You wrote: *If you pick any particular Democrat, any or all of the above might be true, particularly if you restrict your choices to the Democrats serving in Washington, and to the ruinous ecology of staff people and political consultants which serves them. Attacking individuals for their real or imagined sins, however, overlooks the dynamics of the system in which they're embedded."

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. You also wrote:

"Systems which arise from a welter of conflicting goals and interests drift off course over time. This doesn't require a conspiracy; on the contrary, it requires only that the system in question reflects commonly-held beliefs well enough not to engender any significant opposition."

There's a kind of tension here, isn't there (or is at a reciprocity) between the individual and the system? So that while truly it is wrong to focus on individuals, it would be equally and error to focus on system? In one sense all you have are indiviuduals acting in certain ways, and then we reify this in various ways, such as calling it a system, an historical process, and so on; and the reification is valid as a heurestic.

You are saying that no one group consciously plots all this out, as it were, according to the corporate master plan: ok, I see that. But still they are some highly intelligent folks all choosing to act this way (I agree for a variety of reasons, but still their actions end up pragmatically being a joint decision to represent corporate interests). Is it wrong to rail against the effect of all these choices, taken one at a time? So that I could say: well, damn you, you did this because you are greedy, and you did this because you have a theory; and you did this because you are a witless follower of those who are greedy or have a theory. But in the end these people one by one are acting in ways that they chose to do.

Are you thinking we need to change the culture? But how is that done but one person at a time? I mean, I have never had a conversation with system (obvious point, I know).

I agree it makes no sense to sneer at the deluded. Except for maybe sometimes one needs a good sneer? But that is hard to gauge anonymously in a format like this (perhaps you would have to know someone to know when they finally needed that sneer). That's why I have always been shocked at the kind of strange anonymous vitriol that can be seen online. But then some people don't even know how to argue in person, let alone in this format. (argument=a joint attempt to get at the truth!)

But then I have read a good sneer now and then online and thought: damn, I deserved that. It had helped me finally see something, sort of pushed me over the edge of insight. I guess if you fire a shotgun into a crowd you're bound to hit someone.

Thanks for the thoughts, WT and everyone.

your wrote: "Like you, I do tire of those who spend most of the time doomsdaying and telling us what we can’t do because the odds are too overwhelming."

Well, I am of the persuasion that we have to keep on acting as if there is hope to change things, because no one has effectively shown me that it is hopeles . . . yet. Posts like Glenn's today, though, seem to keep on putting more and more evidence in that corner. I am just trying to figure it out. If one could be rationally convinced that the dynamics of collapse had become irreversible, then the rational thing to do would be to make plans to deal with THAT, and not to keep on trying to fix what can't be fixed. Do you see what I mean? I can see the point of view that they might be taking: look, you are wasting effort you need to put in elsewhere. One might even grow very frustrated with all these good people working so hard to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic when they need be putting things in the lifeboats, etc. And that might drive them to sarcasm or black humor. I can really see that. We're all bozos on this bus.

Indeed it would be ludicrous to loudly proclaim the sinking of the ship while also ridiculing those getting the lifeboats ready. Unless there is not enough life boats (to extend the Titanic metaphor: then I suppose we could choose to join the musicians playing on the deck to cheer up others or weep in a corner or scream as we personally chose!). And I take your point, WT: "Still, the world didn't begin, and won't end with us. (Unless it does, and if it does, there wouldn't have been a lot we could have done about it anyway.)" Like James on free will: since we must act as if we are free and cannot know if we are absolutely free or not, we are effectively free. So act then!

there are those rare and colorful characters who pop up out

of nowhere and run across the deck handing out 101 point

manifestos!!

is so sure they are right. That they just know what will save the republic or damn it. Wish I could know things like that with so much certainty. God-like knowledge . . . not human, like mine. I appreciate you sharing your honest doubt.

that masked stranger, wrote: "I lie to pollsters

Always have, from the very first time I was polled at age 19 or so."

Word to live by.

just putting on a show before? It was all part of the kabuki? or what?