- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It was because the Democrats calculated -- correctly, as it turns out -- that refusing to confront Bush was the best way to achieve political market dominance.
Prove it.
I mean that. An incredible amount of what passes for proven wisdom among members of the Democratic power structure and their supporters is no more grounded in sound fact than the use of the phrase, "I think Americans want..." by the Republican Right. Your supposedly demonstrated correctness of "political market dominance" whatever that eloquism is supposed to mean, has no grounding in any fact other than "the Democrats believed" and subsequently "the Democrats won". Its the same pseudologic that just as frequently produces defeats. Up until three weeks ago, it was established fact that image, branding, and negative campaigning were all it took to win an election. Now they are not fact anymore.
This is exactly what I was complaining about: Martingale assumptions that have no justification whatsoever. So called facts that decompose to nothing but hot air.
That is no way to run a democracy. Put the business pseudologic back in its bottle and start believing in something beyond cynical pseudopragmatism. It's good for you.
