Muddled Thought

[Brad DeLong <delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Brad, that 3 percent of the vote was enough to sink the Gore campaign is a
> sad commentary on what the Democrats had to offer.

Muddled thought. I think--I have always thought--that Gore was a poor
candidate who ran a lousy campaign. That Gore was a poor candidate
who ran a lousy campaign means that Nader's actions were much more
*stupid*, not less. When there is a serious danger that your
demonstration will elect the Greater Evil, you wait for a better
moment.

> With regard to the dimes worth of difference, a lot of posts have already
> mentioned the dreary instances in which Clinton and Gore governed like
> Republicans.

Even more muddled thought. Is there a difference or isn't there? The
fact that Clinton and Gore govern like Republicans sometime doesn't
mean that they govern like Republicans all the time. I maintain that
even by now--two months into the new administration--the difference
is large.

Count your change. By now it is much more than a dime's worth.

> I am appalled by what Bush is doing, but probably I would be
> equally angered by the way the Democrats governed, because I would think that
> I had the right to expect more from them.

Unbelievably muddled thought. If you really would be "equally
angered" by a Gore administration at this point--a Gore
administration that was not seeking confrontation with China, Russia,
and North Korea; maintained ergonomics rules; had proposed a
*progressive* tax cut; was seeking to appoint some reasonable federal
judges, et cetera...

If you really would be "equally angered" by a Gore administration,
then you need to remind yourself that it is *results* count. The
point of the exercise, after all, is not to make the gap between
results and your expectations small. It is to make the results as
good as possible.



Brad DeLong