Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
C'mon, DT...we're waiting for our favorite daily post of yours....the one with a boring SI swimsuit hottie that means you have left for the day. Sucky as those pics might be, knowing that it signifies your departure makes them well worth it.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Ziiiing.. oh.. I'm sooo hurt.
Post up some lovely ladies. Thats all you seem to be good for.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Weak. But worth it. C-ya!
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
No. Sorry. The left started government interference of private sector business in the 1930s...
Interesting, Donald. Any ideas on what might have precipitated government regulation of business in the '30s?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
An article I read this morning got me to thinking about how the negative campaigning and public messasges of both parties -- and every fringe group -- is hurting the current chance for recovery.
In ranking world economies, one negative the Davos folks cited in the United States economy was a mistrust of everyone in government and everyone in business. It seems that our attempts to demonize our opponents are working on all sides; a large portion of the population believes that everyone in charge of anything is evil, incompetent, greedy and untrustworthy. This lack of institutional trust is exacting a price in terms of economic activity as everyone hunkers down anticipating further attacks from each other.
I also glanced at an Op Ed piece about the myth of right-wing ideological purity. The author's point was that every successful conservative leader made compromises, rather than adhering to some "pure" version of conservative dogma.
As I view the contemporary political scence, I see much of both of these phenomena. The Obama administration has essentially continued the Bush policies in the Middle East, and finally started to rein in some of particularly costly regulations it adopted. For this, the right remains scornful, and now the left condemns him for his ideological apostasy.
As Republican candidates line up for their chance at the nomination, each states policies that look like they come from a religious creed, not from a coherent policy of governance. Heaven help a Republican candidate that speaks kindly of hard-working but undocumented aliens, or a Democratic one who supports free trade or gloablization. Meanwhile, the press concentrates on finding flaws, as if being imperfect disqualifies one from office. We had only one perfect One, and we crucified Him.
For all of Obama's worrisomely low poll numbers, I still think he wins easily against any Republican candidate, announced or otherwise, who adheres to the economic and social conservative orthodoxy without deviation. Independent and moderate voters want someone who has sufficient skepticism in any dogma to be willing to change if their initial policies prove to be sub-optimal. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, there's nothing virtuous about keeping your feet in wet cement.
Reading Romney's 59-point plan on the economy, as an example, tells me nothing, since he avoids committing to any tough choices, while, at the same time, doesn't seem to have a plan for mid-course corrections. If a Republican candidate emerges who can articulate a position for something rather than against it, however, that candidate could be quite formidable.
I wish there were a way to focus debate on real policy differences -- not the straw men and caricatures we so doggedly, and seemingly fondly, use here and in national discussions. In particular, I'd wish we could debate which policies are best, and acknowledge their strengths, because I'm sure there will be plenty of people to point out which policies are worst, and point out their weaknesses.
Any ideas how we do this?
John
P.S. I must have been distracted, because I had to correct several typos upon re-reading this after I posted it. Apologies to any literate reader who waded through it before the corrections.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Any ideas how we do this?
Eliminate elections. Everyone is required to enter a lottery. Everyone who is picked in the lottery has to serve a term in political office or go to jail.
Professional lobbying made a capital offense.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Any ideas how we do this?
Not a single one John. Jstan has been talking about this for 2 years. Nothing seems to work.
This whole notion that repubs love business so much that they will sink america in greed, or that dems love government so much that they will sink America is socialism is all just nonsense.
Of course if we keep repeating it, then it will happen, as evidenced in the past by many different movements. The dems did go overboard with socialistic programs 40 years ago, and only finally started waking up under Clinton. Then the republicans went overboard with their push for deregulation with the culmination hopefully being George Bush. I don't yet see a republican standing up and saying we need sound regulation. Clinton was the Dems proof that most dems believe in sound government, and balanced budgets. But most of what I hear coming from the republicans are slogans like deregulation, smaller government, anti socialism ect.
Until they realize that we need sound government, and a sound tax plan, and a sound military plan, I doubt I will listen to the republicans.
Edit.. and I'm tired of being labeled and demonized, which is why I started demonizing the right. I don't know how to stop it. I would listen to you, but even you get your digs in, as though no liberal knows a thing about running a business.
double Edit: and before someone like Fatty or TGT chimes in and says that some democrat signed the deregulation bill that helped create this latest mess, I hope people will try to understand that just because it was signed by a dem doesn't really mean anything. The push for deregulation starts with the republicans. The dems just jump on board to try to keep power. Just as the republicans do with social programs. Ie.. medicare paid for prescription meds.
The problem is that neither side is really creating sound government. The repubs pushed through prescription meds, which I believe is a good thing, but they didn't allow for bulk competitive buying, which was a costly mistake driven by the corporations.
Each side is responsible for the message it preaches, because once the people start voting in that direction, both parties jump on the bandwagon.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Any ideas how we do this?"
You're asking this group how to improve the tone of discourse?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I wish there were a way to focus debate on real policy differences -- not the straw men and caricatures we so doggedly, and seemingly fondly, use here and in national discussions. In particular, I'd wish we could debate which policies are best, and acknowledge their strengths, because I'm sure there will be plenty of people to point out which policies are worst, and point out their weaknesses.
An excellent idea. Over the century from the 1890s to the 1970s, the US painfully formed a consensus on key national goals - a 'soft' imperial power, the social contract, military strength, reasonable equality, regulation of corporations and their influence, and so on. A consensus forged out of the Gilded Age, the depression of the 1890s, the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt, the First World War, the second Gilded Age of the 1920s, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. Republicans and their fellow travellers have been trying to destroy that consensus for the last 30 years, but have no vision to replace it, and indeed simple greed and fear underlie much of what they want. They also forget that you can't go back, as Bruce's post so wittily points out. The position of the US has declined dramatically in the last decade, largely due to incompetence on the part of Bush II. Shouldn't your country be having an honest discussion as to what's next, and how you will get there? Rather than absurd name calling, fatuous calls for tax cuts (tax redistribution, more like), and so forth?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
It's not demonization if the conclusions are factual. Obama was a student of and and believer in the concepts of Saul Alinsky, an avowed socialist.
But not all socialism is bad. That is where the demonization has come in. Plus Obama has proven to be more right, then left. But you are an extremist in wanting to do away with all social programs, such as social security, thus you can't accept that most republicans would favor keeping social security.
Socialism isn't all bad. Until you figure that out, then I doubt you and I will ever agree on anything.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Personal responsibility rather than nanny state.
This is demonization.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
( How about saving for care in the senior years instead of buying gear or roadtrips???)
Ummm.. we do.. through social security and medicare taxes. Its just going to be a problem because of the baby boomers, but we can get through that problem. Especially if we stop wasting money on needless war and the largest military in history.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Sorry, Fats - if you want to destroy the social contract formed over the last century in response to rapidly changing economic and social circumstances, you need to have something to replace it that will work better. The Republicans clearly don't - their hyper-partisan response to Obama's health care 'reforms' are just one example.
Very little that the US government does could be described as being a nanny state - although its coddling of the wealthy and the military might.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Anders,
I think both sides have endeavored to destroy that consensus. There were some very good reasons for needing change. To use John M's example, deregulation came about because of a consensus that much regulation of industry -- particularly the ICC-type regulation of railroads and trucks and the CAB regulation of passenger air service -- was inherently contradictory and, more importantly, hurt both competition and consumers. Alfred Kahn, in charge during the Carter administration, was one of the leading intellectual lights in the movement.
I think there are still plenty of issues on financial deregulation that remain unfinished, but the idea that Republicans want to deregulate everything is just as silly as the idea that the Democrats want to regulate everything and deregulate nothing. We disagree on specific regulations, but there remains a consensus that we need intelligent governmental involvement to optimize the economy.
Similarly, I think a consensus remains in this country, if not in all parts of the Republican party, that Social Security and Medicare serve a legitimate and vital function. That said, pointing out that they are actuarily insolvent does not mean that I -- or any one else (such as the trustee's of the Social Security Trust Fund) -- don't believe that it is vital. Rather, we're arguing that if we want to keep it, we need to fix it.
Similarly, I think Democrats and Republicans both agree that spending increases and tax cuts can stimulate the economy. I also think that both think that increasing national income, and particularly increasing income of those who work, is a good thing. We disagree on the means and effectiveness of the policy prescriptions, and sometimes that disagreement spills over into demonizing "the rich," "unions," "Wall Street," or the villain du jour.
And yes, John M, I get my digs in. Mea culpa although I have lots of company. Then again, as Pratt so wonderfully said in "The View from Deadhorse Point," spreading the guilt in the hope that the punishment will be less severe was the logic of Nuremberg. That didn't work so well for the defendants, so I'll try to do better.
And yes, apogee, I am asking this forum for ideas. After all, in Roper's words, climbers are, by and large, intelligent.
John
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
I mostly agree with you, but right now your party isn't being run by the middle of the road conservatives. Its being run by the Fatties of the world, and they are extremists. Its part of why the republicans don't have one decent candidate right now, and a couple of the real nuts have pretty good chances of getting your parties nomination.
the left had to reeducate its members to understand that balanced budgets were good. I wrote lots of letters to the democrat leadership to help push that understanding to the forefront and make them understand that we also wanted that. I also had to talk to loads and loads of liberal friends about the need for fiscal responsibility.
What is the right doing to currently to make sure its extremist ideas don't control things? On this forum you are the only seemly moderate conservative, and you rarely speak up to Fattie. In fact it appears to me that you mostly agree with him, because you only ever address him when you agree with him. So how is the right going to moderate its extremists so you can get a decent candidate that doesn't scare the bejeesus out of me?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
fattrad wrote:
It's not demonization if the conclusions are factual.
But your conclusions aren't factual. The fact is that Obama is governing from a center right position, and as stated above, he's continued the Bush doctrine with regard to foreign policy and national security.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
fattrad wrote:
Repubs do have a vision, very clearly stated.
Personal responsibility rather than nanny state.
Eliminate nanny Social Security for individual retirement accounts (anyone ever buy bonds?????)
Eliminate nanny state Medicare ( How about saving for care in the senior years instead of buying gear or roadtrips???)
Republicans are only for some vague notion of personal responsibility when it comes to what they perceive as "others" but never when it comes to themselves. Otherwise the right would have been all for letting the banks fail, except that it was a Republican administration that signed the bail-out bill. Also the right would finally shut its collective cakehole with regard to homosexuality, religion, and all other things personal.
As far as budgets go, what about significantly cutting the corporate welfare teat called the defense budget? Cut it by at 2/3 and leave Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and both short and long term budget problems are solved.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!