Ktismatics

4 February 2010

Is Radical Democracy Possible?

Filed under: Culture, Ktismata — ktismatics @ 8:00 am

Here’s a topic on which I hope to learn more than I can contribute, which I admit isn’t very much. Does asserting the political agency of individual humans automatically identify someone as neoliberal? This topic came under discussion on the last post, but the comment thread has gotten so tangled I’m not even sure I can find my way back in.

Much earlier in its history this blog hosted an acrimonious exchange about Hardt & Negri, whose idea of the “multitude” purports to open up the possibility of individuals allying together into emergent networks that generate new alternatives to the global capitalist order, alternatives that can compete with it on multiple local fronts and that can perhaps even undermine it from within. This seemed plausible to me; others in the discussion regarded H&N as sellouts, as neoliberals in Marxist clothing. Similarly, Deleuze & Guattari’s rhizomes and creative lines of flight are regarded by some on the left (and perhaps also some on the right) as a philosophical justification for entrepreneurial capitalism. Latour too: isn’t he providing a pragmatic and perhaps even an ontological rationale for neoliberalism, where coalitions of the wealthy are sure to dominate any and all trials of strength and thereby impose their reality on everyone else? Revolutionary political-economic forces cannot succeed inside of or in parallel to global capitalism, it is argued, because the hegemony of the dominant order can and will either prevent or defeat or coopt any potential competitors that arise. Only by overturning the dominant and dominating sociopolitical structures and displacing the ruling class is any meaningful alternative conceivable.

Liberal democracy presumably achieves social order from both the bottom up and the top down. From the bottom, individuals vote, form coalitions and power blocs, elect representatives, effect changes in governance that reflect their interests. From the top, the constitution, laws, and institutions of government maintain the democratic process and ideology. Presumably if enough people alllied together in support of a radical cause — worker ownership of the means of production, say — then through the gradual but irresistable exercise of emergent collective force the radical changes would be incorporated into the democracy, with top-down mechanisms adapting to enable those changes that have built their mandate from the bottom up. Laws, the constitution, enforcement, executive administration: all would be amended, within the broad top-down structures and ideals of the democracy, in conformance with the majority’s mandate for implementing the radical change.

I recognize that the likelihood of seeing radical change bubble up from the bottom seems pretty remote in the US, given both the imfluence of big money on all the elected politicians and the evidently non-radical preferences of the vast majority of the populace. But the whole idea of trickle-up political-economic change: is this the definition of political liberalism, regardless of how radical the proposed changes might be? In other words, is any sort of rationale for working within the liberal-capitalist system by definition a rationale for the system itself and so by definition not Marxist or even anti-Marxist?

Advertisements

19 Comments »

  1. In other words, is any sort of rationale for working within the liberal-capitalist system by definition a rationale for the system itself and so by definition not Marxist or even anti-Marxist?

    This is a very good post.

    I agree with this post.

    This statement is the best part of the post, because of course it is ‘not Marxist’, because who needs such a label except Zizek for his career goals, etc., and it’s not ‘anti-Marxist’ merely because nobody is thinking about Marxism who is in on anything that makes definitive decisions.

    My favourite part of all the bloggers is how they are all terrified of being identified as ‘neo-liberal’ and ‘elitist’ as well, which you did not yet respond to. There are even sensitive bloggers who do not want to be identified as ‘centrist’, not only because it doesn’t seem ‘Marxist enough for their crowd’, but also because it’s then identified as ‘being nothing’ even compared to neoconservatism, meaning it may not be worse in some ways, but comparing it unfavourably to neoconservatism is a way of expressing smoldering rage at the continued and relentless failure of Marxism in the etats-unis.

    But the ‘elitism’ I mentioned in my last comment–YES, I am goddam onto something. And I should have been thinking of this long ago, because one of my Columbia friends has always gone on and on about ‘academic snobbism’ and ‘intellectual snobbism’ as being an attitude that tries (and once in a while) to supersede more ‘superficial snobbisms’ of social class, money egotism, looks, and even artistic snobbisms, in that philosophers often think they are good leftists by funding bad pop musicians and shit movies–when they really just want some entertainment that isn’t too demanding during their off-time. This is insufferable, and why it is important for the artists among us to realize that, for the most part, they will benefit from being the ‘sons and daughters of the rich’ if they want to propagate both their art as well as their asses, instead of trying to prove things to judgmental and self-righteous phonies on the left, who are, for the most part, engaged in suppressing true artistic expression. In this, artists must learn (as per even Graham Harman) to kiss the asses of leftists, rightists, centrists, and whoever is necessary to get the money to express their genius. The spectacle of absurd professors hating their goddam jobs and blogging about it all the time and worrying whether their poor fiction is ‘ideologically suitable’ for the women in their support group, or writing poems that are also ‘ideologically correct’, i.e., they have no passion or sensuality at all, and all part of a frigid world of nothing whatever. Mr. Bryant way too technical for me, but at least is a reasonably patient teacher for slow learners like me in the goddam OOO, but for me mainly refreshing in not spending all his time complaining about ‘being a professor’. Instead, he puts it in the framework of ‘social dependence’ and OOO, which is a far cry from assholes who won’t even identify themselves after complaining about their jobs and how they’re going to quit them, and then get all hysterical about how they are going to lose them.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Like

    Comment by Quantity of Butchness — 4 February 2010 @ 10:22 am

  2. Remember that “discussion” of Hardt & Negri, Quantity? It started at American Stranger, and Traxus hung around for awhile. Then he kind of faded out while the participants lined up for battle: you and Dejan on one side, Chabert and Kenoma on the other. I tried to stay on-topic like a good hostess, but I mostly got drowned out by all the commotion. For three or four posts this went on: what was I thinking?

    Frankly, I don’t know enough about Marx or Marxism to discern which of these various “reformist” ideas are compatible with the original documents or are supported by current Marxist thinkers. This is why I’m hoping that someone with salient elite-level knowledge can inform me about these matters.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 4 February 2010 @ 11:02 am

    • “Or is it more that people who talk a good egalitarian game are in fact elitists themselves, and overtly so? I’m guessing it’s the last-mentioned.”

      Of course, and although Arpege is guilty of this too, at least she knows that philosophers have this elitist attitude that they think applies only to more ‘imperialist domains’ like classical music and dance. That’s what I’m so fucking sick of. People who have spend their time working through all of Joyce, when, even if they weren’t going to the opera house, they could have at least been ‘out helping people’. Instead, even though it’s all talk, they tell people like me who won’t feel guilty enough about ourselves, that we ‘are only interested in ourselves’ because we won’t agree with their theories on their blogs! That traxus is a very clever blogger. Anybody who can handle some of those characters hands-on and not get bloodied has got to be living in some sort of state of grace.

      Oh, I remember well those conversations. The best was kenoma telling you that you should quit complaining about how rude she was to you, I assume that meant that unless you let yourself be pushed around by the trusty experienced revolutionaries, you just weren’t ‘getting with the program’. She didn’t include that you could be rude reciprocally, of course.

      Like

      Comment by Quantity of Butchness — 4 February 2010 @ 11:11 am

  3. I have strong distaste for Hardt and Negri, and agree that their model is uncomfortably liberal. But I think this statement is problematic: “In other words, is any sort of rationale for working within the liberal-capitalist system by definition a rationale for the system itself and so by definition not Marxist or even anti-Marxist?” Marxism, as I understand it, has no alternative other than ‘working within the system’. What distinguishes it is that it offers a way of doing so that simultaneously transforms the system. As Marx and Engels explicitly say, communism is not to be understood as a social system distinct from capitalism that comes afterward, it is a process that abolishes capitalism from within, a critical/transformative appropriation of what now exists. (Although the language of ‘appropriation’ here becomes problematic due to the critique of property.) It may seem a trifling point, but its important because 1) there is no simple way to be done with capitalism, such that Marxism would never have to work within it, nor is it sufficient to simply work ‘outside’ it on the periphery; 2) communism as a ruthlessly critical mode of social existence does not seek to a new system immune to the criticisms it levels against liberal capitalism, but to make criticism the basis of social organization (not philosophical criticism, but the intrinsically problematic nature of existence; existential criticism). That this criticism must depart from the (liberal capitalist) premises now existing is given, and in this regard, communism must be a continuous, interminable critical abolition of capitalism.

    Like

    Comment by reidkane — 4 February 2010 @ 12:18 pm

    • communism must be a continuous, interminable critical abolition of capitalism.

      Whether or not ‘communism critically abolishes capitalism’, it never is continuous (even if it must be to ever work, which it never does) but always interminable (no matter how brief and no matter what it does or does not abolish.)

      Like

      Comment by quantity of butchness — 4 February 2010 @ 12:39 pm

  4. Thanks Reid. On your blog you endorse the idea of “prefigurative praxis,” which you described as follows:

    “Prefiguartive praxis refers to any form of political organization in which the goals of that organization are identical with the form of the organization itself. Rather than using a political organization as a means to achieve a new form of society, this organization is already in-itself an expression of this new form. In other words, the organization becomes its own end realized.”

    Nick Srnicek on his blog. Nick cited Richard Day on anarchism regarding possible techniques of engaging radically with a hegemonic system:

    “dropping out of existing institutions; subversion of existing institutions, through parody; impeding existing institutions, via property destruction, ‘direct action case work’, blockades, and so on; prefiguring alternatives to existing institutions, often via modes of activity that otherwise fall within the purview of a hegemonic politics, for example protests; and finally, construction of alternatives to existing forms that render redundant, and thereby take power from, the neoliberal project.” (Gramsci is Dead, 19)”

    Nick critiqued Day’s tactics:

    “The problem with all this, however, is that anarchism has self-consciously withdrawn from all the levers of power that might actually make a significant and concrete difference! The result, I would argue, is that at best, anarchism merely opens up small and often temporary spaces of community that escape the logic of capitalism or the state-form. And at worst, these small and temporary spaces only function to mitigate capitalism’s worst excesses, thereby undermining their own goals by perpetuating capitalist relations even further.”

    It seemed to me that prefigurative praxis consists precisely in establishing structures and processes that operate in parallel with the hegemonic system in which it’s embedded as a sort of bubble. So there’s still a buffer zone established between the one and the other until such time as the prefig-prax is able to usurp the system it shadows. Got to go to the dentist now, but that’s I suppose the issue. Hardt & Negri seem to be more gradualist in their transformation, whereas prefig-prax is more like incremental doubling, shadowing, and replacement, sort of like the old paranoiac versions of communism being brought in by the pod people — what was the name of that movie again?

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 4 February 2010 @ 1:36 pm

  5. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html

    Like

    Comment by Quantity of Butchness — 4 February 2010 @ 11:59 pm

  6. The Krugman article illustrates the resiliency of liberal democracy and the fairly broad policy parameters in which it can operate. Expand or contract the deficit, increase or decrease government spending, increase or decrease taxes: they’re all tactical maneuvers operating within the same broad strategy.

    Here’s a question: The other day the US sold some billions of dollars’ worth of arms to Taiwan. How does a deal like that work? The US government doesn’t build weapons; they buy weapons from military contractors, right? So does the US government buy from the weapons manufacturer and then sell them to foreign governments? Or does the US government function as a third-party broker, negotiating deals between the manufacturer and the foreign government, presumably taking a sales commission for its trouble? Or maybe even selling at a loss in order to increase profits for the manufacturer?

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 5 February 2010 @ 7:02 am

    • Between 2004-2007, Taiwan was the 4th-largest customer of US arms, after Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The US government is far and away the biggest purchaser of arms, totaling $607 billion in 2008, amounting to 42% of total worldwide arms spending, which tops the spending of the next 9 countries combined.

      But back to arms deals: does Taiwan buy directly from private-sector arms manufacturers domiciled in the US, or does the US government buy them and then resell them to Taiwan? As best as I can tell it’s a bit of both. E.g., if the US Navy has some extra submarines sitting around, it might sell them directly to Taiwan. On the other hand, if Taiwan wants to buy a fleet of Patriot missiles, the US government authorizes the Taiwanese government to enter into contract negotiations directly with Raytheon, the US-domiciled company that manufactures the missiles.

      Like

      Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 11:05 am

  7. I’ve been reading Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman, a book I’d heard about maybe two years ago but finally got around to requesting through interlibrary loan. Chapter two describes Ariel Sharon’s military strategy of forsaking the traditional line of defense/offense dividing the opposing sides, in favor of a network of emplacements scattered throughout the occupied territory (whether that territory be one’s own or someone else’s). That way if an invading army enters the territory, soldiers don’t have to retreat from the breached line; instead the network can reconfigure themselves behind the invading army, surrounding it and cutting it off from its supplies or its avenue of retreat. Says Weizman:

    “The debate between the two different military doctrines of territorial organization — linear fortifications and a network of strongholds laid out throughout their depth — recalls comparisons suggested by Antonio Gramsci between the ‘war of position’ and ‘war of manoeuvre,’ with similar political patterns. For Gramsci, the shift from the former to the latter implies an erosion in political hegemony. He noted (allegorically perhaps) that since linear defence ‘demands enormous sacrifices by an infinite mass of of people… an unprecedented concentration of hegemony is necessary, and hence a more “interventionist” government… [that will] organize permanently the “impossibility” of internal disintegration — with control of every kind, political, administrative, etc.’. The political ‘war of manoeuvre’, by contrast, exists according to Gramsci as a multiplicity of non-centralized and loosely coordinated actions that aggressively compete with the power of the state.”

    Weizman notes the particular irony of the occupying power adapting guerrilla-like insurgency tactics in order to establish and maintain its dominance over the weaker foe. Weizman indicates that Sharon’s ‘war of manoeuvre’ did actually disrupt the unity of the Jewish-Israeli state and society:

    “The political hegemony of the Labor movement started to cede power to a variety of micro-political, non-governmental, extra-parliamentary organizations and pressure groups that began to comprise a larger, more complex and multipolar political landscape. These organizations challenged the state centralized power structure, a structure best described by the term “Stalinism” — in Hebrew Mahmlityut, literally ‘kingdomhood.’ …Years later, the Israeli activist Jeff Halper called the interlocking series of settlements, roads, barriers, and military bases uilt throughout the West Bank, the ‘matrix of control,’ and likened it to a game of ‘Go’ — inadvertently referencing Deleuze and Guattari.”

    The point relative to this post, of course, is that a dominant, presumably hegemonic society can and does adapt revolutionary strategies and tactics as a sort of networked defense against invasion from without and as a distributed counter-insurgent installation undermining subversive manoeuvres from within.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 5 February 2010 @ 8:44 am

  8. I continue thinking about the strategy of creating localized manifestations of an alternative social order within an existing dominant order, with these local installations networked together into a flexible and expanding matrix of possible resistance and subversion. In Eyal Weizman’s book we see the dominant Israeli government implementing this strategy both in controlling the Palestinians from within and in defeating the Egyptian army from without. But now I’m also thinking about early Christianity, which whether intentionally or not used this node-and-network strategy to establish an alternative social order within the Roman empire. The early church wasn’t Marxist of course — that would be anachronistic — but it was socialistic:

    “And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.” (Acts of the Apostles 2:44-45)

    These local instantiations of Christianity enacted a “prefigurative praxis” as defined by Reid in comment 4 on this thread. Granted, they had a strong sense of revolutionary eschatology, of a coming “kingdom of God” that would displace the secular world order by means of a climactic apocalypse. At the same time, the early Christians also regarded the node-and-network church as an already-existing manifestation of that future new world order. Eventually the church’s incipient and distributed power became consolidated and institutionalized, merging with the Roman political order in a way that transformed both into a new hybrid called “Christendom.” So in brief, there is historical precedent for a distributed network of alternative social structures embodying a prefigurative praxis eventually transforming a hegemonic socio-economic order from within. Whether Christianity became hopelessly distorted in the process is, of course, open to discussion.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 7:45 am

  9. Thinking along with Larval Subjects’ latest post, I’d say that radicalizing democracy in America is possible but not very probable. For workers to own and control the means of production on a society-wide scale is not inimical to the American government or even to capitalism. Same with single-payer healthcare, in which the government acts not as an agent of corporate interests but as tough negotiator with drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. for achieving better quality and lower cost for the populace. But you pretty much knew when the whole healthcare reform thing started last year that the outcome wasn’t even going to get close to radical. Single-payer was part of the abstract “phase space” of possible scenarios for American healthcare reform, but the probabilities were very low. Similarly, the phase space of 100 coins tossed in the air includes the possibility that they’ll all come up heads, but the probability of achieving this outcome, while non-zero, is calculably minuscule. Practically anything is theoretically possible, but when the probability approaches zero there’s not much practical difference between unlikely and impossible.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 10:37 am

  10. There are a number of nested issues here and I can’t do justice to them. For one thing, these debates are as old as Marxism itself, and before that whatever (often theological) instances of conservatism/reformism/radicalism you want to name. For radicals of left and right ‘is’ must always be rejected for ‘ought’; for conservatives of left and right the reverse. But other than the general dynamic and rhetoric-space, the devil’s in the details.

    More specifically here, there’s a conceptual confusion built into the term ‘neo-liberal’, consequent to the strange history of the terms liberal and conservative in the U.S. In the 19th century everywhere and ongoingly everywhere but here, ‘liberal’ meant some version of economic liberalism of the Smithian variety, usually coupled with a politics we in the U.S. would call Libertarian. Because this approach to political economy won in the U.S., its defense at a certain point became ‘conservative’ while liberal came to refer to what everywhere else is called social democracy.

    Oddly, this means that in the U.S. what is called ‘neo-conservatism’ is what elsewhere is called ‘neo-liberalism’. Calling neo-conservatives neo-liberals is therefore a tad confused and confusing, but it gets worse. The neos add exactly nothing to the technical meanings of the original terms; they just supply a rhetorical buzz that revives the terms’ attachability in identity politics. As a result, nothing is accomplished by calling someone neo-liberal vs. calling them cheese-licker. It’s just the insult-du-jour for those who aspire to radical street-cred. But then those people hate conservatives and liberals equally and without interest in careful distinction, followed closely by other radicals who don’t agree with them exactly, so it’s all good.

    As for whether radical democracy is possible, the temptation is to say it’s just as possible as radical aspirations ever are. In a parallel case Christians have aspired to the kingdom of heaven for 2000 years and show no sign of achieving it. But from a more moderate perspective the question is whether evil is ever total, or good ever vanquished. As long as we don’t get all silly and frighten ourselves with totalized evil (or capitalism, or neo-liberalism, or international Jewish conspiracy, or whatever), and don’t constantly compare what is to a perfect ought, then there’s all sorts of space for building local systems that we like more than their alternatives.

    Like

    Comment by Carl — 6 February 2010 @ 12:10 pm

  11. Thanks Carl. I guess once you set aside the presumption that radical socioeconomic transformation is inevitable, then you start looking at strategies and tactics for making change happen. The same tools are available to liberals and conservatives, moderates and radicals. Presumably the umbrella term Marxism covers a broad range of theory and praxis — unless, of course, you’re a zealot for your own variant and regard all others as heretics.

    Almost against my will I find myself thinking about these things ontologically. Does something like a political institution have within itself the potential to manifest itself in a variety of configurations, from moderate to conservative, left to right, without having to become something else? Or is the institution defined by however it happens to be configured right now, such that it has to become transformed into something else in order to move in any direction? And what about transformation: does it occur internally, through development over time; or does it occur through the institution’s interaction with something else, resulting in hybridization; or is some element of the institution replaced by some other component that takes its place?

    I’m not sure there is one way of looking at it. Is the new Senate, with a republican taking Kennedy’s seat, just one of the many possible configurations of the 100 coin flips, where one of the heads is now a tail? Or is the Senate a qualitatively different institution from what it was before: no longer a Democratic supermajority, has the whole tenor of the Senate changed? It’s still the US Senate, but the kinds of projects it is likely to undertake and the odds of accomplishing them have now changed.

    One might be able to categorize strategies of social change in a sort of ontological way. Do you try to promote or stunt or otherwise shape the natural developmental course of the system? Do you try to create interactions and disruptions that will result in some sort of hybridization of the system? Do you try to replace elements of the system with alternative elements, changing the system incrementally,one component at a time? Or do you try to bring the whole system down and replace it with an alternative system in one big revolution?

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 1:51 pm

    • I think (and this is where someone like Latour gets branded as a neo-liberal) that thinking and acting in terms of “the system” is already a non-starter. There’s no way to fight at that scale, but it’s also just a category error. It’s not wrong to have a word to conveniently name the multifarious assemblage of systems, and maybe even to sum up the inconvenient dimensions of a complex reality, but treating this conceptual convenience as a thing that’s really out there creates all kinds of mischief by filling all the spaces and processes where we can do things differently if we like with a sticky ectoplasmic goo.

      I like the idea of swapping out and hybridizing elements. The worry is that this works like cells dying and being replaced – over my lifetime all my cells will swap out many times, yet I will remain me. But do I? What does that mean, exactly? Change happens this way.

      Like

      Comment by Carl — 6 February 2010 @ 3:35 pm

  12. Not necessarily talking about THE System, but any sort of system, including the individual human one as you point out. Still, I’m not sure why talking about THE System is any more of a non-starter than talking about any of its component subsystems. If it has higher-order properties that affect the way the elements or subcomponents function, then addressing its systemic-ness seems essential. So a policeman in a democracy would surely function differently in the USA than in, say, Saudi Arabia, even if it’s the same guy.

    Regarding the cell swap-out, my wife just informed me that our neurons remain the same throughout our lifetimes; they are as old as we are. Conceivably that’s one reason we think of ourselves as remaining the same person we were as kids — because brain-wise, we are.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 4:03 pm

  13. If you have the power you can intervene at the macrosystem level; e.g., overthrow the government and replace it with one more to your liking. It’s more a matter of pragmatics, isn’t it, that radical change in the US has to focus on subsystems, alternative parallel structures, coalitions, and so on?

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 4:36 pm

  14. y wife just informed me that our neurons remain the same throughout our lifetime

    doesn’t this by the way provide biological justification for the non-temoporality of the Unconscious?

    I’m sorry I missed the party, it was a smart and tasteful one. Meantime the Parody Center seems to have been overrun by Serbian geeks who put my comments through Google translate, and I actually agree with my correspondesse that they may be Nick Land’s avatars by now. Time to CLEAN UP.

    Eloise this state of ”perpetual critique” that Red Pimple Cain is describing, was already attempted in Yugoslav socialism. At least in the movies, you could have any number of authors busy with thorough critiques of the system, of the socialist system mind you. But then if you examine these works closely you quickly realize that one part of the productions was ”commercial socialism” (like Hollywood), cheap entertainment for the masses, while the other part was what you’d later call auteur cinema, with Serbian moviemakers examining the system in existential terms. In essence this isn’t very different from developments in capitalist cinema. The point however that most socialists don’t like to remember, is that you could only critisize up to a certain point. Once you’d reach the no-go area, like Makavejev did, offending both Communists and Capitalists, you could end up in Siberia. Maybe the liberal-democratic system of the West merely replaced this hard control with soft control, and that’s still bad, but it’s also still BETTER than ending up in Siberia.

    And then of course we get to the ultimate question, which is, how can a system based on perpetual critique survive without disintegration and destruction. If by perpetually critiquing it reached a state of equilibrium, it would quickly eat itself out from the inside. Critique is fuelled by discontent and friction. All good systems are a little totalitarian!

    Eloise quickly look at THE BOX this one we must discuss thoroughly.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 6 February 2010 @ 7:45 pm

  15. “the non-temoporality of the Unconscious?”

    It might be supposed that really long-lasting cells would have a better sense of time than if they were continually being exchanged for replacement cells. Purportedly the right hemisphere is non-temporal, and also more global and less verbal than the left: perhaps that’s the source of the particular kinds of unconscious processes that psychoanalysis values. Pure speculation though: I know of no empirical support.

    I hadn’t really thought about the “permanent critique” aspect of Reid’s position, being more taken with his thoughts on schizoanalysis and performative praxis . Here’s another contrast, then, between critique and creation as a way of advancing an agenda. Pragmatically speaking, is it possible to promote a positive radical agenda in a place like the US, given the sheer inertia of conservatism and the long odds against successful change? I don’t frequent the political blogs very often, but mostly it’s critique that I encounter.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 6 February 2010 @ 9:43 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: