Jewish Politics

[bunsinspace]

...I agree that a McCain term would not be 4 more years of Bush. ...

BS"D

Yet I cannot conclude from any available evidence that 4 years of McCain would NOT not be 4 more years of Bush for all practical purposes on the basis of foreign and domestic policy where the action of the President directly affects those policies.  That is especially true in light of the many long-term changes already effected by Bush that will not change regardless of which sucessor is installed (appointments, engagement in war, permanent loss of civil freedoms, permanent loss of medical and intelligence data, etc.). 

Whoever gets in will be doing hard core latrine duty cleaning up Bush' mess for at LEAST their entire first term IMHO.  In that regard, the FURTHER from Republican dogma the BETTER.

[VLinvictus]

Is there a good reason why you used [sic] next to "terrorist leaders"?

Yes. I presume you are referring to Ahmadinejad. He is not a "terrorist leader." He may sponsor and abet terrorism, but he is the head of government of a sovereign nation and not, for example, the leader of a terrorist organization. If that is not to whom you were referring, I apologize.

So, again:

1.) What's so great about a free market that allows people to be fired and lose their income and livelihood not for incompetence of poor performance but simply because they are no longer profitable to their supposed betters?

2.) What do you mean by "preconditions"

and

3.) What does conferencing with "terrorist leaders" without said preconditions have to do with "liberalism?" I suppose it would be helpful to know what your definition of "liberalism" is, as well, because conferences with terrorist leaders do not seem to me to be connected with a political worldview that stresses freedom of the individual, holds that true freedom cannot be enjoyed so long as individuals suffer from financial or social hardship, that the government is the tool and servant of the people and can and ought to be used to marshal resources of society for the benefit of the whole.

[metis]

Believe it or not, Bush is not as conservative as they come. 

 

One of the disappointments for many was that Bush was much more moderate as governor than as President.  Bush became the idol of the neo-cons, and he only started shifting somewhat more left when it became clear that he wasn't doing well in the polls.  But then "left" and "right" are rather relative positions, so compared to some neo-cons, Bush is a flaming socialist.

Right, but I would rather a president be weak on economics than on foreign policy for one simple reason -- the free market doesn't need much help from the federal government.  I think many Americans share my concern about Obama foreign policy comments pertaining to a conference with terrorist leaders without preconditions.  That is liberalism at its finest. 

On the contrary.  We have a great many problems that we have to deal with, which includes items such as illegal immigration, Social Security reform, decaying infrastructure, health care concerns, etc., and we simply need to deal with these problems since a free market economy will not deal with them on its own.

[VLinvictus]

One of the disappointments for many was that Bush was much more moderate as governor than as President.  Bush became the idol of the neo-cons, and he only started shifting somewhat more left when it became clear that he wasn't doing well in the polls.  But then "left" and "right" are rather relative positions, so compared to some neo-cons, Bush is a flaming socialist.

Does anyone recall the nauseatingly enamored adulation heaped on Bush around 2000, how he's a man of character and doesn't base his decision on polls? Heh.

On the contrary.  We have a great many problems that we have to deal with, which includes items such as illegal immigration, Social Security reform, decaying infrastructure, health care concerns, etc., and we simply need to deal with these problems since a free market economy will not deal with them on its own.

I'm still waiting to have it explained what a "conference with terrorist leaders without preconditions" has to do with "liberalism."

I don't understand why a "conference" should alarm anyone. A "conference" imposes no obligations on the participant nations. If treaties were involved, then there would be cause for caution and alarm, but no harm ever came from having a "conference." There's 99.9% chance it won't do any good, but it wouldn't do any harm either and one wouldn't have the option of that potential 0.1% chance of some benefit without trying.

[metis]

I'm still waiting to have it explained what a "conference with terrorist leaders without preconditions" has to do with "liberalism."

It's just a smokescreen.  The current administration, through Rice, has had some contact and discussions with the Iranians, and I think it's rather obvious that there wouldn't be any high level talks by Bush or Obama unless there's a possibility of some substantive results being possible

[Thorolf]

The polls? Really?

Come on, metis... there's just no support for that assertion. Bush has always been more centrist, as Governor AND as President. I think you may be thinking of NCLB (which is FAR from right wing) and the Faith-Based Initiatives in your assessment of Bush's conservatism, but the initiatives is just one project - and really isn't all that conservative in and of itself, either.

What else was he so conservative on that makes you think he changed his positions because of the polls? And why haven't the polls been a factor since then?

As for conferencing - it's all about status. It's not unreasonable to sit down with ANYBODY and try to get what you want from them - unless there is more at stake than simply a diplomatic meeting.

The US has a stake in maintaining the longstanding policy of not engaging in direct diplomatic relations with what it considers "rogue states." And as long as we have something those countries want (money), there is some measure of influence in that policy.

Rogue states, like Iran, would LOVE for us to offer (or as they would present it - come groveling for) a resumption of some level of diplomatic relations, such as a face-to-face discussion without any requirements or preconditions. It's a huge status symbol to them, to have forced the US hegemon (regardless if that's how *we* view it) to come to the negotiating table on THEIR terms. It legitimizes them and their tactics that prompted the State Department to label them "rogue" in the first place.

So while, on the surface, there is nothing wrong with sitting down and talking about things, the "other stuff" has to be mitigated as part of the "game" of international relations.

Of course, we also can't just give rogue states tons of cash, food, supplies, nuclear reactors and training WITHOUT enforceable standards that must first be met, just on the lick and promise that they will do, without sufficient verification, what we ask.

[Howiedds]

VL:

Why is the free market a good thing?

Because it is the system that is most conducive to freedom. Your Marxism requires a dicatatorial regime that forcibly takes away civil rights including ownership rights of the individual. It stifles individual responsibility and innovation. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is the recipe for mediocrity. We have seen it all across the world during the 20th century. Without the promise of personal gain, people only do what is necessary, not what is excellent. In the middle of the 20th century, 90% of the agricultural products were produced by the 2% of privately owned land in the former Soviet Union. When I was in the Army, I served with 80 other dentists. We were all getting the same check from Uncle Sugar. Most couldn't wait to do as little as they could on each trooper they saw for their hour appointment so they could play buck yuker in the lounge. (A few of us both realized the learning opportunity it was right out of dental school and had rachmunis for the boys who were leaving for 'Nam. ) They could never had made it in the real world of private practice if they were that lazy and uncaring, but their checks never changed regardless of their efforts.

What's so great about a system that allows people to lose their  income and livelihood through the whim of the invisible hand?

That is not to say that unbridled capitalism does not have its abuses. Extremes of anything reach a point of harm. But we don't have unbridled capitalism. Perhaps we don't have enough safeguards: universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, daycare, etc.  But as Winston Churchill said about Democracy we can say about capitalism. It's the worst economic system except for all the others.

[Acumen]

Is there a good reason why you used [sic] next to "terrorist leaders"?

Yes. I presume you are referring to Ahmadinejad. He is not a "terrorist leader." He may sponsor and abet terrorism, but he is the head of government of a sovereign nation and not, for example, the leader of a terrorist organization. If that is not to whom you were referring, I apologize.

Using [sic] next to my designation of Ahmadinejad is only appropriate if I misspelled a word or if I used an uncommon variant of a word.  It's sort of derogatory, in my opinion.  If you question why I used the designation "terrorist leaders" for the Iranian president, then just question it or even challenge it, but don't use academic snootiness in an attempt to belittle me.

So, again:

1.) What's so great about a free market that allows people to be fired and lose their income and livelihood not for incompetence of poor performance but simply because they are no longer profitable to their supposed betters?

That's sort of an interesting take on capitalism.  I liked Elluminati's response to you where he said, "Ask the millions of people trying to break down our boarders so that they can be a part of it?".

What I like about his response, in particular, is his choice of focus.  Your choice of focus is clearly negative.  There is no attempt at a cost/benefit analysis, but rather only a cost analysis.  This is quite similar to anti-Bushites limiting their assessment of the war in Iraq to US fatalities.  Elluminati caught this rather arbitrary focus, and presented an epigrammatic point that focuses on the flip-side. 

2.) What do you mean by "preconditions"

For this answer, you should refer to Thorolf's most recent post.  I think he does a good job discussing it.

3.) What does conferencing with "terrorist leaders" without said preconditions have to do with "liberalism?"

Liberalism starts with a conception of humanity that presents us in more noble terms than conservatism.  Liberalism presupposes that humans are capable of being led by the light of reason almost unaffected by our animalistic passions.  Obama, in my opinion, revealed his naked liberalism by publicly stating it in terms of foreign policy.  His presumption, as I see it, is that terrorist leaders  (or as you prefer, sponsors of terrorism) like Ahmadinejad would naturally do what reason suggests in spite of his culturally-shaped passions to destroy western ideologies and religions.  To me, that's not only wrong in a practical sense, but just political naivety.   

[VLinvictus]

Because it is the system that is most conducive to freedom.

Freedom is overrated. I would gladly trade some supposed economic freedom -- which I have yet to benefit from anyway -- for the guarantee of never going hungry or being homeless.

It stifles individual responsibility

I'm all for individual responsibility. I just don't think that people's lives should depend on the market.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is the recipe for mediocrity.

Mediocrity is the best we can hope for, and it's a damn sight better than awfulness.

Without the promise of personal gain, people only do what is necessary, not what is excellent.

What if all our material needs -- food, medicine, consumer goods, etc -- could be produced by robotics and automation -- so no one would need to spend 8 hours a day or more doing a job they probably don't really have all that much interest in just to make enough money to pay the rent and put food on the table? What if each person did not have to worry about where their next meal was coming from or how they were going to make ends meet this month, and could devote their time and energy on things they enjoy? Surely, there are people who are interested in science and technology and medicine because it interests them and lets them develop and express their talents and abilities, lets' them be more fully themselves. Would not praise and adulation, of increased social status and public respect, be enough of a personal gain  -- not to mention the thrill of finding out something new or solving a problem that has baffled others -- be enough if everyone's food and housing and other basic needs were already met?

People like playing board games and doing crossword puzzles and such, even though now money is gained from completing them. People paint and sculpt and garden because it gives them pleasure even though they don't sell their works or make money off them. People like to build things and tinker with cars and machines because they enjoy it, even if the only benefit it their own satisfaction. It is foolish to say that people only do things because they get paid for it.

So, you had your dentists who did the least they could to get by. Did they really want to be dentists? Did dental work speak to their souls and fill them with personal satisfaction? Was dentistry fun for them? Obviously not. Perhaps there is something else they would rather have done, but they got into dentistry because it was available, they had the skill if not the drive, etc. But think how many potential doctors, scientists, poets, artists, etc. never get the chance to actualize their talents because they're stuck pushing papers in an office or flipping burgers in a fast-food restaruant -- they have to whore themselves out to jobs they don't love just to pay the bills.

We can do better. We have the technology. All we need is the will to implement it.

You're probably going to get applause from Acumen et al. on this post. 

[VLinvictus]

Using [sic] next to my designation of Ahmadinejad is only appropriate if I misspelled a word or if I used an uncommon variant of a word.  It's sort of derogatory, in my opinion.  If you question why I used the designation "terrorist leaders" for the Iranian president, then just question it or even challenge it, but don't use academic snootiness in an attempt to belittle me.

You use academic snootiness in attempts to belittle me. Fair is fair. But that wasn't my intent. I used [sic] to indicate that the term "terrorist leaders" was thus your text.

That's sort of an interesting take on capitalism.  I liked Elluminati's response to you where he said, "Ask the millions of people trying to break down our boarders so that they can be a part of it?".

Moreover, this response is irrelevant. The "millions of people trying to break down our boarders [sic] so that they can be a part of it" are not fleeing from some other form of economic organization to the glorious paradise of a free market. They have free markets in Mexico and Latin America and Africa, etc. In a sense, the markets in those parts of the world are even more "free" than ours because they don't have pesky things like labor laws and safety standards -- which are government intrustion into the freedom of the market. No, they are trying to come to this country because for a variety of historical circumstances -- not in the least the vast natural resources of our territory -- there is a greater quanity of capital requiring valorization through labor here than, say, in Mexico. That is, of course, the product of a "free market" world system -- the enrichment of one country can only come at the expense of others.

What I like about his response, in particular, is his choice of focus.  Your choice of focus is clearly negative.  There is no attempt at a cost/benefit analysis, but rather only a cost analysis.  This is quite similar to anti-Bushites limiting their assessment of the war in Iraq to US fatalities.  Elluminati caught this rather arbitrary focus, and presented an epigrammatic point that focuses on the flip-side.

Well, isn't that super-duper wonderful for him? Maybe when he's not performing brain surgery we can have a ticker-tape parade for him so all the world knows how special he is.  

For this answer, you should refer to Thorolf's most recent post.  I think he does a good job discussing it.

I was not asking Thorolf. I was asking you. Are you Thorolf?

Liberalism starts with a conception of humanity that presents us in more noble terms than conservatism.  Liberalism presupposes that humans are capable of being led by the light of reason almost unaffected by our animalistic passions.

Then how do you explain me, a liberal who thinks humanity is nothing more than plague on the face of the earth, that humans are essentially selfish loathesome vile creatures that probably ought to be extinct, and that you can't trust anyone any further than you spit or else they'll stab you in the back as soon as you turn it? I don't believe humanity can be "led by reason" and I don't think there's anything noble about Homo sapiens whatsoever.

Obama, in my opinion, revealed his naked liberalism by publicly stating it in terms of foreign policy.  His presumption, as I see it, is that terrorist leaders  (or as you prefer, sponsors of terrorism) like Ahmadinejad would naturally do what reason suggests in spite of his culturally-shaped passions to destroy western ideologies and religions.  To me, that's not only wrong in a practical sense, but just political naivety.

You think he was actually being honest? Wow. Who's the naive one trusting presenting humanity in more noble terms!

[Howiedds]

Buns:

Yet I cannot conclude from any available evidence that 4 years of McCain would NOT not be 4 more years of Bush for all practical purposes on the basis of foreign and domestic policy where the action of the President directly affects those policies.  

I am ready to assume that 4 years of McCain will not be the same as Bush only in regards to his ability to govern. The dislike I had for Bush went beyond his policies. They were bad enough, but I was able to live with Reagan, Bush Senior and could have lived with Dole. What drives me crazy is his inability to do the job, leaving it up to those around him who he picked more for their loyalty and how long he knew them than for their ability.  He had no sense of the world and its history. He actually thought he could just cowboy up and ignore our allies and everyone else outside his small circle on insiders.

That is especially true in light of the many long-term changes already effected by Bush that will not change regardless of which sucessor is installed (appointments, engagement in war, permanent loss of civil freedoms, permanent loss of medical and intelligence data, etc.).

I agree that whoever gets in will have their hands full.  

[i}Whoever gets in will be doing hard core latrine duty cleaning up Bush' mess for at LEAST their entire first term IMHO.  In that regard, the FURTHER from Republican dogma the BETTER. [/i]

McCain would not have done the harm that Bush did, and I don't think he will continue to do the harm that Bush did. But as my preference is the Democrats, I agree that it would be better if they were in the White House.

[Howiedds]

metis:

One of the disappointments for many was that Bush was much more moderate as governor than as President.

Yes, he was. Everyone thought of him as just a nice guy, and he probably is. But Texas governors have almost no power other than the power of appointment. The legislature runs the show. the speaker of our house has more power than the governor. Bush just got in over his head as President. He had no life experience to prepare him for the job. He has no sense of history, no world view beyond the Red River, and was putty in the hands of those around him.

[metis]

Bush has always been more centrist, as Governor AND as President.

Then we're certainly defining "centrist" from totally different perspectives.

 

What else was he so conservative on that makes you think he changed his positions because of the polls? And why haven't the polls been a factor since then?

You don't think that politicians follow polls?  Of course they do, and they well know that they must take them seriously.  Of course they tend to deny as such when the polls show them down (what a surprise, eh!).  According to Woodward, and I've seen enough to believe he's probably right, Bush in recent years has taken more the position that he's made his mark and that history will eventually vindicate him and his decisions.

As for conferencing - it's all about status. It's not unreasonable to sit down with ANYBODY and try to get what you want from them - unless there is more at stake than simply a diplomatic meeting...  

Again, reread my last post whereas I said that neither Bush nor Obama would likely have high level meetings unless something substantive were to be possible.  What we've seen in regards to attacking Obama on this point is simply nonsensical politics, which both sides do of course.    

[metis]

Yes, he was. Everyone thought of him as just a nice guy, and he probably is. But Texas governors have almost no power other than the power of appointment. The legislature runs the show. the speaker of our house has more power than the governor. Bush just got in over his head as President. He had no life experience to prepare him for the job. He has no sense of history, no world view beyond the Red River, and was putty in the hands of those around him.

I didn't realize that the power of the governor was so limited in Texas.  Man, it must be tough living in such an uncivilized state.     Hey, the offer of coming up to my place in the U.P. is still on the board, so anytime you wish to defect, just let me know. 

[Howiedds]

VL:

Freedom is overrated.

And that from someone who has never known anything but freedom.

I would gladly trade some supposed economic freedom -- which I have yet to benefit from anyway -- for the guarantee of never going hungry or being homeless.

No system can guarantee that, but ours affords you the opportunity of gaining its benefits, even if you have not achieved them. You sound bright enough. Why haven't you been able to achieve more? Is there something about you that holds you back or is it the mean old system?

I'm all for individual responsibility. I just don't think that people's lives should depend on the market.

People's lives depend on their own efforts. I don't like being pushed into a corner of "I'm ok, you're ok." I think we need to do more about safety nets for health care, education, and the necessities of food and shelter without proposing the tyranny of socialism that robs people of the incentive to better themselves.

Mediocrity is the best we can hope for, and it's a damn sight better than awfulness.

We disagree about it being the best we can hope for. Many of us enjoy more than mediocre and would like to help others get there as well. If we shoot for mediocre, that's where we will all be.

What if...

No such world exists. Everything you are calling for requires hard work, work that is rewarded in this "awful" system of ours.

It is foolish to say that people only do things because they get paid for it.

People do things because they are rewarded in many different ways for the things they do. But people don't usually perform to their utmost in a socialist society where there doesn't seem to be any recognition for their efforts.

So, you had your dentists who did the least they could to get by.

Most people do no more when they are "guaranteed" no more recognition, financial or otherwise, than anyone else. If you don't like that, take it up with 3 million years of genetics.

 But think how many potential doctors, scientists, poets, artists, etc. never get the chance to actualize their talents because they're stuck pushing papers in an office or flipping burgers in a fast-food restaruant -- they have to whore themselves out to jobs they don't love just to pay the bills.

What stopped them?

We can do better. We have the technology. All we need is the will to implement it.

Every generation can do better.
Exactly what do you want guaranteed for yourself? Exactly what can anyone do for you to give you the personality and gumption to get you to do it for yourself?

You're probably going to get applause from Acumen et al. on this post.  Roll Eyes


For all I know, they started with as little as you and I. I have a hunch, though, that they will study and strive to better their lives by developing  talents and personalities that are rewarded by society instead of sitting around whining about what they lack and how they "have yet to benefit from anyway."

[Acumen]

I'm enjoying this conversation very much.   

I think Howie and VL are making their cases fairly well.  However, as VL probably picked up on, I'm more predisposed toward Howie's philosophy of freedom and responsibility being natural bedfellows.  This system we have now, I believe, allows people to reach their highest potentials, which I do not believe is ever possible in socialism.

[Clyde5001]

Howie,

Intelligence doesn't convey everything in this society. One needs a certain level of ambition - maybe ruthlessness - to get by. You certainly need ruthlessness to thrive. If intelligence got you the big bucks, I'd be living in a 20 room house on 3 acres in Scarsdale.

You know that ain't the case.

[Howiedds]

Metis:

I didn't realize that the power of the governor was so limited in Texas.

It really is. I wasn't exaggerating.

Man, it must be tough living in such an uncivilized state. 

Having been raised in NY, I really appreciated the can do attitude and independence here in Texas. Throughout my 41 year career I've listened to my friends practicing back east about the government and the insurance companies, etc. We have our share of problems with them, but there is an independent streak here that is admirable.

Everything I have is from here. It seemed like a wide open opportunity to me in 1967. The suburb of Dallas in which I practice had 15,000 people in it in 1970. We probably have 300,000 now, and everyone is from somewhere else. I took a heck of chance when I moved 1800 miles from home to start a new life, but that is the kind of effort that is rewarded in this great country. I think that is lost on VL, who would probably prefer an eastern block setting under a Marxist thumb.

the offer of coming up to my place in the U.P. is still on the board, so anytime you wish to defect, just let me know.  Grin

As the thermometer creeps closer to triple digits, that sounds more and more inviting. But would you have to be there or could we just visit with your family.

[Howiedds]

VL:

Then how do you explain me, a liberal who thinks humanity is nothing more than plague on the face of the earth, that humans are essentially selfish loathesome vile creatures that probably ought to be extinct, and that you can't trust anyone any further than you spit or else they'll stab you in the back as soon as you turn it?

You may be telling us more about you than the humanity. Maybe that is the attitude/personality that has kept you from "yet to benefit from anyway."

[VLinvictus]

No system can guarantee that, but ours affords you the opportunity of gaining its benefits, even if you have not achieved them.

The opportunity of gaining benefits is worthless if you don't actually gain them.

You sound bright enough. Why haven't you been able to achieve more? Is there something about you that holds you back or is it the mean old system?

There is very little demand for history majors and beyond worthless academics I have no real marketable skills.

I think we need to do more about safety nets for health care, education, and the necessities of food and shelter without proposing the tyranny of socialism that robs people of the incentive to better themselves.

Why do you assume that it's possible for everyone to "better themselves?"

We disagree about it being the best we can hope for. Many of us enjoy more than mediocre and would like to help others get there as well. If we shoot for mediocre, that's where we will all be.

I don't have better than mediocre. Help me get to the exalted and lofty position you occupy. Show me what I have to do.

No such world exists. Everything you are calling for requires hard work, work that is rewarded in this "awful" system of ours.

I don't understand.

People do things because they are rewarded in many different ways for the things they do. But people don't usually perform to their utmost in a socialist society where there doesn't seem to be any recognition for their efforts.

Notice that I wasn't talking about a socialist society in which there is no recognition for their efforts. Notice I mentioned praise and respect and honor and social standing. Let people get as much money as they like, so long as everyone is guaranteed food, housing, education, and other necessities so that no one has to worry that losing their job will leave them out on the street.

Most people do no more when they are "guaranteed" no more recognition, financial or otherwise, than anyone else. If you don't like that, take it up with 3 million years of genetics.

Please read my post again, where I indicated that there should be plenty of opportunities for recognition while at the same time guarnateeing that everyone will have food, a home, an education, and the freedom and ability to develop themselves and their talents.

What stopped them?

The market. Since they generally don't want to be homeless and starve, they have to take what jobs are available.

Exactly what do you want guaranteed for yourself? Exactly what can anyone do for you to give you the personality and gumption to get you to do it for yourself?

I want to be guarnateed that I will never have to worry about being homeless or hungry. I have a job and I work 9 hours a day in order to get preserve these things, but I still live paycheck to paycheck and, God forbid, if the market dictates that my labor is no longer profitable to the powers that be I could be downsized. Then I'd have to go back to the market and hope and pray there's a job for me elsewhere -- the same old sh*t everyone else has to face. But why should it be necessary?

For all I know, they started with as little as you and I. I have a hunch, though, that they will study and strive to better their lives by developing  talents and personalities that are rewarded by society instead of sitting around whining about what they lack and how they "have yet to benefit from anyway."

That's nice for them. I'm glad they have the time and energy to study and better themselves in addition to working to put food on the table and a roof over their head.

For many people, simple subsistence is hard enough -- for even more its too hard. "Bettering oneself" and "getting ahead" are luxuries for the privileged few. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe that's evidence that you and they are superior human beings to me and therefore you get to succeed and survive while I don't deserve to -- natural selection and all that. It would make sense.