Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The lines above are from William Butler Yeats’s poem, The Second Coming, and the title of Paul Krugman’s post this morning refers to the second to last line in the stanza. I recognize that it’s petty of me and I may well be over-analyzing but I find that its use typifies the problem that I have with technocrats, among them Dr. Krugman.
In his post he quotes Duncan Black and takes the Democrat leadership to task for a lack of boldness in attacking Republicans, the adversaries. Toujours l’audace!
It’s a bit hard for me to see how much more the White House might attack Republicans when every second sentence seemingly is a complaint about the situation they inherited from from George W. Bush and his Republican Congress.
However, I also find the complaint revealing. He’s criticizing what they’re doing or not doing. Consequently, the Democratic leadership is implicitly “the best” because of who they are rather than what they do. This is a sort of technocracy that I don’t recognize. The Greek root techne refers to making things and doing things, to acquired skill rather than the congenital worth of aristocracy.
Support should be predicated on what you actually do, not just what side you’re on or whether you have all of the right credentials.
Yeah. I see less lack of conviction than of imagination.
I see it more as something I’ve complained about before: wanting to be something rather than wanting to do something.
I never voted for Reagan but it was clear that he was a man who didn’t just want to be president but wanted to do something (mostly fight communism, which he was quite successful in doing). I was upset with Clinton because, among other reasons, he seemed to have no values other than the urge to power.
I think they come down to the same thing. Take a politician whose only urge is to power. To protect his power & ensure his political survival, more than anything else he needs to a) either prevent or (appear to) respond effectively to crises, and b) avoid presiding over a stagnant economy. Fail at one or both of those jobs and he’s toast.
Accepting the fact that politicians don’t have much sway over the economy, there remains some things they can do. And when their favored tools (spending for Democrats, tax cuts for Republicans ) are stalled or not working, there is always the option to try something else. The failure to do that is first and foremost a failure of imagination.
“Support should be predicated on what you actually do, not just what side you’re on or whether you have all of the right credentials.”
Bravo!
“I was upset with Clinton because, among other reasons, he seemed to have no values other than the urge to power.”
Bravo II! POTUS, rock star, NBA player, Tiger ………..you can get laid every night, by the fanciest. But about that actually advancing the country thingy……………………..
In defense of Obama (heh, believe this?), he is more Reaganesque in his desire to actually do something. Its just that what he wants to do is so AFU that the old saw “shixt hitting the fan” is actually happening under this guy. We are resilient people, but the walls can take only so much fanned shixt.