USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Cosmo]

Next...

[MWC]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I tend to agree, but I also think it is the "loose canons" who provide interesting and important dialogue that the major candidates don't want to touch.

Kuchinich does not have the same polite political filter, perhaps he knows he has nothing to lose? This could be a big reason behind Hills and Edwards contempt for these "minor" players being allowed a seat at the big kids table...

Let's not forget -- he NEVER would have nabbed that gorgeous bride of his without his previous media exposure from the last campaign ...

[ryberg]

Glad you appreciated the Coriolanus reference, JL. It's not the first time someone on this forum has appreciated my reference to that work/figure, though you have to go back into the ranks of the real veterans, here, probably, to find one who remembers the other one.

I think I'm in the kirbyfan seat now, here: not explaining myself clearly, perhaps, and coming off looking bad. Or the situation is coming off looking bad, when I don't think it necessarily is, and when the parts of it that are bad I don't think can be avoided, given the structure of our system.

That last point first: if this were a parliamentary system, we would have more than 2 parties out there vying for our votes, and I'd strongly encourage them all to sally forth with their ideas in their purest forums, because in such a system, you essentially let the voters decide on those ideas at that point and in gradation. You know, if 7% vote for Just Lucky's "Bubba" platform party, well that party will get 7% of the seats in the parliament, that 7% of the voters getting themselves represented in the political machinery. That is to say, even with only 7% of the vote, JL's party/candidate(s) will actually get into office to start spreading their views and trying to effect change. And if they're just very lucky, they may even come up with the hole card of being able to make, at that post-election point, some compromises in their platform after getting into office as part of a power-brokering situation in order to join with 1-2 of the big vote getters and form a coalition government to have much more power to effect change. Huzzah for Bubba!

Alas, we have no such system. In the U.S. system, that 7% and in fact a relatively whopping 47% gets you... what, again? Oh, yeah, zero, zippo, nada, out on your butt, better luck next time, pal, no office, no effect on policy, look like losers, lost the trust of the people that you can win, whole platform looks rejected, etc. In this all-or-nothing approach, IF the parties and candidates really want to get their programs going in the government, they are downright obliged to compromise their pure views from the get-go, prior to the election (in precisely the way I'm describing) by the very system itself. Their choice is a simple one:

1. compromise sufficiently to get over that 50% hump on the first try (no do-overs, here!)
2. present position and ideals in their pure form without regard for the public reaction and that 50% do-or-die hump and run the significant risk of only being able to lob in no-vote commentary from the fringes, with no power to govern or effect change directly

(And in this, incidentally, not in the character of the politicians themselves or even in the big money involved in politics, lies the biggest root of the complaints of the people that government does nothing. Just for the record. )

In other words, my approach is precisely to hear this:

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

So now you've got some candiates from the Party that once had great ideas and great ideals trying to figure out how they are going to make compromises before they're even elected ...

and say, "Yes, brother! That is our system! You've got it, now! And welcome to the U.S. governmental system.



The Founding Fathers were mightily askeered of dictators and despots and demagogues and also the unfettered populus and established this system to prevent change and let moderatism thrive. Pay attention the public at large and compromise before the election or get yourselves 4 more years (at least) of the opposition running' things.

The remaining points you have succumb to the above point, in my mind, though I don't think it's entirely fair, the following description:

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

How are you going to be able to make a compromise with the Republicans on those things? Even if you could why would you show your hand early in the nomination process. Those folks from the right who's vote you seem so worried about are looking for a leader with a plan not a plan that's going to get cut in half. If they were really right wing voters they'd be in the right wing party. People want a man or woman who can lead ,not one who is overly amiable to the opposition.

While it's too early to tell who will be at the top of the heap at the end of the nomination process I'm hopin' for some one who is a leader and not some fellow who seems to think he's runnin' for high school president and has to get along with everyone.

Personally I think you underestimate the extent to which the right has been successful in attracting people to them and painting the left in a bad light. However apart from that, I think there are other ways than just sheerly watering down your ideals in order to succeed. I was impressed in reading Obama's book, for example, with the consistent and sincere (or at least sincere sounding!) bipartisan tone, backed up by numerous examples of his work with Republicans on x-and-such legislation, and corroborated by a liberal sprinkling of positive comments from Republicans about his non-intransigence. That's just one example -- Bill Clinton's known policy wonk tendencies, his penchant for the meetings and the discussions and the give-and-take and (yes) compromise -- may be another. Still another could be just simple sincerity and decency in the person him/herself.

But I'm really out for that -- clear signs of non-intransigence -- and while it sounds nice at first plus, this "Don't water down your ideals!" battle cry, upon further consideration to me it seems to be going in the opposite, direction, "Dig down -- let's get more intransigent!" or something. You may well be able to win the election with that approach, and do so with a candidate (I see many) with deep division baggage connections to the past. But as I've said, I think you'll just buy 4 more years of that deep division, simply in a guise you fine more amenable, but deep division, just the same. And as in violent cycles, that will just engender more of the same in the future. Breaking that cycle I think would be preferable, and especially since I don't think you have to just pander and sell out to offer compromise and our system anyway structurally requires compromise, I don't have a problem with it.

You?

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

We could run it like Italy, 61 governments since 1945.

[Just Lucky]

I am not sure if I'm communicating very clearly my thoughts on the subject. I am no stranger to negotiation and compromise.

What I am suggesting here is that the country needs and deserves a leader who rather than getting behind public opinion actually leads public opinion. By leading public opinion and gaining support during the campaign for major programs he/she will when assuming the Presidency have the power of the people behind the agenda and be able to push the legislation through Congress. If negotiations are necessary let them be from a position of strength.


Edit: maybe we could make this the new Democratic Party slogan: Democrats were not as far right as the Republicans but we're willing to negotiate"

[melliedee]

But we do have a two party system and so far I don't see a candidate who has a hope of making this deep division dissappear? Perhaps some would be better at lessening the situation than others.

This goes to both sides, btw. If Kucinich gets painted by the right as a loony, out-of-touch hippy for suggesting that Cheney be impeached, then what are we to make of the GOP candidate afraid to raise his hand to say he believes in evolution for fear of offending the religious right? The fact the Kucinich is not afraid to speak his convictions is what I admire. Would he be the worst, most divisive choice as a nominee? Probably. But he won't get it the nomination, and right now all his honesty does is force the other candidates to speak more plainly about the issues. At least I hope it does...

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

We could run it like Italy, 61 governments since 1945.

Well that would conform to the stereotype that Italians are famously disorganized and so forth. But of course it wouldn't have to be like that, either.

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

What I am suggesting here is that the country needs and deserves a leader who rather than getting behind public opinion actually leads public opinion. By leading public opinion and gaining support during the campaign for major programs he/she will when assuming the Presidency have the power of the people behind the agenda and be able to push the legislation through Congress. If negotiations are necessary let them be from a position of strength.

Edit: maybe we could make this the new Democratic Party slogan: Democrats were not as far right as the Republicans but we're willing to negotiate"

That's a good one -- I like that!

But again you're not allowing for very much, if any, positive connotation to the idea of compromise or bipartisanship or working together, which (don't look now!) is actually something that's very often presented in a positive light. You're still couching it in terms of selling out or being spineless -- not leading but following, as you put it above. I think you're classifying as all negative something that exists on a continuum between selling out, being spineless, pandering, etc (on one extreme) and being intransigent and stubborn and myopic and combative (on the other). I'm not suggesting that former, bad extreme, I'm suggesting avoiding the latter, equally bad extreme.

Well, and I'm suggesting maybe a bit of Realipolitik (though not in the more usual bad sense), waking up to the reality of the situation in the country today (like this division) and thereby avoiding decisions which will fail to get on the ballot and get elected candidates who could do us all some more good, which I think that latter extreme could likewise bring about.

Originally Posted by melliedee

But we do have a two party system and so far I don't see a candidate who has a hope of making this deep division dissappear? Perhaps some would be better at lessening the situation than others.

This goes to both sides, btw. If Kucinich gets painted by the right as a loony, out-of-touch hippy for suggesting that Cheney be impeached, then what are we to make of the GOP candidate afraid to raise his hand to say he believes in evolution for fear of offending the religious right? The fact the Kucinich is not afraid to speak his convictions is what I admire. Would he be the worst, most divisive choice as a nominee? Probably. But he won't get it the nomination, and right now all his honesty does is force the other candidates to speak more plainly about the issues. At least I hope it does...

Well again that "conscience of the party" function is certainly a valuable one, and good for him if that's what his function is.

As for candidates, I personally think we've already seen a couple -- Giuliani and Obama -- who by their stated views and background and actions seem, in their respective parties, like they may be something like such a candidate. And as corroboration, we've seen signs that each of them appeals to at least some in the other party. I'm not saying they're perfect, but I think they're a whole lot closer than many, many others, especially those more directly connected with the division in the past. So I'm more optimistic that they or somebody else might prove to be somebody along these lines.

Steve

[ryberg]

This might be a good analogy of the perspectives I'm talking about. The Wikipedia page on Realpolitik says, for example:

The policy of realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment.

It's up to you to decide whether Nixon going to China was selling out the principle of being opposed to communism or a recognition of reality and a way to move forward through compromise to improve things. But there are certainly 2 possibilities and different people will judge the move differently; it's by no means the case that it could only have been selling out once firmly held principles. Indeed, to make the analogy even clearer to the case of candidates running up to an election, it seems silly to assume that even Nixon sold out his own principles with respect to communism. A candidate similarly shouldn't be judged as having sold out his/her principles or resorted to pandering, or be viewed as spineless, for recognizing the need for compromise in order to move forward with at least some of an agenda. I think it's just reality and maturity to do so, in many cases.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Steve, I think again you missed my point. I understand political compromise. What I am suggesting is that people in this country are looking for leaders that will accomplish things. Yes a certain amount of compromise and negotiation are necessary for that to happen.

What I am trying to say is that I haven't seen any Democratic candidate that inspires the public to think in grand terms as to what might be accomplished and that admitting early on in any negotiation that you are willing to accept a less than favourable outcome for your side is negotiating from weakness.

Personally, I'd also like to see a Democratic Party that would do more than pay lip service every four years to the needs of the poor and the working class. Speaking of compromise how about a coalition of forward thinking businessmen, workers, the poor, intellectuals,teachers, unions and the middle class as a coalition?
.

[dartay]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve, I think again you missed my point. I understand political compromise. What I am suggesting is that people in this country are looking for leaders that will accomplish things. Yes a certain amount of compromise and negotiation are necessary for that to happen.

What I am trying to say is that I haven't seen any Democratic candidate that inspires the public to think in grand terms as to what might be accomplished and that admitting early on in any negotiation that you are willing to accept a less than favourable outcome for your side is negotiating from weakness.

Personally, I'd also like to see a Democratic Party that would do more than pay lip service every four years to the needs of the poor and the working class. Speaking of compromise how about a coalition of forward thinking businessmen, workers, the poor, intellectuals,teachers, unions and the middle class as a coalition?
.

JL, I don't believe that what you're claiming is limited to the Democrats, I think that the GOP suffers from the same malady.


The real balance of power pendulum, the voting public, is swinging. In a sea of mediocrity (from both sides) the tide seems to favor the Dermocrats with the public weary of Bush's regime and an unpopular war, just as it favored the Republicans after the 8 years of nonsense from Clinton. The momentum is with your party, the problem is you guys know how to lose better.

[melliedee]

I think this can all be settled by the new "Obama vs. Giuliani"

YouTube - Debate '08: Obama Girl vs Giuliani Girl

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think this can all be settled by the new "Obama vs. Giuliani"

YouTube - Debate '08: Obama Girl vs Giuliani Girl

[ryberg]

That video is something! Excellent work bringing it to our attention, Melliedee!

Come on, roni -- I bet you even liked it.



And again here I agree with Dartay: Democrats know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory better than Republicans, which only adds to the importance of the point I'm trying to make, I think.

But now JL, you keep saying we're disagreeing, but then you keep saying things I agree with! To wit:

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve, I think again you missed my point. I understand political compromise. What I am suggesting is that people in this country are looking for leaders that will accomplish things. Yes a certain amount of compromise and negotiation are necessary for that to happen.

See, there -- ya got it exactly! I got my point across to you! Woo hoo!

Oh, but wait, there's more...

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

What I am trying to say is that I haven't seen any Democratic candidate that inspires the public to think in grand terms as to what might be accomplished...

Well OK, that's a very personal thing, who inspires you, I think...

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

...and that admitting early on in any negotiation that you are willing to accept a less than favourable outcome for your side is negotiating from weakness.

I'm not sure where you think that I'm saying that someone should admit that, or who or on what point... When you talk negotiation in a political context, I think of smoke-filled committee rooms, for example, on Capital Hill. But what I'm talking about is simply a recognition of what is more or less likely to get you elected, and blending the importance of that with the importance of the absolute purity of your views and so forth.

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Personally, I'd also like to see a Democratic Party that would do more than pay lip service every four years to the needs of the poor and the working class.

There you go again -- I agree! But again, I think if you want that, then you'd want a Democrat to get into office first and then address those issues from the White House, rather than try to address those issues as a guest on Larry King, say, but not one who is in office.

Steve

[Seakony]

Voters vote with their pocketbooks and wallet.

[Banzoomba]

Originally Posted by Seakony

Voters vote with their pocketbooks and wallet.

I always do but....but I don't have a good record of picking winners in State elections latley