dan schnur
most of the time I don't agree with what dan schnur writes (or probably thinks), but this piece was pretty good. Of course, we disagree on a lot of things, but hey, name checking Tom Frank and actually getting the bigger picture on what Tom writes about (missing on purpose of course that Tom is actually from Kansas).
Where (well, one place) I disagree is the following:
"An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception."
This is fundamentally an apples to oranges comparison which is why it falls short. The wealthy bond trader may feel selfless or be characterized that way, but it's also in his best interest in the long run - partly because its his environment too and partly because a healthy and stable economy (and environment) are good for his business (and life). Comparing a decision to support a Democratic candidate because your views align on an issue that relates to a larger issue of governance to a decision to support a Republican candidate based on individual element such as religion is not a reasonable comparison. Tom's book was in fact about individual values as contrasted to economic ones.
Dan misses the point (on purpose I think) that a happy coincidence (or not) of alignment of directly related interests exist for the bond trader while a slight of hands to distract from the non-alignment (insert pere ubu song here) of social and economic issues exists for th factory worker.
To say the least a bond trader that cares about the environment in the abstract and votes for "the environmental candidate" without looking at the record (see bill clinton here) is pretty much just as bad though for different reasons.
He goes on to say (and the first part is the hyperbole we expect, while the latter half is a subtle jab and soft partisan criticism):
"This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based."
Anyway, on the whole I thought he addressed the issue well.
Where (well, one place) I disagree is the following:
"An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception."
This is fundamentally an apples to oranges comparison which is why it falls short. The wealthy bond trader may feel selfless or be characterized that way, but it's also in his best interest in the long run - partly because its his environment too and partly because a healthy and stable economy (and environment) are good for his business (and life). Comparing a decision to support a Democratic candidate because your views align on an issue that relates to a larger issue of governance to a decision to support a Republican candidate based on individual element such as religion is not a reasonable comparison. Tom's book was in fact about individual values as contrasted to economic ones.
Dan misses the point (on purpose I think) that a happy coincidence (or not) of alignment of directly related interests exist for the bond trader while a slight of hands to distract from the non-alignment (insert pere ubu song here) of social and economic issues exists for th factory worker.
To say the least a bond trader that cares about the environment in the abstract and votes for "the environmental candidate" without looking at the record (see bill clinton here) is pretty much just as bad though for different reasons.
He goes on to say (and the first part is the hyperbole we expect, while the latter half is a subtle jab and soft partisan criticism):
"This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based."
Anyway, on the whole I thought he addressed the issue well.
posted by aram shumavon at 10:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home