Eugene
>
> This is a material reality. Very bad material reality, indeed! Am I
> responsible for this worsened material reality? Probably yes – I have an
> "idealistic" hope that my allies and I could have made a difference if we
> did not make some "mistakes" that are still unknown to us. But to attribute
> this meaning of the negative outcome to the meaning of my actions is not
> only unfair but also deeply wrong. Call me inept, "idealistic", naïve, "with
> false consciousness" – I painfully accept it – but please do not call me
> "right-wing authoritarian" only because my actions failed. Certain things
> are right not because they are successful but because it was wrong not to
> try to do them.
>
> What do you think?
>
I was not using "idealistic" in that sense. What I meant by "idealistic"
was a disconnect between the "ideas" one is advocating and the action
one is willing to engage in. I think Clinton was great at that, he
would get you with the ideas or ideals, but then do other things in
practice or just leave it at the ideas level.
I find Dean being a classic in this case too. He gives a good rap with
health care, but his plan is capitalistic in nature. His ideas are right
of center, yet they are labeled as "liberal" which will eventually force
him more toward the right. The least we can do is give the reigns to
Kucinich where it would not be your typical tweedle dee / tweedle dum
election.
As to your example no, I don't think that would be "idealistic". It
would have been if your ideals were arguing for "inclusiveness" whereas
your actions pointed in the opposite direction or inaction.
Eugene, you are not saying political compass said you were a right wing
authoritarian are you? I scored, as well as most people I know, in the
left libertarian quadrant. I could see you as a right wing libertarian
but not authoritarian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST