Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Come on. No one has said it's a core Democratic principle. What we've said is that ignorant and stupid voters lump everyone into the same boat because Republicans (and now Bernie and other lefties) conflate actual issues of corruption with the perception of corruption. I do not think it's foolish to draw a distinction between the two and to try to inform the electorate of the difference. In fact, I think it's the Bernies who intentionally try to blur the lines between the two things that are doing considerable damage to the Democratic Party. If the President stops taking speaking engagements, do you think Republicans and Bernie stop trying to blur the line?

It is exactly because Republicans (and others) try to confuse things that Democrats have to be better in a way that resonates with voters. I think you and I agree on this principle, and disagree as a practical matter about how to do that in this particular instance.

Hell, you just said a few posts ago that Democrats have done a poor job helping struggling people when you know that they've been killing themselves repairing damage done by Republicans and trying to help those who are being wiped out by market forces. When the people they're trying to help turn to their left and right and see firemen and teachers as the enemies who are making way too much money, it's an uphill battle. And one that is made harder because it's way easier to point and say, "See? Bad! Let's destroy government," than it is to say, "Here's why we should invest in this, that, and the other. Let's build." Pointing at Obama is the former and it perpetuates the ignorance that Republicans thrive on.

I said I wish Obama had made a different choice, and I do. I would like to think I can express that opinion to all of you here without being seen as "pointing at Obama" more publicly. It's harder now to talk to your own crowd without sharing it with the rest of the world, but I'm not attacking Obama on Twitter, Facebook, or anywhere else.

Ah. I see. Although you brought up this idea of soft corruption purposefully within the realm of political corruption and politicians being beholden to banks and other special interests, we can't talk about why Obama taking speaking fees isn't really the same as other types of fees that really are problematic because you didn't bring up those particular examples. Got it.

You can certainly talk about it. But if I think what Obama did is problematic, telling me that other things are more problematic may be true but also not especially convincing re what I said. I just told you that I agree with you, not that you can't talk about it.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot discuss your point in context. If 999 people think that Obama is being paid because his story and experience have value and 1 person thinks it's because he was making decisions during his Presidency that have value to Cantor and is collecting on that payoff, your point has very little value. If the numbers are more like 60-40, then the discussion becomes more interesting. But to avoid any type of contextual discussion makes it seem like you have a very weak argument.

Not sure how to flesh out this context. I think we are between 999/1000 and 400/1000, and I think it's material. You don't. Not sure how to resolve that -- our gut reads of the world we're in is different. Not trying to shut you down on the point -- I recognize the disagreement, and am not seeing a way to resolve it.

Whew. Common ground. I would love if you would concede that Bernie and the authors you're quoting shouldn't fan a spark that is basically nothing until it becomes an actual issue, but I'll take what I can get.

I draw a big distinction between Bernie (and his ilk) and the authors I quoted, all of whom are relatively centrist and generally unsympathetic to Bernie's crowd. I will concede whatever you want about Bernie -- as I said before, I haven't seen anything he or his people have said about Obama and Cantor, and was not sympathetic with their attacks on Hillary. Yglesias and Barro are not activists -- they are in the job of commenting about politics and policy, so I wouldn't use your characterization of "fanning a spark" with what they've said.

Democrats are far and away better than Republicans on this stuff--the narrative and the actual decisions. You can't possibly disagree with that.

Democrats are usually better on the policy, and they need to make sure they're better on the politics and narrative. Trump somehow flipped that with Hillary.