« The Note asks a good question | Main | A response to Waight and Luskin »

January 24, 2005


It’s not a pretense, though that’s not to say it’s true, either.

Strategically, conservatives say Republicans aren't tough to justify “taking off the gloves,” i.e., to excuse themselves from any ethical obligation to work collaboratively with Democrats (as here). But they aren’t being deliberately disingenuous in saying so, since they sincerely believe it.

Psychologically, projecting onto Democrats their own feelings of utter ruthlessness, serves to justify a paranoid world-view. (Incidentally, both the projection and others’ reactions to the behavior it spawns, further validate the paranoid world-view and complete a self-confirming loop.)

In its most extreme form—fascism—this world-view systemically rejects any explanation for defeat except one’s own “weakness,” which includes being over-dainty about using whatever tactics are necessary.

Cf. Nietzsche.

You use the example that a few did it at the committee level, probably by the blue-card method a-la Ronnie White, to refute the notion that there is a lack of organization from the whole party via filibuster?

Why not point to all the examples of filibusters during Clinton's tenure instead of moving the goalposts and comparing apples to walnuts?

The comments to this entry are closed.