A question for OJ Board veterans (but anyone, really)
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:05am
I've only been on the board 3 years or so, so I missed a lot of threads from the GWB era. I'm curious how people used to discuss GWB's administration and its policies (if they were discussed at all).
I'm always fascinated by the common practice many people have of consistently criticizing a politician of the opposite party while throwing a politician who they voted for a bone of understanding. Jeff, if you're reading this, I noticed in a recent post complaining about Obama that you included a statement about believing that he initially ran for office in order to help people/do good. I think in general, it's better to avoid painting politician into an extreme corner of being a consistent liar/crook. I don't know anyone whose motives are that simple. Therefore, rather than label Obama as a complete liar, I have to assume that GWB was more complex than many liberals/democrats give him credit for and not a one-dimensional idiot/demon; to acknowledge that Obama has some good intentions that anyone could support/agree with, I feel one must acknowledge that GWB had some as well. Or you can just call them both complete assholes. But you can't treat them different, which seems to be the typical MO of someone who has faith in the bi-partisan system.
If people on this board can reflect: do you notice differences in the way you talk about Obama compared to the way you used to discuss GWB? Are you more sympathetic to one leader over the other? Does that correlate with whether or not you voted for them?
What would it mean to you/your identity to acknowledge that a politician who you voted for truly and intentionally committed unspeakable, unacceptable crimes against the American people and/or the people foreign nations?
Personally, I feel as if the willingness to commit acts is a given for any president. An idealistic candidate would never get the support s/he needs from major corporate contributors unless those businesses were confident in their investment. In Obama's case, he claimed that he was going to change "old Washington" when he was elected, but in reality "old Washington" wouldn't have let him get that far if they felt he was really going to disrupt the status quo.
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:13pm
#2
Goodman and Moynihan need to
Goodman and Moynihan need to duke it out over that.
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:10pm
#3
Perhaps this is a case where
Perhaps this is a case where the opinion matters more than the fact?
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:32pm
#4
There are so many videos of
There are so many videos of people slamming their head on a hard surface that I couldn't decide which one to post.
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:37pm
#5
Jeff weighs in -
To quote Bee K and then respond specifically:
"Jeff, if you're reading this, I noticed in a recent post complaining about Obama that you included a statement about believing that he initially ran for office in order to help people/do good. I think in general, it's better to avoid painting politician into an extreme corner of being a consistent liar/crook. I don't know anyone whose motives are that simple. Therefore, rather than label Obama as a complete liar, I have to assume that GWB was more complex than many liberals/democrats give him credit for and not a one-dimensional idiot/demon..."
I disagree (perhaps not a surprise).
People are "more complex" than a one or two word description, but political positions on the Left and the Right ARE in fact based on a pretty simple philosophical difference, and it's not a matter of Bush or Obama having multiple complex sides. I will phrase it like this:
The Right (Bush etc) believe in survival of the fittest - if you are filthy rich, then you deserve to be. If you are poor and struggling, you deserve to be. "Government" (what the Right likes to call "Big Government" but really just means "Government") is "bad", because government attempts to balance this difference via taxation, essentially giving more of an equal access to resources (education, housing, health care, etc) to all people regardless of whether they "deserve" it. Therefore it is the political philosophy of the Right to be "hands-off" about government - to constantly want to shrink the government - meaning no regulations, no environmental protections, no social programs, and no taxes for the rich. However, the Right is "hands-ON" when it comes to PERSONAL matters - they WILL support government interference in deciding what is officially allowed to be called marriage, for instance. They will block access to abortion and birth control, for instance. They will, in general, impose more Christian conservative religious ideas into society, and they will, in general, support a more aggressive military budget and military policy, believing that might makes right. And again, they support the idea of getting as rich as possible because if you CAN then you deserve to - it is considered "the way of nature", and not to be tampered with.
The Left (Obama etc) believe in the role of government as a means towards greater economic equality, more opportunity for people who would not otherwise have opportunity - like providing financing for education, health care, housing, child care, public transportation, etc. The Left believes in taxation as a means to keep a balance in society so that the inequalities do not get out of hand and detract from the Democratic ideal of one person, one vote, equal say in a society that we can all run and share in together. This may not be "natural" in terms of Darwinian survival - but the Left believes that human beings are not animals, and that we ARE meant to care for each other, despite the fact that some are weaker, rather than let the weaker suffer as a matter of "the harsh facts of nature". The Left also believes in the job of government to safeguard the environment, enforce regulations on industries to make sure they provide safe food, transport, etc. The Right, by contrast, only believes in the "Free Market" as a self-regulating system, outside of the scope of Democratically made decisions to allocate resources or protections. In PERSONAL matters, it is the Left's turn to be "hands off" - reproductive rights, religious rights, sexual rights, these are seen to be outside of the realm of government, and government should not tamper with people's individual freedom to live, love, and worship how they please.
Therefore, I believe that it is entirely correct to take a side with one political side or another, based on your general PHILOSOPHY of life. Is it "survival of the fittest" or is it "everybody get together, try to love one another right now, la la la"? This is NOT a matter of Bush or Obama having "complex" personalities. This is a basic philosophical difference, and I insist on my right to stick by a political side/candidate based on which philosophical side I prefer to live my own life by. Obama stands for the Left (regardless of his success/determination in pushing that agenda so far) and Bush stood for the Right (regardless of whether or not he was an actual idiot/demon).
Each philosophy perhaps makes sense within itself - perhaps neither one is mathematically WRONG, per se. BOTH sides will claim often that the other side's philosophy "does not really work in the real world" - I think both philosophies probably do/do not "work in the real world" equally well/poorly, the difference is this:
Which philosophy creates a goal you personally feel is more morally acceptable to you? Just as an abstract utopian point on the horizon, perhaps never to be reached in full but to be strived towards - as a political moral compass.
No? Is that not the point?
Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:07pm
#6
...
for those of you who don't know, I work for an agency that is funded through NYS medicare dollars, and I am also a local secretary for the Civil Service Employee Association. therefore, i have been unfortunate enough to be involved in lobbying politicians, both officially (like at State legislature offices in Albany) and unofficially (the catering hall schmooze). from experience I can say that talking to (or being talked at) by politicians from either party is frustrating, because they never stop being politicians scrambling for your vote, and therefore end up paying you lip-service or rationalizing their positions in order to appease. however, Jeff is totally right about there being a fundamental difference between left and right. it is no coincidence that Obama started his political career as a community organizer and he leans left. it shouldn't be surprising that Donald Trump leans right.
I went to a town hall meeting recently being held by Republican congressman, Michael Grimm. I've been meaning to blog about my experience there, but i haven't gotten around to it yet. below are links to 2 NY Times articles about it.
Grimm's career is typical for a right wing politician. he was a Marine, an FBI agent and a Wall Street broker. he's a freshman representative who won election last fall with Tea Party support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon4.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=michael%20grimm&st=cse
I think, (on this board) I've seen a lot more criticism of Obama than I ever saw of Bush. But I think I've seen a lot more discussion of politics in general. I think this is a good thing by the way. At last people are more engaged. I feel like everyone just dismissed Bush as a nut and that was it. I feel like a lot of liberals were just fighting to maintain basic cores of our constitution like the separation of church and state and keeping Evolution in high school text books. I think a lot of people got distracted and in a way was how Bush got away with as much that he did. I think Bush's profile Post Presidency says a lot about the job he did. His own party doesn't even want to claim him. Politics is a complex game of compromises. People who can't compromise become religious leaders and TV Chefs. There is plenty I don't like about what Obama has done but if the worst thing you can say about him is that he didn't manage to close Guantanamo then I think he's doing okay.
FYI
"Each person is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"Here to do great things."