Oh stop.

Based on his previous material here, how am I supposed to detect satire in his piece?

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Thank you for pointing out problems that portions of the left-wing of the Democratic Party cause in trying to win elections.

Since I'm one of the people whose opinions[?] you're caricaturing in this post:

The other argument actually is as simple as yours: Illegal immigration is just like downloaded music: you can talk about law and order all you but it won't do any good, and you'll just waste time and money. NAFTA is not a US problem or a Mexican problem.

And to add, cutting of one response: the waitress above may be legal but her sister, or her brother, or her parents may not.

Hack's comments are priceless. Its sheer joy to watch the unhinging of a political fanatic when faced with satire.

Actually, I think it is absolutely wonderful!  I've certainly crossed words with people exactly like the ones he is lampooning!  It is just as funny to read the disgruntled commentary from folks who take themselves WAY too seriously!

Shorter Lind: Strawmen Are Funny.

Dissent Protects Democracy

...and the point is?

I'm getting the feeling from this and other recent posts that the bloggers here form a group so "in" that they feel no need to write things that the rest of us can understand.

Since the makeover, the content has been going downhill, and the mechanical problems remain. Disappointing.

The New York Times Magazine has run a cover story on how patriotism is bad.  Mr. Ygelsias has posted an discourse on how patriotism can be inconsistent with at least one version of liberal values and a number of the respondents have said that such a version of liberal values should prevail.  Another front page post argues that nation states are obsolete.  The Nation recently launched a hatchet job against Mr. Gitlin for espousing that loyalty to country while not suspending the dissent that we all prize is good.

  Mr. Lind's satire is not attacking a straw man; he is attacking all conservative, moderate and left wing factions that would put their own agendas and desire for status in a globalized system over the interests of their own country.

Probably in a couple of centuries, when Mr. Lind's description just so much cybertrash, no longer recoverable, we'll have developed to the point that we are indeed planet patriots (if there's any planet left), though without the childish put-downs in that silly post.  That's not a fuzzy liberal wish, it's simply the direction we're going to have to take if we want to survive. 

Meantime, what's sad is the flag has accompanied some pretty godawful activities to the extent that some perfectly sane people all around the world do indeed see it as an imperialist, if not fascist, symbol.  Doesn't exactly make you want to giggle, does it.

This feeble attempt at satire isn't even up to the low standards of Lind's patented brand of straw man flagellation, let alone up to the standards of the rest of TPM Cafe's contributors.

Before you jump all over me, I'd like to add that I generally agree with Lind on the issues of border security and guest-worker programs.  But I'm amazed Lind can even type with the weight of that godawful chip on his shoulder.  This is a caricature of a position that no one in American politics actually holds, and it's an arrogant, childish response to criticism that will change absolutely zero minds.

Lind has been given a soapbox to start a productive discussion, but he consistently uses it to smear and bait anyone who disagrees with him.  I think his attitude is worthy of far more contempt than the naivete of the open-borders crowd whom he caricatures.

But I'm sure you'll go far with this line of argument, Lind.  Playing the patriotism card against the Left is a big hit on the cable pundit circuit.  Maybe Regnery Press will pick up your manuscript.

The last refuge of scoundrels, indeed. 

"This is a caricature of a position that no one in American politics actually holds"

Have you been reading Frank Joyce's posts?

It may not be nationalism, but it is citizenism. Citizenism is a base & reactionary mindset. We need to stop being so selfish & citizenist & humbly engafe more with the world.

You could start by explaining your own emotionalistic response to Mr. Lind's very funny charicature of the anti-patriotism position.

All these posts are attacking Lind, calling him names, saying he's being irrational or offensive or mean or something, but for the most part not responding to the essential argument of his post.

That argument is that even if the interests of other nations and peoples are from some neutral vantage point just as important as those of the American people, the fact is that the American people rightly elect leaders to lead them and to represent them not to lead and represent the people's of other nations. Those people have their own leaders for that.

 The same is true by the way for electing your state reprsentatives. Do you expect your Congressman from California to concern himself first with the interests of the state of Nevada and only then the interests of California?   No! He's there first to represent California.

Ha!  Lind you crack me up!  I love it.  Keep it coming and I'll keep reading.   Like all good satire, I think you've hit close to home.

That argument is that even if the interests of other nations and peoples are from some neutral vantage point just as important as those of the American people, the fact is that the American people rightly elect leaders to lead them and to represent them not to lead and represent the people's of other nations.

Who is it, exactly, that thinks we elect our leaders to lead other people of other nations?

Dissent Protects Democracy

The point is that his offensive turns of phrase make it difficult to find any nuggets of wisdom inside.

John
For more go to my online journal.

No one thinks we elect our leaders to lead other people.

That's the point!!

But a number of people in the discussion of patriotism -- and perhaps immigration too (I haven't followed that one) -- seem to be arguing that we should.

They seem to be saying that there's something wrong with American politicians putting America's interests first in their thinking. The suggestion is they should be considering the interests of other peoples as well.

 Here's Matt Yglesias:

"To him (Lind), the lodestar of liberal- egalitarian immigration policy should be what's good for the least-advantaged among us. The fact that high levels of immigration from Mexico do more to help Mexicans than they do to hurt poor Americans doesn't matter. The fact that poor Mexicans are generally poorer than poor Americans doesn't matter. What matters is Americans.

That line of thought makes me uncomfortable.  "

The whole thing <a xhref="http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28336">here </a>

Now that's an argument that makes sense!

There is a case to be made on the basis of enlightened self-interest for American politicians to support openning our society and economy to others.

But they do so for the sake of the interests of the Americans they represent not altruistic desire to help other nations.

   No it's not about as Seth writes " And they sat on their asses half the day."

   The American worker figured it out early on, that you no longer went to work for a company, loyally, expecting to retire. But to management loyalty was for fools, Management shafted the working class, squeezing productivity, bringing in people like Chainsaw Al, cutting labor while increasing profits for shareholders. The workers reply was "You pretend to pay us and we'll pretend to work" 

   But of course business not to be outdone and attempting the last word, attempting to force labor labor to submit or else.  

   Some employers are still trying to shaft the American worker, bringing in replacement workers. When these workers rebel, they'll bring in more or move oversees.

Here's a solution:  Shut down or limit imports, If these multi nationals want to sell in America, put their plants here, in America and negotiate in good faith. If not, American entrepenuers will start manufacturing at home, for Americans, by Americans. 

   What is that we need from the rest of the world?  If the Earth was covered with water and the only Continent, was the land covered by the United States, would we say we can't make it?    

No, Common Dreamer, that's what YOU say his argument is!  If he had written what you posted, I could engage in a discussion.  Instead he just wrote sheer nonsense.  Wasn't funny, and I did not see anything of what you said in his post.

Having said that, I also disagree with what you have just said.  We can chew gum and walk at the same time.  Congressmen represent their constituencies but they also act as a governing body for the whole country.  Your characterization is incorrect.

The only response to the bureaucratization of work by employers was the bureaucratization of work by workers, which means laziness as rebellion. It's simple self-defense, and I undertand it. But claiming laziness as self-defense contradicts any claim to be willing to compete "on a level playing field" [not my phrase, I'm sorry]. And it certainly undermines any thought of doing good work out of pride [but capitalism and the fixation on innovation undermines respect for craft]

There are better ways of protecting the poor than to throw the poorest off the boat.

The problem with Lind's writing is that it's destructive in political effect, which is a serious flaw for someone whose whole orientation is tactical. What Lind is saying in this post is that calling oneself post-patriotic is bad tactics because it's likely to alienate so many voters, and anyone who abandons patriotism is going to hurt whatever party they count themselves a member of, by association. (Lind isn't really arguing that there's something morally wrong with valuing everyone's interests equally highly, fellow countryman or no, though he may think that as well; here, he's just arguing that such a position is a big political turnoff.)

But the language in which Lind makes this claim is so intemperate and full of ridicule that it tars the entire internationalist wing of the Democratic Party by association. It creates an aura of dissension among liberals, and it provokes angry and accusatory responses from people who, while still counting themselves American citizens and valuing patriotism, also feel it appropriate to take the interests of poor people around the world into account -- and who may even feel that such broadmindedness and compassion are not really bad politics at all.

If Lind wants to argue that patriotism remains important to internationalists too, and that patriotism is a sine qua non  of electability in the US (or just about any other country), that's fine. But there's no need to do so with such sneering sarcasm. It's bizarre that Lind spends so much of his time sneering that other Democrats' tactics make them unelectable, when such internecine sneering is itself a large part of what hurts Democrats' chances at the polls.

Mr. Lind has previously pointed out correctly that the uninhibited flow of low-wage workers puts additional wage pressure on already hard pressed American workers. This type of silly satire unfortunately adds nothing to the discussion.

Oh, for Pete's sake, don't be so thin-skinned.

Are you saying that you don't watch and laugh at the Daily Show because  it's "so intemperate and full of ridicule?"

The fact is he satired your position quite effectively and it stings. And that's why you're all so mad.

It doesn't mean that you and others who support your position aren't intelligent people or that you don't have something to contribute.

As for this creating dissension, consensus is something that must be arrived at not enforced by decree. I hope we are never like the Republicans, where everyone is totally "on message" because uniformity of opinion is demanded.

The Daily Show is funny.  Lind isn't.

Give it up, Common Dreamer.  I accept the fact that you think Lind is a laugh riot.  Perhaps you should accept the fact that not too many people agree with you.  There was no "sting."  It was just plain bad writing.

So you felt disgust at reading Mr. Lind's piece, but you could "hardly become emotional" about it? Not sure I follow that.

Mr. Lind expressed contempt for a particular set of beliefs and ideas. That's not the same as expressing contempt for you or anyone else as a person. I'm sorry that you would take it that way.

The purpose of satire is to illustrate how an idea or belief is in fact ludicrous or unrealistic. It is a form of argumentation just as valid as any other. In so much as Mr. Lind presented a view of your position as ludicrous, it was a fine piece of satire. But certainly satire is not necessarily the end of the argument.

I agree with much of the rest of what you say and clearly you are a good person to be so concerned as you are with the people of New Orleans and even willing to make sacrifices for them. That's admirable and I mean that sincerely.

But that's your choice and the choice of the state of California. If California decided to actually not give up its levee money to help New Orleans, that would be a valid choice wouldn't it?

This is the real question here. When the interests of others come in conflict with our own interests, is choosing our own interests a valid choice?

The problem I think Lind has with the position of many liberals is that they seem to be answering no. They seem to be arguing that we have no right as a country to choose our own interests over the interests of others. If we do, it's somehow immoral.

To Seth, that is the point though if the world was on a level playing field, to American standards. I believe the American workforce can compete.

  But what is the reward for competeing in an atmosphere of slave labor? Why should we compete? Just to say,  "SEE, LOOK;  we can produce better and more, for less money and no benefits."  Thats foolish, better yet, we produce for ourselves, pay ourselves, support ourselves.  

  Below I've included for your consideration and would like your thoughts. these quotes of Henry Ford, I've been reading about him and many things he believed, were good ideas then and now. He was an Industrialist.

 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

Don't find fault, find a remedy.

I think the remedy for the American worker is not competition against slavery, but to keep the produce, of slaves, out of our system. You can't abolish slavery, if you support those who gain by it. I don't like Chinese  prison labor, I don't like sweatshop labor. Do not allow it into our market.

Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.

Employers have lowered the priority of quality at the expense of profits. The American Auto worker, is more likely told to keep the line moving rather than care that it might be substandard. The American worker if given the time could produce quality products, but the bean counters who watch every little thing, measuring time against Quality, quality loses. Sure the employers see temporary gains, but in the long run the employees suffer, when the product no longer meets expectations and the cheaper goods, just as shoddy, can be purchased for less. 

There is joy in work. There is no happiness except in the realization that we have accomplished something.

 Whose fault is it when the joy of working, is replaced by fear. Unless you make further concessions, the plant is going to shut down. Even if you do give concessions, the top managers take the bennies, raid the pension and still close the door. What joy is their in that plan?    

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.  

This one is a wise plan,  but rarely followed by greedy industrialists. With more money in the pockets of the consumer, we can purchase more products, increasing more demand, creating more industry. But it seems Industry is trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

At onetime was it not the American consumer that lead the world, Now it seems that's been assaulted, by those willing to undermine the very foundation of our economy, by allowing imports? Especially when you consider were not selling enough of our products to offset imports. Other than oil, what is it were buying that can't be produced in America?     

Yes, when I heard the phrase "Guest Worker" I had to think of "Gastarbeiter", the German word with the same meaning.  Of all the programs in Germany to imitate, the "Gastarbeiter" idea is the worst.  There are literally families of Turks in Germany who have been living there for sixty years and are still legally treated as second-class citizens.  This is the path we want to go down?  The "guest worker" idea is great for employers but I don't think that means it's great for the society as a whole

Of course, thinking of society as a whole is conidered unfashionable these days.  Much easier to burn straw men.

"But that's your choice and the choice of the state of California. If California decided to actually not give up its levee money to help New Orleans, that would be a valid choice wouldn't it?"

Well, what's the relevent we? Is it state-by-state? nation by nation? county by county? town by town? Or how about race? Or social class? Or how about every individual for himself?

In my mind, the two natural "we's" are "me only" or "everyone on earth." It does strike me as a bit wierd to have self-sacrificing egalitarian concerns for everyone in a nation but no concern for anyone outside. I have no problem with choosing one's own interests. I have no problem with universal egalitarianism. Even a value like  maximizing the prestige and power of the United States (which is NOT the same as maximizing the welfare of the worst off American) has a certain appeal. But half-assed selective egalitarianism based on arbitrary boundaries puzzles me.  Proposals to disregard the welfare of non-Americans just makes me inclined to disregard the welfare of EVERYONE but myself. And appeals to patriotism makes me inclined to disregard the welfare of poor Americans and think about maximizing American power or territory or prestige or such.

 "They seem to be arguing that we have no right as a country to choose our own interests over the interests of others. If we do, it's somehow immoral."

I would distiguish rights from morality. I would argue that the country has the right to ignore the interests of aliens, but doing so might very well be immoral under certain circumstances. Just because one has the right to do something (without, say, interference from any outside party), does not mean its morally best to do that thing. Or even feasible.   

Uhm, since I've not been over in the book club section recently, how was I supposed to know that?

Especially since his last columns have been all about immigration, I suspect that saying it has nothing to do with immigration - which has obviously raised all sorts of "patriot" issues - is not entirely correct. Perhaps Lind can clarify his intent.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Once more with feeling:

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."  - E.M. Forster

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

"and are ripe for recruitment into terrorism "

Ahah! You may have hit the nail on the head!

As I have said repeatedly, the nature of government is: "You give us everything you have, and do everything we tell you to, and we wll protect you from the bad people inside and outside our borders - and if there aren't any bad people, we'll make some!"

Well, I can see this whole immigration thing - especially the Republican notion of making another ten million people felons and throwing them in prison - is clearly an attempt to "make some more bad people."

After all, the US has so few "terrorists" in it that the US state has trouble imposing draconian measures to restrict civil rights - at least without a major incident like 9/11 - as opposed to the European countries where terrorism and other criminality is more common and can more easily be used to justify repressive state measures.

I guess it's too bad for the statists that the blacks have been quiet lately - no major riots. So I guess it's time to start up some Mexican riots...

And the rest of the suckers in the population fall right into line because it's so easy to blame "foreigners" (as my father used to do) for everything that's wrong with the US.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

The fact is he satired your position quite effectively and it stings.

No, he misrepresented "our" position.  Hence, a strawman.

It's the same tactic the GOPs use against us: "global test," "voted for it before against it," "aiding the terrorists," "with us or against us."

No difference between the arguing tactics of Rove and Lind. It's called "Make Shit Up." 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Is illegal immigration really a problem?  I do not know what it is like in the Southwest or California but here in New York immigrants legal or not form the backbone of the restaurant industry and other service industries at the low end.  Perhaps the best policy this year is to do nothing and wait until after the eclections to revisit the issue.  One thing seems clear the United States should not want a permanent population of people who stay here permanently risk deportation and can never become citizens.  Not only will this generate an alienated population permanently within our midst but also be another increase of police. power.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Who, for example, doesn't think we should police our borders?

And if we look at the examples you give, take Joyce's front page piece where he says: "Because the interests of multi-national corporations increasingly transcend those of nation states,  individual citizens might need to do some rethinking too." -- isn't that a topic that's worthy of discussion on a blog where we exchange ideas? Seems so to me. Seems like that statement even has some merit to it.

I'm not denying that someone, somewhere believes in the "post-patriot" that Lind is satirizing, but it's such an extreme position, it's really not worth writing about. Which leads me to believe that he's trying to take this position and smear it over "progressives," who Lind obviously has a real problem with.

It may be satire, but we all know his intentions, and it's a very dishonest approach. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Well, what you seem to think was some sort of a logical problem was nothing of the sort.  I hate to have to do an exegesis of my own comment, but since your reading was wrong, at least partially attributable to my writing, I will.

Basically you've drawn a conclusion that can't be drawn considering a premise that I simply didn't make clear enough.  Namely, were the political environment not so hostile to different ideologies, then perhaps those people WOULD want to run for office.  Under the circumstances, they don't, in part because guys like Lind go to lengths to eliminate people from the debate.  So, I wouldn't be frustrated if those views were more readily debated, since in such an environment, I would also imagine that people of such a mind would be able and willing to run for office.

Totally separate issue:  as for his view not being countenanced, I didn't say that.  I said he was wrong, whereas he simply mocked us.  In any event, I didn't imagine for a second that I could convince anyone to not countenance his view, what with the fact that he's a front pager and I'm a commenter who's obviously farther left than he is. 

Who's ranting and raving?  The majority of the criticism here is that Lind's attempt at sarcasm failed.  In "your experience?"  Well that's kind of subjective, isn't it.  As far as feeling I am the subject of Lind's joke, again, wrong.  I don't subscribe to a "one world" theory and I view his comments as a straw man precisely because of that.  But hey, you are having a good time with what you feel is a very amusing post.  Far be it from me to ruin your fun.  Have a ball.   :)

Corvid

But in the case of illegal immigration, they are mutually exclusive.  Please read Paul Krugman's last two columns on this. (I keep asking people to read Krugman, who has been something of a gold standard for progressives for a long time now. But I wonder when--given his stance on immigration--they'll begin trashing him, too, for pointing out inconvenient facts.)  

Corvid, I am no expert on immigration.  But I am not afraid of the facts, either.  This is a problem to be solved and unfortunately there are many who want to solve it by criminalizing illegal immigrants as felons and also punishing anyone who helps them.  I am against that, and I am against building a big wall around America as well.  There have been a mountain of studies about this and it is a complicated issue.

But I do think we can be humane and solve this problem at the same time, I do not think it is mutually exclusive.  I don't recall anyone suggesting that we just give illegal immigrants carte blanche.  The solution should be based on our values as Americans and our pragmatism as Americans, too.  Thus far that has not happened.