the right, which could be their downfall.  respectable journalists sputtered around for months, years even, listing appalling fact after appalling fact in disbelief, trusting in the power of those facts, of that knowledge, to reach and influence the popular mind.  oops.</p>
<p>i know you&#8217;re trying to be a good, impartial anthropologist, but bush IS evil, and it&#8217;s precisely the democrats&#8217; inability or unwillingness to articulate that strongly and unflinchingly (using plenty of help from facts and figures, the objective kind ) that got us in this mess in the first place.   i can&#8217;t think of a more beatable running mate than bush.   it&#8217;s like running against the fucking creature from the black lagoon.  everything he has ever touched has turned to shit for the average american and there are many, many ways to prove it statistically, without being a raving partisan lunatic.  the grassroots really needs the balls and the means to combat the barrage of bullshit and communicate to the whole country what&#8217;s really happening in a way that is not threatening or reactionary but matter of fact and confident.    liberals aren&#8217;t sitting around congratulating themselves on their virtue, they&#8217;re spinning off in morose, defeatist analysis of what it all MEANS (present company excluded of course).   facts, if disseminated, could go a long way.  not with the born-agains, who would vote for jack the ripper if he said he loved jesus.  but with the millions of regular folk who simply believed the hype.<br />
besides, some dude at the central voting computer  just hit backspace a couple of times in all the right places.  to me the real anthropological study would be finding a time in american history when resignation and cynicism reigned as supremely as they do now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sepoy</title>
		<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/purple_people/politics_in_america_i.html#comment-1939</link>
		<dc:creator>sepoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/uncategorized/politics_in_america_i#comment-1939</guid>
		<description>dani: ""the left" and "the democrats" aren't reallly interchangeable" - that is exactly my point. "The Right" and "the conservatives" and "the republicans" are always interchangeable in leftist discourse. When similar fissures exist on the other side. However, the Right has successfully sold a grand narrative that unifies their discourse. The left, instead of questiong that narrative buys it and then tries to fight this leviathan. 
But, more later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dani: &#8220;&#8221;the left&#8221; and &#8220;the democrats&#8221; aren&#8217;t reallly interchangeable&#8221; - that is exactly my point. &#8220;The Right&#8221; and &#8220;the conservatives&#8221; and &#8220;the republicans&#8221; are always interchangeable in leftist discourse. When similar fissures exist on the other side. However, the Right has successfully sold a grand narrative that unifies their discourse. The left, instead of questiong that narrative buys it and then tries to fight this leviathan.<br />
But, more later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Saurav Sarkar</title>
		<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/purple_people/politics_in_america_i.html#comment-1940</link>
		<dc:creator>Saurav Sarkar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/uncategorized/politics_in_america_i#comment-1940</guid>
		<description>I'm glad your worried, but you should take solace in the fact that many, many other people on the "left" have developed this analysis over the past few months/years.  I mentioned this in the more recent post on this topic, but you should take a look at Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan to balance out Thomas Frank's perspective--she talks about "upward distribution of [power]" over the past 20 someodd years, but doesn't go as far over to the class politics side.

I think it &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; important to separate out the left outside of electoral politics and that within it (as well as all the shades of gray) because we need to adopt different strategies.  A frequent mistake I've made is not to appreciate this and asked for rabidly anti-rightwing politians (instead of, say, a charismatic progressive who understands how to communicate with White working class people, among others).  Other people make similar mistakes in endorsing advocacy or organizing efforts that are too accommodationist in nature.  

I think there's a lack of recognition that we have to play offense and defense simultaneously and both effectively, and to figure out how to make sure the balance is effective.  In my opinion, in order to develop a real "left" movement in the U.S. (which is only at the beginning stages), we need to focus more on building power among people directly affected by issues and organizing them while running politicians that can minimize the damage until we have enough power to take back the political debate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad your worried, but you should take solace in the fact that many, many other people on the &#8220;left&#8221; have developed this analysis over the past few months/years.  I mentioned this in the more recent post on this topic, but you should take a look at Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan to balance out Thomas Frank&#8217;s perspective&#8211;she talks about &#8220;upward distribution of [power]&#8221; over the past 20 someodd years, but doesn&#8217;t go as far over to the class politics side.</p>
<p>I think it <i>is</i> important to separate out the left outside of electoral politics and that within it (as well as all the shades of gray) because we need to adopt different strategies.  A frequent mistake I&#8217;ve made is not to appreciate this and asked for rabidly anti-rightwing politians (instead of, say, a charismatic progressive who understands how to communicate with White working class people, among others).  Other people make similar mistakes in endorsing advocacy or organizing efforts that are too accommodationist in nature.  </p>
<p>I think there&#8217;s a lack of recognition that we have to play offense and defense simultaneously and both effectively, and to figure out how to make sure the balance is effective.  In my opinion, in order to develop a real &#8220;left&#8221; movement in the U.S. (which is only at the beginning stages), we need to focus more on building power among people directly affected by issues and organizing them while running politicians that can minimize the damage until we have enough power to take back the political debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
