Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme?
Obviously, there are many different takes on the above. Personally, I believe that what makes a citizen is not birth, but a willingness to put the good of the group ahead of his own well-being.
Commie scum. Next you'll be quoting the preamble to the constitution.
It's as simple as this: every candidate moves to the extreme during the primaries then tacks hard to the middle during the general election. And the current political climate is that the extremes are more extremes than usual.
Wow- a reasonable comment.
Prince of Fatness
Honest question (and with apologies if it's a tangent): why is this a strong factor, let alone a litmus test? My two thoughts: 1. Not to go semi-JFK on you, but is it your civic duty to select a presidential candidate based on what's best for you or what's best for your country? What happens when the two aren't perfectly coincident? 2. Are you relatively better off today than you were on 9/1/2008? If things went to shit but your things only went a quarter of the way to shit, that's a net improvement, right? I'm not looking to defend Obama, just digging into this particular line of thinking a little bit.
Honest question (and with apologies if it's a tangent): why is this a strong factor, let alone a litmus test? My two thoughts:
1. Not to go semi-JFK on you, but is it your civic duty to select a presidential candidate based on what's best for you or what's best for your country? What happens when the two aren't perfectly coincident?
2. Are you relatively better off today than you were on 9/1/2008? If things went to shit but your things only went a quarter of the way to shit, that's a net improvement, right? I'm not looking to defend Obama, just digging into this particular line of thinking a little bit.
No need to apologize. This seems to be a civil discussion so it's all good. I'll answer your questions.
1. I agree. Am I selfish? Sure, but I think that we all are in our own way. What I believe in principle is that you can't have your own way all of the time. Pick what's important. Compromise. Furthermore, I'd rather be surrounded by happy people than depressed people. That means that maybe I have to give a little to make that happen. But in the end I'll be better off. So, this is a fair statement. Maybe I should have said, "This country is no better off than it was in 2008".
2. I don't think so. I really think that the unemployment situation is a tough nut to crack. On one side you have consumers that are hunkering down and spending less (I fall into this category). On the other hand the demand is down so companies are not hiring. Who will flinch first? I work for a small, privately owned company. I am in good standing, but I worry about the company. I don't see the company any better off than in 2008.
Did I answer your questions?
Not at it at all.
I don't get it. The liberals here should be jumping for joy at the extremist candidates. If they are so bad the Big O get the keys to drive the car for another four years. What seems to be apparent is that deep down in places you don't want to admit you know he's failed at leading our country and he's an empty suit. Its hard to admit you bought a lemon equal to Carter but it can't be blamed on Bush or those bad Congressional Repubs or high waters or natural disasters. So you want to focus on the extreme group to take away focus from the current mess presided by the liberal extremists where there may be someone with some leadership and policy changes to help get us moving in the right direction. Running is about Do or Do Not and personal responsibility with some decent help or advise on this board. Too bad that seems to end with running.
What if a non-liberal had started the thread? What if it was sincere and not part of some leftist plot to take away your rights? What if there were people who didn't actually take sides in elections before they even knew who the candidates were? Would the topic be worthy of discussion then?
At any rate, take a deep breath. Everything will be okay.
Runners run
I am more fond of Dos Equis and Four-X in Australia.
Is that made by Dos Equis? Is it the same thing with a different name? Saw it in Costco here in Japan and was wondering what it was.
What if a non-liberal had started the thread? What if it was sincere and not part of some leftist plot to take away your rights? What if there were people who didn't actually take sides in elections before they even knew who the candidates were? Would the topic be worthy of discussion then? At any rate, take a deep breath. Everything will be okay.
Often in my head I'm thankful people like mikeymike are active here on the forums and can speak my mind more fluidly than me. Once in a blue moon I admit I'm very, very jealous.
No no, totally different.
Dos Equis (two Xs)... Mexican beer.
Four X... Australian beer. The beer associated with Queensland.
The only commonality (besides the four ingredients) is an X.
What if a non-liberal had started the thread?
Jeff's a liberal? Who knew?
The process is the goal.
Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.
What if there were people in the electorate who wanted to make a choice between two excellent candidates?
You'd have to build them a time machine and take them back to 1916, or maybe just 1960 (that one's iffy though).
Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and roguesWe're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
and sadly, that's a dudes only trip on the 1916 time machine run...
Why is it sideways?
I blame coffee for the following:
/
I am a liberal in the sense that I believe that the Democratic party (though obviously not perfect) is more serious about governing at this point in history.
I am not a liberal in the sense that I believe the role of government is to break down oppressive institutions and liberate people from repressed situations. That's too simple, of course. Governing well always requires conserving institutions that work and liberating people from institutions that have outlived their purposes.
Philosophically, I am a pragmatist. I believe that the truest ideas are the ones that work best to solve problems. I voted for Obama because of his vision of American democracy as a problem-oriented and moral activity driven by individuals within communities. The activity of democracy requires two fundamental attitudes. It requires an attitude of tragic hope: the belief that despite present injustices, the present can be endured and addressed on behalf of a future to come. Second, it requires a melioristic belief in our power to make courageous decisions that will change the situation on behalf of the good.
So, yes, I bought the "hopey changey thing." I believed that Obama had the moral vision to orient collective and individual action to directly address (if not solve) our most pressing problems (in no particular order): the issue of immigration, war and the possibility of middle-eastern democracy, the disappearance of the middle class, the extension of attitudes of decency and fair policies towards gays, the problem of ongoing racial bitterness, the protection of the earth that supports us, the continued development of a system of education that provides for opportunity and the preservation of culture.
Did I make a misjudgment? I believe that I was naive about the extent to which this country was divided. I was also naive about the extent to which my own values are not shared. However, I never believed that the promise of democracy would be easy (the idea has been opposed bitterly since its inception), nor will I allow my faith in the democratic process to be lost just because in the present moment we refuse to solve problems.
The primary problem of democratic politics is the fact that problem solving is extremely difficult. It requires good humor, courage, imagination, receptivity, and sometimes blind faith (all the evidence to the contrary) in human intelligence. We look to the president as a moral leader, as a reminder that these virtues are possible within us.
Thus far, Obama has not been wholly successful in this, but my faith in democracy demands that I see the tenseness of the present situation as a sign that we have come collectively to a point of moral decision. The question has been framed, and it was the same question we faced in 2008. Will we choose to address our problems by scapegoating the people with whom we live and share the work of democracy? Or will we find once more within ourselves the courage--the hope and the belief in the possibility of change for the good--to live together and work through our problems despite our differences?
Whether one identifies as liberal or conservative is neither here nor there with respect to this question.
Feeling the growl again
Jeff, I find your definition of liberal interesting. I'm not really interested in discussing it and I am not dissing it, it's just not what I would use for a definition and not how I would have expected it to be defined by you.
I don't think most people look to the President to be a moral leader. For one thing, we tend to elect scumbags. Who would look to Bill Clinton for anything to do with morals? For a second, a lot of people connect morals with religion. That is where they derive their personal morals. This brings up separation of church and state...most Presidents have ascribed to a faith, yet they must separate practice of that faith from the business of the office (or at least they are supposed to). Using office to further a moral agenda is something liberals frequently lambaste conservatives for.
I don't want any President trying to legislate their morals on me, for the same reason I don't want any President trying to legislate their religion on me. Both are things that are inherently personal, and no two people are going to agree on 100%. Say some of those on the right who want to get religion into government got their way....next they'd be arguing because it's Presbyterian and not Baptist or Methodist or Catholic or whatever.
I notice your list of the most pressing problems is mostly (not exclusively) social issues and some externally focused. I would think voters are much more concerned with issues related to the economy, which didn't make the list.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Well, I assume when people are talking about the economy they are talking about the moral problem of the disappearing middle class and the unavailability of dignified work. That's why the economy matters.
Yeah, I know I'm something of a crackpot, and I definitely know you don't agree with me.
We might not look to the president to be a "moral leader" but we surely bitch about it when he isn't.
These days.
JFK got away with lots.
So did other presidents from various parties.
Don't ask about the Bull Moose Party.