Psycho-Babble Politics Thread 1001838

Shown: posts 14 to 38 of 72. Go back in thread:

 

Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge

Posted by Dinah on November 11, 2011, at 5:28:46

In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 3:42:25

I *am* sorry, floatingbridge.

You didn't make me feel unwelcome once I posted - quite the contrary. Perhaps if I posted more often, I wouldn't feel out of place here at all.

 

Re: the candidates you like » Dinah

Posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 6:34:06

In reply to Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 11, 2011, at 5:28:46

I would like you to post more often, when you feel moved to do so. You make me think, despite my strong beliefs.

Thanks, Dinah.

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09

In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 3:42:25

> Talking about candidates I like might be difficult given the alarm I feel about the current political climate

OK, if there aren't any candidates you like, what about the political climate you would like?

Bob

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by sigismund on November 12, 2011, at 1:05:22

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09

I don't hate every single candidate in every respect. For example I disagree with Ron Paul about many basic things (I imagine) but so often when he speaks he says things that seem right (although I hardly get to hear them).

 

Re: the candidates you like

Posted by Dinah on November 12, 2011, at 11:29:04

In reply to Re: the candidates you like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 1:03:22

While I haven't heard enough about him to be sure, I think I like Jon Huntsman. He appears to demonstrate good moderate ideals. Last time I voted for Obama, but I think he may be more temperamentally moderate than ideologically moderate. I'm not sure. Not that anything he did was anything different than what he said he would do.

Also, an old favorite from the governor's office was running a quixotic campaign for a while. I'm not sure if he gave it up. Buddy Roemer was the first candidate I did volunteer work for, back when he was a Democrat, I think. Like most candidates I support, he eventually disillusioned me a bit. Nothing unique in that.

I really like our wonky governor Bobby Jindal - when he's being himself. He's the sort of person with his fingers on all the details. It fills me with so much confidence when he's giving his hurricane reports. My husband laughs that he will say something like "And a tree is down on Mrs. Smith's driveway. We have the situation well in hand, and a crew is on its way." But he isn't always himself.

I think I usually end up not liking anyone, and voting for the person I dislike less. Or choosing not to vote at all, because it's a contest that can't be won. But I suppose the candidates I like best are the ones often attacked as being not Democratic/Republican enough. I was quite sad that Paul Tsongas dropped out of the race in '92, since he seemed to embody that dynamic. To me, those candidates are more likely to vote in terms of ideas as opposed to ideology and party loyalty. And more likely to compromise to achieve things rather than be mired down in partisanship. And less likely to assume a "mandate". I never intend my vote to be a mandate to anyone at all for any reason at all.

Overall, candidates I like is often a difficult discussion for me, especially past the early primaries. Now policies I like is a different matter. It's far easier for me to like policies than candidates. Although I suppose even policies mire down in unintended consequences and become less than wholeheartedly approved.

It's no wonder moderates have a hard time uniting. Even my most fervent endorsements come hand in hand with reservations.

 

Re: the candidates you like » Dinah

Posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:08:59

In reply to Re: the candidates you like, posted by Dinah on November 12, 2011, at 11:29:04

I really don't know about Jon Huntsman. I do like that he seems to be a good ambassador and speaks Mandarin. I'll pay more attention to him. Much of my attention has been taken up by the media attention given to Perry or Palin. Or now Herb Cain.

I will follow debates, but cannot imagine at this point I would vote for someone other than Obama. There were a number of actions I wanted him to take ASAP upon entering office and was very disappointed he did not. Closing Guantanamo Bay prominent among them. It's been said there was not the funding allotted by congress to do so, but idk. I can't imagine what might trump releasing people from a prison that has been globally exposed as violating human rights. I suppose bailing out banks. Sigh. But that wasn't under his watch.

But could it have been insurmountable? Idk.

Dennis Kuchinich brought, or tried to bring a high level of integrity to the 2004 presidential debates. I like him, though I
do not think there is a snowball's chance he would ever come close to running again.

I agree that I appreciate when the Republican/Democrat difference is not played up. I feel that is often a distraction from talking about issues whether it is an intentional ploy or sometimes simply evokes a knee-jerk defensive response. Either way, it seem to shut down productive dialogue.

Your comment about Obama being more temperamentally moderate than ideologically moderate is very interesting. Actually, I think you have identified something that has both attracted me to and disappointed me about him as a president. What I appreciate on a personal level, a sense of quiet intelligence and 'moderation' in bearing has, well, I wonder if kept him from pressing his more liberal, idealistic agenda more strongly.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob

Posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09

Hi Bob,

The answer to that isn't an easy one for me to give because I am deeply unhappy with some of the decisions and paths the United States is pursuing.

That said, I would like a political system invested in dialogue of issues rather than ideology. That would be a great start.

I would also like the coverage of politics in this country to be less based on personality and more on past actions and accountability.

And I would like the qualifications of candidates to be held to higher standards. This would not necessarily lead to an ivy league elite. My favorite presidential candidate from 2004 was Dennis Kucinich, from a blue collar family.

Is there some things you would wish for in today's political climate?

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 2:29:30

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58

Here the trivial destructive type of politics is enabled by private school boys (mainly) who did debating at school and law thereafter.

They are so sure of everything.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund

Posted by floatingbridge on November 13, 2011, at 6:55:43

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 2:29:30

I could see how that could be oppressive and another form of being counter-productive. While looking productive.

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 13:23:37

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 13, 2011, at 6:55:43

You would have the permanent political class too.

I finished the Bacevich book. It made me feel sad.....something of his restrained sadness at the waste.

 

Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge

Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2011, at 14:49:49

In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:08:59

My impression has, I suppose naturally, been different. I think the fact that he was able to pass the health care bill meant that he was able to press his idealistic, liberal agenda quite well. The American people seemed to think so as well, and at the first possible election brought the nation closer to the center via gridlock. Which is useful at times, certainly, but went on to bring its own ills in the budget debates. And didn't even result in a repeal of the healthcare bill that brought on the backlash to begin with. Even gridlock, IMO, is best in moderation.

I'm not that familiar with the situation at Guantanamo Bay. Did he promise to do this in his election campaign? I often suspect that candidates promise to do things, then learn things from briefings as president that makes it less feasible to fulfill their promises. What difficulties would arise from the closing, and how could the legitimate goals it serves be met in other ways? Would reform rather than closure be a viable alternative? Has he made effective reforms?

I like to think that a reasonable and civil leader can be as effective as a more bombastic one. But I suppose it's impossible to deny that politicians who play ball in the accepted way tend to be more effective than ones who put idealism over pragmatism. Certainly it's my belief that some of my favorite politicians have made less than impressive legislators because they don't play the game of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

I suppose it's also hard to deny that charismatic leaders seem more able to bring about change. And the sort of candidate I prefer tends not to be that high in charisma.

The politician I never did get really disillusioned with and liked throughout his career didn't fit my usual mold at all. I really liked Ronald Reagan. The real one, not the one conjured up by the people who claim to be following in his footsteps. It's not that he never did anything that might disillusion me. It's more that his charm and humor diffused my anger before it got a chance to build up. He wasn't at all wonky. He was less open to compromise than my ideal. So I suppose I'm as capable of being swayed by charisma as anyone.

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58

> That said, I would like a political system invested in dialogue of issues rather than ideology. That would be a great start.
>
> I would also like the coverage of politics in this country to be less based on personality and more on past actions and accountability.
>
> And I would like the qualifications of candidates to be held to higher standards.

Thanks for replying. What's the difference between issues and ideology? Can you give me an example?

Bob

 

Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob

Posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:20:08

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23

I'm not sure that issues vs ideology is the problem.

Here it is the cynical positioning to find a (relatively) blame free position from which to cast blame on the other side, and this can get subtle and devious.

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23

And nobody cares about the real issues. It's all focus group driven.

Anglosaxon politics, IMO.

 

Re: the political climate you would like

Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 12:36:40

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28

Indian writer Arundhati Roy was broadcast on Democracy Now! yesterday, and here are her comments on the significance of OWS for India and also on President Onama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1iwoHUIKvo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The mention of Anglosaxon politics and two party opposing systems brought this to mind.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge

Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 15:34:49

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 12:36:40

The stuff on India was fascinating and news to me.

I had no idea of the numbers of tribal people or the scale of it all.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund

Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28

Anglosaxon? An interesting concept.

https://www.msu.edu/~stumpdan/hs/anglo.htm

How do you see Anglosaxon politics differing from the Roman imperial politics that preceded it, or the Norman French politics that followed it, at least in England? Did they bring the political system from their native lands, or did they take up prevailing European fashions in government?

I found this quote interesting:

http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm

"The country had been devastated by Vikings and everybody complained about government inefficiency and failure to act and implement policy. Things could not really get much worse. It was at this point that Archbishop Wulfstan of York preached a sermon to the highest people in the land.

'The devil has led this people too far astray... the people have betrayed their own country [literally their "earth"]. And the harm will become common to this entire people.

'There was a historian in the time of the Britons called Gildas who wrote about their misdeeds; how their sins angered God so much that finally He allowed the army of the English to conquer their land. Let us take warning from this... we all know there are worse things going on now than we have heard of among the ancients. Let us turn to the right and leave wrongdoing... Let us love God and follow God's laws.' "

I always enjoy reading the ancients complaining about the good old days.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund

Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:56:36

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:20:08

> Here it is the cynical positioning to find a (relatively) blame free position from which to cast blame on the other side, and this can get subtle and devious.

On Babble, you mean? Well, I don't think I do that.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah

Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:27:42

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:56:36

No no no, Dinah, I meant in our political process here.

I was thinking about the way the major parties have been handling refugees/illegal immigrants/people smuggling.

But not just that.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah

Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:37:16

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32

Well, I guess I meant English speaking. I read a book once about Harold, though it would not have been much help in answering your questions. I am guessing they relate to a period much before 1066, about which I know nothing.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah

Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 18:03:49

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32

>http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm

This is a fun site. I'm going to look at it more thoroughly later. The idea of the Norman/Anglosaxon influence on the US is also interesting. First, there is the subject of language. English Is such an amalgam. Then thinking of how much the drafters of the constitutuion, in their rebellion against England (being all English I assume) were influenced by the ideals of French liberty. And Greek democracy.

I will think about this in my slow cook way.

 

Re: the candidates you like » Dinah

Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 20:09:07

In reply to Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2011, at 14:49:49

It's interesting that you bring up charisma. I realize I am very swayed by charisma. I have to plant both feet on the ground and think my way out of my emotional impressions. I adored Clinton from his inauguration ball as he played the saxophone. However cheesy that may seem to some or myself now. He had a way of always seeming comfortable and having something intelligent to say.

This thread has had me thinking back over my own likes and dislikes, and I see how reactive and subjective they appear now to myself. I was unhappy with the outcome of the 2000
election and the controversy surrounding Gore's defeat. I had come to endorse Gore, feeling he had somehow been eclipsed by the flash of the Clinton presidency. When the eight years of the Bush presidency were ended by Obama, I was estatic. Absolutely. And I was very affected by Obama's quiet charisma. But it's almost like it's deferred, if that is the right word. I would have preferred or had hoped for what Gore might have brought. Perhaps less war. More practical focus on our environment. And human rights.

I had said quizzically that maybe I was a socialist. This series of threads has made me think, and perhaps I am more a socialist in the European practical sense. Even the Canadian sense with their working health care system. The healthcare bill that has recently passed has been heavily privatized, with citizens who do not purchase health care having to pay a penalty. I believe this will not come to pass as it is already being challenged in court.

Will there be a candidate I will be pleased to vote for in 2012? Originally I had written that I can not imagine not voting for Obama. Now after reflection and reading, I am not sure at all if it is a matter of who will do the most good or who will do the least harm. I am not sure that is good enough. But what can I do?

 

Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund

Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:45:39

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:37:16

Where you are, does English speaking generally mean Anglo-Saxon? That's not something that springs instantly to mind where I live. I think I may be slightly over 1/2 English, but I'm in the minority. Even our state law is based on the Napoleonic code rather than English common law.

The English language has proved to be very tenacious, hasn't it? I wonder why it wasn't superceded by Norman French? It incorporated it I guess. I started reading "The Mother Tongue" years ago and found it fascinating, though I never seem to manage to finish it.

It's funny, and perhaps unique to me. When I think of Anglo Saxons, I don't think power. I think of my serf ancestors. Of William the Conqueror (or B*stard, as I'm sure they preferred) and the Harrying of the North. Of Aethelred the Unready, and Harold Godwinson. Of the scorn the Norman nobility felt towards the Saxons. Though to be fair, my Saxon ancestors weren't overly nice to my Briton Celtic ancestors - as I remind myself whenever I start to feel too sorry for them.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund

Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 21:06:54

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 15:34:49

I need to see it on a map. I didn't understand the scope either.

 

Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge

Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 21:23:44

In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 18:03:49

Definitely Greek ideals. And while they were rebelling against England and in some ways also rejected the forms of government as it was at the time, I guess it makes sense that in the everyday forms of government they looked to their mother England. Hmmm... Probably the local forms of government were already in place with the states?

I wonder if the strong nobles of the Anglo Saxons, and the Witenagemot, had any influence on Norman nobles to eventually demand the Magna Carta. They weren't the same nobles, of course, or even descendents of the same nobles. But I wonder if the knowledge gave them the feeling that they had rights that should be acknowledged. And of course the Magna Carta influenced the founding fathers.

Definitely Greek democracy. I'm not sure, but I think the French were inspired by the American revolution, based on the timing. Although... Didn't they give us financial help during the Revolution?

(I vaguely remember this because my son was studying it last year. I encourage him to share what he learns with me, because after all this time I've forgotten.)

I rather like medieval English history, but for the most part I stick to 1066 through Henry III or the early years of Edward I. Stephen/Mathilda makes a fertile ground for stories. And my hero William Marshall lived from the time of Stephen, through Henry II, his two sons, and his grandson. He was co-regent for young Henry III at age 70!

For some reason, the periods before 1066 make me feel a bit anxious. Ok, they make me feel very anxious. I'm not sure why.


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.