A Few Thoughts on Rock’s Barron Piece

I’m not sure I have any great argument with Rock’s Barron column column, which offers a very personal view of the man and what he stands for. It is not necessarily my view, but it is surely a useful one.

Provided Barron’s recent bad news cycles don’t metastasize into something more, he may one day, in a divided field, end up winning the Democratic nomination in a race it would be difficult for the Democrats to lose, and he may end up holding a far more important job.

Can one imaging the delight of Roger Ailes when he can put Charles Barron on Fox News every night as the face of the Democratic Party?

Can you imagine Charles as Borough President, appointing everyone of Brooklyn 900 Community Board slots?

Can you imagine Barron getting to appoint someone to the City Planning Commission?

My how Andre Mitchell’s little groups would grow then. “Man Up” would have a full erection.

Anyway, agree or not, Rock’s piece offers a very useful insight on someone who may yet become something more than a sideshow.

So go read it.

A couple of caveats though:

1) I would be remiss if I did not point out that Rock and I have a very different view concerning the role of Government. I think government should provide certain services, create a strong social safety net, and regulate the market place to protect the interests of consumers, investors, workers and society as a whole. I also think it should, at times intervene in the economy.

In other words, I think the government should be policing the economy, and strongly, but I do not feel it should be running it.

Ironically though, it was I who agreed with Barack Obama about the necessity of quickly passing the admittedly flawed Bush bailout (and saving us from a depression), while Rock opposed it.

It is clear that Rock’s brand of “liberalism,” if it can even be called that, favors a somewhat larger role for government programmatically (though given what's possible in the current lay of the land, these distinctions may be purely theoretical), and a far larger role in directing, rather than regulating (and intervening in emergencies) in the economy than would my brand of “liberalism.”

Contrary to the opinions of “ The Jig is Up Atlas,” we are different kinds of liberals (whodda thunk?), or as “The Jig” might put it, different types of Communists.

2) I take great issue with some of what is said in these two paragraphs (and think they disfigure the piece), and may respond in the near future, but will not dwell upon them here, except to make clear that when I speak kindly of this piece, I am not talking about this:

“My future in blogging is another story anyway. Lots of folks are asking me to keep writing. Many claim they want to hear my voice; others say I will be sorely missed; but the level of disrespect coming from many on these sites leaves me very little wiggle room. Sure I could ignore the constant (possibly racist) attacks; or I can go into the underground for justice and/or my mental health; or I can deal with dispensing justice in my own way(s) -since this is always a natural option: no matter how extreme; or I could keep appealing to others to be decent and humane (probably no avail); or I could keep appealing to the editors and powers that be -over and again; or I could become an occasional contributor (and probably still be subjected to this crap); or I can do any of the many things I identified as options in my last column. Look; time will tell. There are conversations going on that may even force me out of this sphere anyway. [EDITOR’S NOTE: if this means a job on someone’s payroll, I sincerely express my best wishes for good luck].

All I am asking again is this: just let me keep my comments-section closed for now. That’s all I ask. It is my prerogative. It is truly a simple request of my editors. Plus, I have requested that they stop him from acting as a fool ; since I don’t need to be disrespected by someone who will go up and open a deliberately-provocative comments-section so that others could flame me with all kinds of nonsensical personal attacks. The constant constant stream of invectives has no place in the political discourse we have tried to develop here. Sure there are those who defend me personally (and my political honor), but it shouldn’t have to be like this column after column after column: COME ON NOW!”