Crunch time.

Election day approaches, and progressives sort themselves into grown-ups and whiny infants.

Election Day approaches.

That means that the Red team – all active Republicans, almost all of those who call themselves conservative, and even most of those who call themselves libertarian – have lined up behind the more plutocratic-leaning candidate, who is also the one who supports traditional power relationships according to sex, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

It also means that the Blue team is sorting itself into enthusiasts for the Democratic candidate such as me, unenthusiastic grown-ups such as Jonathan Zasloff and Diane Ravitch, and attention seeking- infantile narcissists such as Matt Stoller who think that the cure for inequality is to elect the candidate who supports tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

17 thoughts on “Crunch time.”

  1. Most worrysome are folks of the leftward persuassion who espouse the “both parties are just as bad” philosophy and will vote for some pie in the sky saint. Remember how well that worked out with Nader in 2000?
    Presidential elections are not the time to make a “statement”. The only function is to pick the guy we are going to have to put up with for at least four years.

    Obama = baloney sandwich on rye

    Romney = s#!t sandwich on wonder bread

    Choose and bon apetit

    1. I actually like Jill Stein, and as a Massachusetts voter I am unconstrained. Nevertheless, I’m voting for Obama. It’s a race thing: I feel a need to punish the racists. Both times I voted for the odious Bill Clinton–yes, I know he’s a Democratic saint–it was because of his “greatest generation” opponent’s vilification of my generation (boomers). I guess I’m just a very negative guy–except for 1972. Thanks for that, George. Rest in peace and glory.

    1. You haven’t missed anything; the piece is what you’d think.
      I didn’t want to reward bad behavior (either Stoller’s or Slate’s) with a link, but chrismealy has it in a comment below.

      1. Salon, not Slate, is responsible for this. (Online magazines: Can you please travel back in time and come up with less easily confused names?)

    1. Of course I’m a narcissist; I have the delusion that other people want to read my political rants. But I try to do enough reality-checking – with a little help from my friends and commenters – to keep me out of the “infantile” category.

      1. I do read your political rants — this site is part of my daily routine. But calling them infinite narcissists no more productive than calling Obama’s supporters Obamabots. There is so little room for debate in the Democratic party right now. No one’s talking to each other. It’s all sound bites and spin wars. And I don’t know what to do about that.

  2. But only the candidate “who supports tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor,” will heighten the contradictions. And that they’ll have to get awfully high before the top 5% notices is a feature. So, uhm, yes…

  3. the candidate who supports tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor.

    This reminds of a scene in Mel Brooks’ History of the World, Part 1. (Lots of things remind me of Mel Brooks movies).

    The Roman Senate is meeting and one Senator rises and asks,

    “Shall we continue to build mansions for the rich, or shall we build decent housing for the poor?”

    To which the Senate responds en masse:

    “F*** the poor.”

    Republicans all.

  4. isn’t “attention-seeking infantile narcissist” a double tautology? All it needs is alliteration to meet the Spiro Agnew bar.

Comments are closed.