Knowledgeably Ignorant

The first stage of the French presidential election was today. According to a  24 year old Frenchman and student, who voted for Sarkozy because of fear of turmoil in the "financial markets" -- whatever that might mean,

[n]obody knows exactly what’s going to happen whoever is elected,” Mr. Hustaix said. “Hollande is not going to be able to enforce his program, and Sarkozy didn’t disclose specifics on what he is going to do, aside from immigration and security.

He is certain that the future is uncertain except to the extent that the socialist will be gridlocked and Sarkozy threaten immigrants and "terrorists," which appears to be a coded French discourse for more discrimination against Muslims and "mild" Le Penisme.

In other words, other than knowing exactly what would happen and voting out of fear of international finance capitalism, the poor lad is in the dark. It is almost like he realizes that the State's economic policies is in the hands of the ruthless capitalists of the Bourse, the City, and Wall Street but is afraid to admit it.

Insider Out and Outsiders In

Josh Marshall justifying his site's repeated discussions of one of the least important politicians in America:

This is actually a real blind spot for liberals in general -- the idea that things that are crazy or tawdry or just outrageous are really best ignored. Don't give them more attention. You're just giving them what they want. Or maybe it's not so practical and utilitarian. Maybe, they say, it's just beneath us. Focus on the important stuff.

So he pays attention to Palin because despite her marginal status, limited following, and lack of all importance, she is a force among a minority of doodlebugs.

Jon Chait, for similar reason, no doubt, spends a lot of time discussion Sarah Palin. However, he proudly remarks on his ability to ignore/punch hippies:

I'll cop to a couple things. First, I'm not a left-winger. I don't agree with the left about very much. If you're looking for genuine left-wing thought, this is not the blog for you.

Second, I don't spend a whole lot of time discussing left-wing thought because my interest in ideas is primarily, though not completely, in proportion to their influence on American politics. There's room for bringing in ideas that have little or no impact at the moment, but I don't do much of that.

Leaving aside that his opponents to the left aren't hippies, Chait's point is that that leftish ideas play no important role in American political life, sort of like how the neo-Liberal war mongers insisted that millions, if not more, of citizens protesting the decision to invade Iraq didn't really matter because of Socialism and puppets; whereas the least popular politician in America who has no ideas matters because, after all, the lack of media spot lights cannot kill marginal ideas.


Matthew Yglesias on ignoring the left:

I recognize that many people disagree with [my] agenda, and that many of those who disagree with it think of themselves as “to the left” of my view. But I simply deny that there are positions that are more genuinely egalitarian than my own. I really and sincerely believe that liberalism is the best way to advance the interests of the underprivileged and to make the world a better place. I offer “further left” people the (unreturned) courtesy of not questioning the sincerity of their belief that they have some better solutions, but I think they’re mistaken. 

And on neo-Liberalism, which

 is one of these terms that was invented by its critics so I hesitate to embrace it though I recognize that the shoe fits to a considerable extent. I’d say it’s liberalism, a view recognizably derived from the thinking of JS Mill and Pigou and Keynes and Maury “Freedom Plus Groceries” Maverick and all the rest.

Last point first.  If Yglesias doesn't know what neo-Liberalism means, he is unfit to discuss the current political scene in these United States, long may her best medicine be laughter.  If he wants to know, here's a good place to start; if that is too long, here's an interview.

Second to last point second.  "really and sincerely believe" based on what?  Real and sincere belief? When considering the basis for his real and sincere beliefs consider his war on barbers. We have had, I repeat, over 30 years of neo-Liberal policies and they have had the exact opposite result of that predicted. The long development of a liberal democratic and capitalist system that pre-dated the last worst crisis of capitalism have already shown that 19th century Liberalism was insufficient. Here is a discussion of the development and failures of Liberalism from a position more egalitarian and to Yglesias' left.

Some folks deny that there is a problem or more precisely that folk denies that being ignored by Yglesias is a problem.  There is a larger point here and it has to do with 1848.  The then Liberals refused to forge a tactical or strategic alliance with the then Radicals and the then Conservative and the then Reactionaries were able to recover, reload, and put down the revolutions through military aid. While the Liberals did get a sort of watered down version of constitutionalism they ceded political leadership back to the Conservatives and Reactionaries and were on the way to being a party that represented ever fewer citizens.

My point is for all you "centrist" neo-Liberals out there, your allies lie on the left and it makes sense to make compromises with them. The Conservatives aren't going to give even yet half a loaf.