TenuredVulture wrote:While I think Skinheads and their ilk aren't really ideological in any sense of the word, that is, it's basically plain old dressed up racism with no real political content, there is an important tradition in political theory and the history of ideas that points to the ways in which what I call perfectionist politics logically entails totalitarianism. The tradition is especially powerful following World War II. Among the more important writers include familiar names like Orwell and Hayek, but also Isaiah Berlin, Michael Oakeshott, Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper, and more recently Bernard Henri Levy. Habermas probably fits in this tradition as well, though who can tell. When Jeanne Kirkpatrick talked about a difference between totalitarians and authoritarians, she was coming out of this tradition.

Perfectionists come in many flavors--religious fundamentalists, Marxists, fascists. What links them is some notion recreating human beings so that they can fit into the ideology. In so doing, conflict is eliminated. People who hold such ideas tend often cite Plato and Rousseau for their inspiration.

love it TV - "perfectionist politics" is the practically perfect way to transcend the shortcomings of "left/right" labeling vox applied (without much conviction I suspect).

I'm not clear how Rousseau would inspire perfectionists inasmuch as he wasn't a big fan of institutional anything, & frequently some form of institutional mechanism plays a big role in the "perfecting" process.

VoxOrion wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

drsmooth wrote:how do you make leftist out of this mishmash?

I guess "See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist." doesn't qualify. Despite that, I listed what I was referring to.

someone's a tad defensive this fine morning.

self-reported data is notoriously unreliable. but you knew that.

I think you were on to the appropriate typology when you labeled them "idiots". works for me.

It's not that, it's that your concept of discussion is so grating. Often, someone says something, you say something contradictory without even an explanation and then follow up with a dismisive slap. I guess if you don't provide a reason no one can expect you to support it?

It's lame method of discussion.

so is disingenuously suggesting that skinheads are leftists, in a fairly transparent attempt to get a rise out of people whose politics you are dismissive of. Lame? next to you I'm in the pink of health. ('Pink' - get it?)

jesus, don't go all jeff2sf on me - that I get under your skin(head?) is rather more your issue than mine...?

drsmooth wrote:so is disingenuously suggesting that skinheads are leftists, in a fairly transparent attempt to get a rise out of people whose politics you are dismissive of.

I didn't disingenously suggest anything, I made a statement and described my reasoning. No, I didn't include fifteen phdave style links to sources, but I did more than just say "you guys need to rethink your lerning" and run off.

The original article and it's specific focus (the Obama thing) is humorous which is why I posed it (humorous in the way that the authors intended, not humorous that there are people this wacked out).

VoxOrion wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:At this point, I'm just hoping we make it through the next few days without Obama getting shot or some foreign interest (terrorist or otherwise) trying to influence our election.

Why would Obama be the target if Islamic fundies want Bush and his party humiliated?

You want me to answer for islamic fundies? I have no idea, especially since the US staying in Iraq is pretty much their wet dream and McCain will be only too happy to oblige.


Edit: Rereading your post, it seems like you are saying the islamic fundies will shoot Obama. I meant my statement as two separate things... one, I'm afraid Obama will be killed like kennedy or lincoln or MLK (by another american, not a terrorist)... and two, I'm afraid a terrorist group will try to affect the election by blowing something up (like what happened in Spain to influence their election).

Sorry I wasn't very clear. Such is the peril of compound sentences.

The McCain campaign has decided to devote its resources to television and I guess radio ads in the closing days of the election, rather than putting them into the ground game. (Recall, at least part of the reason Bush won in 00 and 04 was a superior ground game.) So, not to be all conspiratorial about this, but is it possible that the campaign people are doing this because they'll make more money this way than they would if they put their resources into a ground game?

I'm increasingly convinced that while some amount of television and radio advertising helps, one hits a point of diminishing returns far earlier than campaign consultants would let on. I remember back in 2000, when Corzine first ran for the Senate, and spent a gazillion dollars on ads. Polls showed him with a pretty big lead with a weak to go, but in the end, Franks closed the gap, possibly because voters were sick and tired of a Corzine ad every time they tried to watch tv.

I am also highly skeptical of the effectiveness of robo-calls. Again, the lack of serious data on all this works to the advantage of consultants.

Obama's margin in the DailyKos daily tracking poll back up to 51-45. Ends a week-long erosion of Obama's lead in that poll.

Maybe it's because I tried the "stiff upper lip/positive attitude" approach with the Phils this October and it seemed to work out... but I find this mindset, somewhat echoed (though not to anywhere near this neurotic extent) by a few friends, pretty weak.

Liberals are worse than Philly sports fans. Jesus that article is awful.

Obama is going to win. Breathe.

Phillies fans are worse. You figure liberals have two big wins since 1980 with Clinton, and they're coming off of a big win in 2006 (well, a big numbers win, I'm not sure you could call the < 20% approval rating a win). At the same time, while it could just be an attempt to keep the election interesting in the last week, the preponderance of "you know, these polls don't sit quite right" articles and features has been pretty high.

Oh snap. Zogby is going to release a poll tomorrow that shows McCain in the lead.

Zogby sucks, but it's still surprising.

(We're still not going to get 240 electoral votes)

Who's "we" white man? I'm with Erica Jong, you can't tell people someone is going to win for 8 months, have him lose, and not have rioting in the streets.

VoxOrion wrote:Oh snap. Zogby is going to release a poll tomorrow that shows McCain in the lead.

Zogby sucks, but it's still surprising.

zogby is hoya's favorite poll whipping boy, is he not? The guy's been right once and has taken it to the bank.

Anywyay, I will put my thoughts on whether Obama will win this way. McCain may win Pennsylvania, and Ohio...and it might not matter.

Kay Hagan has sued Libby Dole over that 'godless' ad:

Democratic challenger Kay Hagan has filed a defamation lawsuit against Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) for questioning Hagan's faith in what is shaping up as the nastiest campaign of this cycle.

Hagan announced the lawsuit after Dole refused to remove the ad, which suggests Hagan is an atheist and has become the subject of tough criticism from several newspaper editorials in North Carolina. Several polls show Dole trailing Hagan, a state senator.

Hagan also released a new television advertisement that began airing Thursday to respond to Dole’s latest attack ad linking Hagan with an atheist group.

Sorry, but I don't like either one of them. Essentially they're both saying it's a horrible thing to be an atheist...so horrible you should sue if you are called one.

INTRIGUE

VoxOrion wrote:Phillies fans are worse. You figure liberals have two big wins since 1980

As do we!

You look at the numbers, and you think, well, Obama is doing better than Gore or Kerry did at this point, or ever. There are some confounding issues of course, the race thing, but there's also all these turnout things. And, ground operations. On the other hand, like game 5, you feel pretty good about things on an emotional level, but intellectually, you realize that you've still got to win the game, and the best opportunity to do that is at home with Cole Hamels on the mound. Sure, you can win it on the road in the 6th or 7th game, but it gets a little more difficult.

Let's remember what we liberals are trying to do--we're trying to win this thing with a black man at the top of the ticket. If you're not even a little nervous, you have no sense of reality.

Look, I live in Arkansas, and McCain is supposed to win this state by double digits. There's been almost no Presidential campaign here, and our so-called Democratic delegation are gutless cowards (I'm not voting for one of these fuckers, I'll vote Green, as much as I despise hippies) who won't stick their neck out even a little tiny bit for the party, even though they have no opposition. I can think the only reason for this is the fear of white backlash--Arkansas has a huge number of rural whites, and you can't win in this state without their support. Now, if Ross and Pryor were actually decent human beings and loyal Democrats, they'd spend a bit of their political capital and show the people of this state they're not afraid of black folks. But that's the attitude that I think lies behind liberal anxiety over this election.

I guess there's nerves in anything you care about, and part of the reason I'm so "Oh, Obama's going to win" is because I want to make sure I don't care anymore, and I can enjoy the spectacle that is election night without getting too pissed off at the outcome...but that said, Obama's going to win, and I would be positively floored if he didn't get 300 electoral votes.

Here's an odd thing--I heard from what I presumed to be a fairly reliable insider type person that Louisiana Senate was tightening up, and yet I've found nothing to corroborate that--not even on Redstate, and certainly no public polls.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425719497

Justice Alito on the Phils.