I haven't taken the time to investigate who Unger is. His points of criticism, as quoted by Cranius, are dead-on. I'd challenge anyone on the PRF to rise against the points quoted. Anyone who did would reveal herself as a hardcore reactionary. But that leads us to Cranius's own reply:
Cranius wrote:Arguing that the Democrats need to be defeated in order for the party to be reconstructed -- as Unger does -- is pretty bizarre. Things can get an awful lot worse, as they're likely to under Romney.
The whole fucking point--the big enchilada--is that the problem isn't a matter of personnel or party: it's systemic. It's political-economic. The sick transparency of the Obama Administration being not just Wall-St shills but expansionist national security state hardasses, expanding neocon policy--mass-murdering dark-skinned common people (including children you fucking liberals) every month--is plain for any rational human being to see.
It's fucking plain as day. And you can oppose it or not.
Many rational human beings, who love poetry and have graduate degrees, look the other way. They crawl up the walls of this message board. That's how ideology works. Technocrats like Wood Goblin continue to stand behind war crimes and injustice, without owning up to the fact that's what they're doing.
And Harvard scholars like Unger make incisive--necessary--points against the Obama Admin while making juvenile, historically myopic arguments about how the worse electoral outcomes go, the better electoral politics will become.
And that's because all the genius and learning of 6-figure faculty in Ivy League institutions is precisely why such people are never political mentors. I was smart enough and scholarly enough to be welcomed into 1st-tier US PhD programs. And I left, because when I got involved in labor organizing on campus none of my supposed intellectual mentors stood with us. Not one.