From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:09:30 GMT

In article <632@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.224027.14125@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.ed
>u (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>I ask again: Bentsen subscribes to a "very far left political
>>philosophy"?  The guy from Goldman, Sachs (that citadel of Ivory Tower
>>academics and career politicians) has a "very far left political
>>philosophy"?  Proclamations like this, Paulie-boy, just undermine your
>>credibility.
>>
>
>Ya know, the one thing that continues to amaze me about the people that
>post to these groups is the lack of understanding of relativism.
>

Heh, heh.  My impression was that conservatism tended to argue against
relativism in points of view.  One morality, etc.  Relativism tends
to be the province of liberals/libertarians.

>It may be true that these guys are not as far left as say the high priestess
>of political correctness (Donna Shalalalalalalaaaa) or the government control
>of buisiness freaks like Reich and Tyson, but that does not automatically
>place them in the mainstream.  It might also be that they seem conservative to
>people who are so far to the left that they no longer understand what mainstream
>is.  It is even fair to say that people like Bensten WERE conservatives back
>when the Democratic party was more conservative and not nearly as "in the
>back pocket of special interest groups" as it is today.

One wonders what you perceive the mainstream to be.  "Mainstream," perhaps, is
one of the more abused words, used to prove a viewpoint's base of support. The
Religious Right and the now-deceased Moral Majority, of course, claim to be
"the mainstream," though they most certainly are not.  Also, in regards to the
Dems being more conservative back in some mythical Long Ago, I've always
thought the D's have become more conservative since, say, the McGovern wing
"took over" the party.  Or LBJ's Great Society, Truman's Fair Deal, etc. Do
you mean we should consider the Democratic Party of the Civil War and
Reconstruction?  The Dixicrats, perhaps, if you want something more recent,
though they were not the party as a whole.  Oh, your "special interest" is my
"constituency."  Similarly, I somehow think that Big Business is also a
special interest, though they're usually less than thrilled with the D's. Of
course, Big Business is part of the GOP's "constituency" (or it has the GOP
in it's back pocket, from another perspective).

>
>The truth is that the recent records of everyone of these so called moderates
>shows a siginificant shift to the left, if not a complete ideological
>revolution.
>

Heh, heh.  If so, where's the "mainstream" if America's political compass
has moved to the left?  Actually, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. had an interesting
article in The New Yorker sometime in the past month (well, an article in
which he talks about the 30-year cycle, which he's talked about before).
He argues somewhat facetiously that his father predicted Clinton's election
back in the 1920s (along with FDR, JFK/LBJ, Reagan, etc.).  The compass
shifts "left" and "right" every 15 years or so, etc.

>After the '88 campaign, and hearing Bensten's positions, anyone who believes
>he's still a moderate, let alone a conservative, should for their own sake
>take some time to evaluate just how far from mainstream they've drifted..
>

Well, perhaps this is another symptom of relativity.  I consider him a
moderate, you consider him a wild-eyed Liberal (with a big "L") intent on
subverting Mom and Apple Pie with godless Communism (that noise about the
deficit and supply sideish tax cuts just being smoke and mirrors in his Secret
Plan For Global Domination).  Similarly, Goldman, Sachs isn't really a big
Wall Street investment bank (perhaps what a leftist would call Mammon
Incarnate), but really a Marxist front working on ways to bring capitalism to
its knees.  Ah, well.  I guess we're both right.









_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **