Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThomPete | Hacker News Reader

The point of michael_nielsens comment has to be seen in the context it was posted. To tell the majority if the comments that it's easy to just critique but har to do things.

In that context it was actually a pretty relevant quote.

Someone putting themselves out no matter whether it turns good or bad always requires something most people don't have. It's rarely elegant or clean. Mostly just brute force and that of course have good and bad outcomes.

Normandy was bruteforce and in many ways ill-advised and a lot of men was lost in that battle, but luckily the germans kind of got caught of guard without their best general in the area.

Most are just here for the ride.

View on HN

Of course it's easy to "just be a critique". But critiques of Lessig aren't "just critiques".

Lessig's critics understand something Lessig himself seems not to: his campaign is quixotic, his goal of being a "single-issue President" is incoherent given the structure of the US government, and, in a close election year, his prospects of somehow acting as a spoiler for the party he purports to support are far greater than his prospects of actually being an agent for change.

You're welcome to disagree with any or all of that, but I don't think you can say that they don't constitute a colorable argument, and you can't dismiss them as insubstantial points. Which is, of course, the implication of the actual words quoted upthread!

It's not enough just to "put yourself out there". Anyone who does anything dramatic, good or bad, is "putting themselves out there". Boldness makes for good copy, but can't reasonably be taken as a shield from commentary.

Whether or not you agree with this it has always been the core message of Lessig's campaign: Getting special interest money out of politics should be first priority, and until we get enough citizens to care about that, it'll be extremely difficult to pass legislation that goes against any special interest.

Yes, his strategy for getting the message out was broken, but he understands his campaign was quixotic in its initial state (referendum president), and has since agreed the idea was "stupid". Since the beginning, he made known what he really wanted, at a minimum, was the chance to make this issue more of a priority among all candidates.

This is just my opinion, but being a "spoiler" for the party never really appeared to be a likely outcome for Lessig, nor did being an agent for change. The only prospect he ever really had was one of failure. Failure to deliver his message to the masses. And it's a shame, because I think a grass roots movement focused on this message might be successful with the right person and strategy behind it.

People on "our" side of the ideological spectrum are going to have an unpleasant reckoning soon with the fact that the governing that really matters happens at the state and local level. State office campaigns build a back-bench for federal politics, and the states actually do serve as laboratories for democracy, and most of the rulemaking people come into contact with are state and city rules, not federal ones.

If you want to fight corruption in politics, start by finding a way to do it in your city or state, and then try to get the idea to spread to other states. That's how cannabis is going to end up legalized; it's how death- with- dignity legislation will happen; it's also how the GOP is going to carve out reproductive health rights.

Liberals suck at this. We control a fraction of the state legislatures that the GOP does and we haven't managed to leverage control over urban centers to mitigate that.

Meanwhile, the "outsider" liberals all tilt at federal windmills. What did Lessig think was going to happen in the parallel universe where he won? The President doesn't set campaign finance policy.

He could have run for a state government office and won.

Evidence that you are correct that the focus should be on state legislatures: Matt Yglesias's Vox story, "Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble." http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trou...

Wow, and here I thought I was just parroting a line Josaiah Bartlett had about school board elections in New Hampshire.

Whether nationally or at the state level, it helps the movement to have a figure on the presidential stage doing everything they can to bring special interest issues to light. Lessig's strategy was wrong, but don't think its failure should cause those after him to be discouraged. Although he probably would've had better success running for state office, Citizens United needs to be reversed, and I don't think a state-by-state movement while giving the issue little attention nationally is enough.

Although the example of marijuana legislation gaining momentum is relevant, I think it's incomparable as corruption and campaign finance reform legislation would have loads more money invested by special interest groups to oppose it.

I think it's a tough fight to be waged at any level, and the more exposure given to it the better.

And armchair liberals sit back and whine in their elitist towers. "You're doing it wrong!!!!!"

Thats an opinion you are entitled to have but which I do not share.

Politics is the art the possible and sometimes it takes several years for something to gain momentum, something that often starts in futile attempts and yes often ends with not succeeding. But once in a blue moon it does and that is the important part.

You keep arguing as if there is a right way to think about these things. If that is your claim then I do not share that belief.

Doing is the only way of discovering.

That there are plenty of people that do obvious stupid things which end bad in hindsight does not cancel out that there are plenty of people who do obvious stupid things and in hindsight succeed.

We have plenty of critical thinkers in this world, it's the constructive thinkers we lack.

No. Stop. I'm not telling you to agree with me about Lessig. I'm saying that you can't suppress my critique of Lessig by arguing that criticisms is easy, and starting a doomed Presidential campaign is hard. You know what else is hard? Perpetual motion. I get to criticize people for trying that too.

Who is suppressing anything here?

Michael_nielsen simply referenced a quote because there was a lot of critique from people who have no stake in lessigs attempt and so I guess Michael felt the urge to point that it's easy to critique and even if people fails, even obviously it's quite a lot more impressive that they even try than the million of reviewers out there.

The comment I was referring to, took issue with that quote and as far as I can see TR. And have nothing to do with Lessig.

So if you want to stop anything then please stop that strawman.

No one is suppressing yours or anyones critique of lessig, but just like you are entitled to have an opinion about him I am entitled to have one about the critique of TRs quote.

That's the intent behind the quote upthread you're defending. This part of the thread is getting pretty boring, though.

No it's not an attempt at that. Its simply putting a welcome perspective on things since everyone was busy second guessing without having any stakes. He simply tried to enrich the discussion and IMO did.

Claiming someone is trying to suppress your critique, when no one is, now IS the "Peak HN" though :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com