I suspect Pascal, like your author, would be deeply critical of the "Born to Lose" Left, strategizing--if that noble term applies here at all--based on its loftily ideal standards of virtue rather than the "lunatic asylum" nature of the world where we actually live. No axiom could ever be as Pascalian as "Politics is the art of the possible"--provided "what's possible" is understood as conditioned by the stark raving madness of a societal loony bin . In today's U.S. version of that loony bin, one major party almost unanimously denies climate science, while both electable parties dogmatically adhere to the insane doctrines of universal spying and endless war. Thus, it's utterly self-defeating for any movement to back a candidate sanely making climate action the main issue (as it rationally should be), or sanely demanding an end to the lunatic "war on terror," with its demon spawn of repressed democracy and endless war.
Rather, we must support Liz Warren as the sanest lunatic available to govern the asylum. We must let her, through economic populism, smuggle her support for climate action into government (as if it were not the sanest virtue, but some disgraceful STD); we must then hope relentless movement pressure can make her, our supposed economics expert, grasp the obvious economic wastefulness of endless war. We must never forget, while backing the "good" Warren, that we're supporting a partial lunatic-- though one whose lunacy, to be fair, probably stems from having to function in an insane system. By contrast, the lunacy of the "Born to Lose" Left, which Pascal would instantly grasp, consists in backing "purist" candidates unsuited, by lack of common ground with asylum "inmates," to have any effect on the system at all. In Pascal's timeless words, "Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness." Like that of our "Born to Lose" Left.
Warren, purely an ally of convenience, hardly our saint or savior, is our sane movement's WEDGE for gaining control of the asylum. In building behind her a large movement more radical than she is--it needs to be large enough to cost Democrats elections--we'll forge the perfect tool for making her an agent of needed, sane reform. That tool--a pitchfork--signals our deeper (and saner) radicalism. What better tool than a pitchfork for "going to the root"?
Pitchforks, Ho!
If you agree that we need a peaceful but aggressive Pitchfork Movement, realistically cynical about the nature of our political madhouse, please contact me to help me build it. I can be reached through my OpEdNews member's page, or through my personal page or messaging on Facebook pjwalkerzorro|AT|yahoo.com.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
