Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

It was Rita Hayworth. C'mon, she was like the star of the movie. 

It was at first. 

But not at the end when he ex-caped. The poster the warden threw the little statue through after calling her fuzzy britches.  I don't think Rita had fuzzy britches, though perhaps.  I never got past 1st base.

No, it was Raquel that was on the wall when Andy escaped.  C'mon yourself!

Someone in this thread agrees with me!  Someone agrees with me! 

Now I can Friday in peace.

It was at first. 

 

But not at the end when he ex-caped. The poster the warden threw the little statue through after calling her fuzzy britches.  I don't think Rita had fuzzy britches, though perhaps.  I never got past 1st base.

 Admit it, Rick Perry totally reminds you of the warden. 

ahh, but it does offer strong support for my theory of peakalution. 

 

as further proof that our species peaked 1,002,011 years ago I offer this evidence.  Happy Friday.

 

They has silicone in 1 million BC?

It read to me as a blow-off to a well-intended and serious post.  If it was not, I'm sorry it went off the rails.

Yours was a smart (as usual) post that was a little frustrating because of

a) the remark that I don't know what liberal means paired with a simultaneous refusal to say what probably the vaguest word in the English language "really means" (oh, and by the way, if this is an important issue, don't you have something to say to C-R?)

and

b) the implication that my post was unaware of economic problems just because I couched those problems in slightly different language than you hear every day. (By the way, I also didn't mention health care, doh!)

So, yes, my response was a little "blow-offy," and you were right to read it that way. The larger issue of course being that our reactions to each other are frustratingly predictable--I was keeping myself from engaging because I don't like the way most of our conversations end up.

To the actual issue, the question of morality and politics. You were confused because I was mentioning social problems as moral problems. I can see why I was confusing: this is exactly the way the problems are most often couched in contemporary life. We have a tendency to see problems as having technical solutions that we need to "fix" through legislation or technology or what have you. We think of the president as a technocrat who moves the machinery in Washington to fix them.

I thought that one thing that Obama was trying to do (for better or for worse) in his campaign was to remind us that the position of the presidency in a democracy is not technocratic. In a democracy, it's not the president's job to solve our problems. That's a Hugo Chavez view of politics. His job is to focus our attention on our problems, to remind us what is at stake, and to encourage and inspire us to take up the responsibility to, hopefully, change our situation in small ways for the better. I know it sounds weird to say it, but in a democracy the president is a moral leader. It's the people that do the acting.

b) the implication that my post was unaware of economic problems just because I couched those problems in slightly different language than you hear every day. (By the way, I also didn't mention health care, doh!)

  

To the actual issue, the question of morality and politics. You were confused because I was mentioning social problems as moral problems. I can see why I was confusing: this is exactly the way the problems are most often couched in contemporary life. We have a tendency to see problems as having technical solutions that we need to "fix" through legislation or technology or what have you. We think of the president as a technocrat who moves the machinery in Washington to fix them.

 

I thought that one thing that Obama was trying to do (for better or for worse) in his campaign was to remind us that the position of the presidency in a democracy is not technocratic. In a democracy, it's not the president's job to solve our problems. That's a Hugo Chavez view of politics. His job is to focus our attention on our problems, to remind us what is at stake, and to encourage and inspire us to take up the responsibility to, hopefully, change our situation in small ways for the better. I know it sounds weird to say it, but in a democracy the president is a moral leader. It's the people that do the acting.

Misreading intent can cut both ways, apparently.  I did note that the economy was not on the list...and made no judgement as to why it was not...leaving you the opportunity to explain why, which you now have (not intending to infer anything, in other words).

Perhaps it is a philosophical difference, but my view of the federal government is that it IS there to solve certain problems...ones that individuals, communities and states cannot.  That's why they're there.  Common defense against a foreign enemy, for example, is a problem only solvable by the feds.  This is my main issue with the federal government, they have extended their role far beyond the original framing.  This gets expensive, inefficient, and encumbers the local levels with solutions that are typically ill-fitting bastardizations of universal solutions that really make almost noone happy.

We're in a sad place is we really need the President, one man, to be our moral leader.  The Presidency should reflect the morals of our nation, not direct and establish them.  That's my view. 

I'm not sure why the fate of the middle class lifestyle is a moral issue.  I don't see that embodied in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  One may argue the latter but "pursuit" is the freedom to go after it, not any expectation that one is entitled to acheive a middle class lifestyle....just that that possibility cannot be put out of your reach via a caste system or racial discrimination or something like that.  Few things are guaranteed to an individual in life, and a middle class lifestyle and certain class of job aren't among them.  Again...offering the perspective...

It is good to offer vision and instill confidence in people.  Obama can talk.  I can't say he ever reached me but he clearly reached a lot of people.  Back in 2008 I really hoped that I was wrong and Obama was not a shell of empty promises.  But one thing I said was if you're going to be that outlandish with what you promise, you'd damn well better be able to deliver on a lot of it or you're going to be held accountable.  He got elected on an amorphous feel-good platform...if people aren't feeling good next year, pointing to a few wins here and there won't hold up when that overall brand was not delivered.

Misreading intent can cut both ways, apparently.  I did note that the economy was not on the list...and made no judgement as to why it was not...leaving you the opportunity to explain why, which you now have (not intending to infer anything, in other words).

 

Perhaps it is a philosophical difference, but my view of the federal government is that it IS there to solve certain problems...ones that individuals, communities and states cannot.  That's why they're there.  Common defense against a foreign enemy, for example, is a problem only solvable by the feds.  This is my main issue with the federal government, they have extended their role far beyond the original framing.  This gets expensive, inefficient, and encumbers the local levels with solutions that are typically ill-fitting bastardizations of universal solutions that really make almost noone happy.

 

We're in a sad place is we really need the President, one man, to be our moral leader.  The Presidency should reflect the morals of our nation, not direct and establish them.  That's my view. 

 

I'm not sure why the fate of the middle class lifestyle is a moral issue.  I don't see that embodied in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  One may argue the latter but "pursuit" is the freedom to go after it, not any expectation that one is entitled to acheive a middle class lifestyle....just that that possibility cannot be put out of your reach via a caste system or racial discrimination or something like that.  Few things are guaranteed to an individual in life, and a middle class lifestyle and certain class of job aren't among them.  Again...offering the perspective...

 

It is good to offer vision and instill confidence in people.  Obama can talk.  I can't say he ever reached me but he clearly reached a lot of people.  Back in 2008 I really hoped that I was wrong and Obama was not a shell of empty promises.  But one thing I said was if you're going to be that outlandish with what you promise, you'd damn well better be able to deliver on a lot of it or you're going to be held accountable.  He got elected on an amorphous feel-good platform...if people aren't feeling good next year, pointing to a few wins here and there won't hold up when that overall brand was not delivered.

Your 1st paragraph: agreed.

2nd paragraph: Yes, the government (which is composed of ordinary people doing their jobs) is there to solve certain problems. But it is only indirectly that the President solves problems. His job is to "set the agenda," though I prefer the phrase "articulate a vision" because it is less technocratic.

We both have well thought out (and different) philosophical views on what problems government should address and what problems it shouldn't.  I would like to emphasize that I am a pragmatist, not a liberal when it comes to this question. I think that government should address the problems that it is effective for it to address, and obviously should be limited when it overreaches. I'm not an originalist on this question because I believe that social structures have changed in ways that the founders couldn't have anticipated. But obviously yours is a position that is credible and defensible and has the advantage of being less murky and vague than the pragmatic position, which allows contestation at every moment of the process.

3rd paragraph: I guess I would just say that one cannot direct without also reflecting. Leadership demands listening and understanding as much (more?) than knowing and telling.

4th paragraph: I believe that one way in which the middle class is disappearing is THROUGH its lifestyle. The middle class is no longer a "class" organized around values like fairness, effort, responsibility, initiative. It is more like a set of atomistically isolated consumers. So, perhaps we are closer on this than might be imagined at first blush. I do believe that existence of the middle class is a necessary economic condition of democracy, so I do see working on behalf of this existence as a moral project.

5th paragraph: I am also dissatisfied with Obama. I meant to explain why I voted for him in 2008, not justify his current actions. I don't think his moral leadership has been strong enough. On the other hand, the vehemency (and I use that word consciously but also understanding that my politics colors my perception) with which he is opposed  is to me a marker of the fact that Obama has perhaps staked out stronger ground than he is often given credit for.

Caption: "Your brain is so not bigger than mine!"