Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Mike Flugennock writes:

...Michael Moore's getting totally down on the Democrats -- again. "Disgusting," he sez here. So, will he get so pissed off that he campaigns for the Greens again, costs the Donkeycrats the White House in '12, and publicly apologizes in four years -- again -- in time to tell us all to vote for Hillary in '16, no matter what? One can only hope.

Sorry, I'm still on my first beer. Here's the "offending" link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/26/michael_moore_on_haiti_the_supreme

But it's a long long road a-windin'. Here's Moore's incisive analysis:

... the Democrats are essentially a bunch of wimps. They don’t have the guts. They don’t have the courage of their own convictions. They’re disgusting. I’m embarrassed. I want really nothing to do with them. And if they don’t find their spine, well, they’re in for a huge surprise in November.

Moore is not alone; many people have this picture of the Democratic party -- they mean well, but then they lose their nerve.

Wrong. They don't mean well, and they hardly ever lose their nerve. They're the understudy to the Republicans' prima donna, the hyaena to the Republicans' tiger. Not identical, but complementary. They take up the slack, hold the position, keep the chair warm, enjoy the leavings of the tiger's kill while the tiger sleeps it off.

They are not the Gazelle Party.

It's time, I guess, for my annual reference to the ratchet effect.

Edgy stuff, or thin Lakoffian gruel; take your pick.

Might the Democrats expand their moral range without betraying their principles? Might they even find ways to improve their policies by incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights?

If I've understood the gist of the essay, the answer to the first question is easy. Yes, they could expand their moral range without betraying their principles. They'd need principles first, which might cause their actually existing moral range to contract. But a moral range that excludes drone attacks, for example, would be a significant improvement. Regrettably, that won't attract Republican voters.

The second question is a little harder. The definitions present an unbridgeable abyss. I'll try anyway. We have actually existing Democrats who do little besides concoct policy "incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights". The result doesn't improve anything, and it doesn't attract Republican voters. Why would it? They've got a comfortable brand identity.

Here's a little shift, for emphasis. There are plenty of professors who criticize the tenure system and bemoan its failures, but how many of them reject the benefits, once they're offered and once they have them? The system serves their needs and interests pretty well.

Yes indeed. Step right up, folks. Step right up and don't crowd each other now. There's plenty of room. Circus SMBIVA has a treat for you. From the wilds of the untamed Beltway, by way of the intertubes, we have a genuine geek, who is prepared to bite the heads off chickens for your entertainment and edification.

Via Chris Floyd.