Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 14 2008,14:14) | | Quote (Louis @ Oct. 14 2008,07:32) | | *snip* exercise in pomposity |
No Louis, I am not Republican, nor am I whining, nor do I miss your point (such as it is), but rather I am mocking you.
It is in fact you who has repeatedly missed the boat, which is that, in this country anyway, voting the issues has been a loser of a proposition. Now, [hypothetically speaking] should I vote for the Obama whom I voted for, in the primary, after a detailed analysis of the issues, because he said, sensibly I thought, that Hillary's plan to place a moratorium on foreclosures was a utter disaster, or the Obama who now thinks it's a peachy keen idea? Which position will he take when elected? Who the hell knows?
And you missed my point entirely--that is the identity of the President is, to a very large extent, what makes him successful. Compare Kennedy to Johnson, Reagan to Carter, Clinton to either Bush.
I am mocking your position that a purely intellectual approach to the election, with no regard to the personalities but only the issues, is a viable strategy. It misses the obvious--that they all lie and flip-flop--and more importantly it misses the more subtle personality dynamics. The "hard work" of a detailed analysis of the issues--down to the minutia, is a complete an utter waste of time. Today we have the Republican candidate favoring a Brobdingnagian government, and a Democratic candidate with a penchant for curbing individual liberties. In the face os such absurdity, almost everything else is in the noise.
If Obama is a successful President it will, to a large part, not be because of issues--but rather because a majority of the country rallies around him. If that happens, then he'll be able to do things that were not even discussed during the election. Clinton's popularity allowed him to, almost inconceivably given he was a Democrat, purge the welfare roles. On the other hand, a big issue from Clinton's campaign, health care, was more or less abandoned. Health care after Clinton was not much different than before.
As to whether you "might have to reassess" your impression of me--who cares? Are you trying to be a right-out-of-central-casting, stereotypical, self-righteous, pompous ass? |
Oops, yet another Heddle straw man!
Did I say the president's identity was 100% irrelevant? Nope.
Did I say identity in politics was 100% irrelevant? Nope.
Did I say that focussing on identity politics alone as you have advocated several times is problematic and that the emphasis should be on the issues and thus holding politicians to account? Yes.
Why do you keep trotting out straw men when they do nothing for you?
The rest of your post is the usual whining about "waaaaah teh issues be hard". Where I have I written a defence of party political voting for example? Or voting on campaign issues alone? I'd advocate against such superficial methods, they're little better than a coin toss for the reason you mention. Large govt Republicans? Gosh! How would we know they exist (for example)? Why would it be a careful analysis of the issues? Oh wait, yes it would.
Forgive my sarcasm Heddle, but you're not in a position to mock me. You're in a position to chuck out clouds of ink to disguise your gross inadequacies, but let's be blunt, it ain't working. The only thing mockable is your gross misunderstanding of what I've said. Well, that and your ever asinine "team" whines, logical fallacies and anti-intellectualism.
Incidentally, just how does one measure the "success" of a particular government/politician? Popular appeal? In that case Palin is remarkably successful. I admit I don't know the American system as perhaps I should, but I do know the UK one reasonably well. Was John Major a "successful" PM? Maggie? Blair? If so by what criteria? Or is it all just too hard for you because they all lie, cheat, and mess up? How about we get measurable criteria for political success? I wonder, do they exist anywhere. I'll bet there's a book in the library on this. Surely someone somewhere has thought of a rational approach to politics......oops more sarcasm!
Popularity can indeed grant a mandate (btw I'd love for you to find me denying this anywhere), but popularity a) doesn't keep you in power alone, b) is very fickle, and c) is the very in-road into the politics of despair. Following what is merely popular is precisely why we repeat the same mistakes we did before. The messianic coronation of Obama is as stupid as the home-town folksiness of Palin (for example). Holding your candidate to account on the issues, getting well defined campaign/manifesto commitments out of them actually works. The reason politicians renege on these vague commitments is because we, the electorate, let them. It's our fault.
Again, this is why I am against mere identity voting. No one denies the importance of the presentation, but the "what" of what is being said is more important than the "how". Sadly, we are tuned to prefer the opposite case. Fighting that tuning is important. Like I said (and you ignored) if you want to be exploited carry on. You and I both agree that we agree going to be exploited (for example), the difference between us is you seem happy to let it continue.
Have I also argued that the subtle interplay of personality and identity play no part in politics? Nope.
Have I argued that as a voter who wants to enact real improvement focussing first on the issues and doing one's homework might just be the way forward? Yep.
Heddle, do you even realise that were we to translate your approach to physics people'd be getting grants based on which physicist was the most popular? Do you even realise what you are arguing FOR? Seriously, do you even realise how anti-intellectual you are being.
In the final analysis you just don't like the fact that when you've waved your hands and given up your responsibilities someone has called you on it. And *I'm* the pompous one. Shyeah, right. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word.
So if all you've got is "waaaaah it's hard" and "waaaaaah you're pompous" (neither of which is true btw) and the usual round of your straw buddies, I'll leave you to lick your wounds. Wake me with something new.
Louis
P.S. You're not a Republican? My mistake. You're clueless enough to be well represented by the more vocal of that party's exponents. It's an easy mistake to make.
--------------
Bye.
|
