Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    The Conservative Cloward-Piven Strategy, Annotated

    The Conservative Cloward-Piven Strategy, Annotated

    Did you hear, all that talk about being fiscally conservative really is just a Cloward-Piven strategy in reverse.  Rather than overwhelming the system with debt, entitlements, welfare by another name, and dependence upon government, conservatives are seeking to underwhelm the system.

    With a usual flair for the dramatic, Steve Benen sums it ups, None Dare Call It Sabotage (my annotations in italics):

    Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage?  [Let me guess … still thinking … I’ve got it … Tea Party!] ….

    Matt Yglesias had an item the other day that went largely unnoticed, but which I found pretty important.

    … Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.  [Don’t look here, or here, or here, or here, or here, just take his word for it.]

    Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted that Republicans perceive “economic hardship as the path to election glory.” [Hello-o, Stan Collender is the same person responsible for the Worst. Prediction. Ever., that Barack Obama would by now be called “The Deficit Slayer.”]

    Paul Krugman noted in his column yesterday that Republicans “want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.”  [Central Falls! Central Falls! Attica! Attica!]

    As best as I can tell, none of this analysis — all from prominent observers — generated significant pushback. The notion of GOP officials deliberately damaging the economy didn’t, for example, spark widespread outrage or calls for apologies from Matt or anyone else.  [Oh, please.  The lack of “push back” is not evidence that you are correct, there are only so many flies we can swat in a day.  I bet you think this annotation is about you, don’t you, don’t you?]

    And that, in and of itself, strikes me as remarkable. We’re talking about a major political party, which will control much of Congress next year, possibly undermining the strength of the country — on purpose, in public, without apology or shame — for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012.  [Psst, do you really want to go there? … The War Is Lost, The Surge Has Failed, Bush Lied Us Into War, Bush stole the election, Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, blah, blah, blah.]

    Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this? [The Revolt of The Kulaks Has Begun.]

    The Boehner/McConnell GOP appears willing to gamble: if they can hold the country back, voters will just blame the president in the end. And that’s quite possibly a safe assumption.  [Your “holding back” is our “Stop the Bleeding.”]

    If that’s the case, though, then it’s time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it’s a healthy development in our system of government. [“Dissent is patriotic!” is so 2006.]

    I have an idea.  It worked really well before.  Remember, use your toughest people for this.

    You’ll need them.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    With all due respect, and with a true sense of curiosity, why does the Left, and more importantly the right, find Matt Yglesias compelling in any regard?

    I find his arguments mediocre at best, and his mind muddled. What exactly is the attraction?

    As I read Iglesia's comment,"Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for … a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage." I thought "What is left they can sabotage that these current Democrats have not already done."

    Like when Schumer kicked off the presidential elections in 2008 by revealing the confidential information on IndyMac thereby creating the run on the bank and initiating the liquidity crisis of 2008. Is that what Iglesias is thinking the Republicans may do?
    Maybe he thinks they will find a way to take over Ford in violation of bankruptcy laws so that investors will hold off investing. They will have to be extremely inventive to find a means of sabotage that Obama's team has not already implemented.

    These people live on a different planet, one where sanity is sabotage, fair play is "raaaaacism" or some kind of phobia and personal responsibility is some kind of mental illness. It's time for a parting of the ways – we should divide up the country and have each side live the way it prefers. But they would likely disagree – the Leftist control freaks need someone to steal from in order to make their delusions work.

    "If that's the case, though, then it's time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it's a healthy development in our system of government."

    No one has been willing to look at a major party for promulgating such sedition for thirty plus years, why start now?
    But seriously, aside from the psychological transference, you can believe that the Democrats would use Cloward-Piven, but it makes absolutely zero sense to believe that the Republicans would.

    The sabotage model for conservatives is Atlas Shrugged.

    But, productive people like being productive, and they like the income this gives them, so calls for a producer's work action would have little effect.

    Still, the Democrats are doing their darndest to remove incentives to work and invest independently of government subsidy. If their policies are not repealed or they regain power, they just might arrange that work action through their policies.

    EasyOpinions.blogspot.com


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend