http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?th&emc=th

Interesting perspective.

I don't agree with his characterization of Barack Obama as someone who realizes that the other side has legitimate concerns and reaches out to them. I have some serious concerns about what he is doing. I think I'm a fairly reasonable and overal moderate person, conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and I think my concerns are legitimate. I cannot think of one thing that he has done that gave me any reason to believe that he cares about any of my concerns. I think he's a hard-line ideologue who is interested solely in pushing his world view and ideas on all of us, and whether those ideas actually make things better or worse is of little or no concern to him. I'm keeping my mind open for him to convince me otherwise, but so far I see absolutely no cause for optimism in anything that he has done or is proposing to do. His Change does not give me Hope.

The best thing he has done to my way of thinking is that, in handling the pirate/hostage situation, it certainly appears that he gave the on-scene commander more latitude and authority than any of his predecessors dating back to at least Ford. Unfortunately, unless the pirates attack the Seychelles while I'm there next month, I don't see much way that will affect me.

IMO the second best thing he has done is ... well, truth be known, I'm actually still waiting for him to do a second thing that strikes me as good.

(05-28-2009 10:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think he's a hard-line ideologue who is interested solely in pushing his world view and ideas on all of us, and whether those ideas actually make things better or worse is of little or no concern to him.

I have heard this line or a similar one (Pelosi or Obama, or whoever "doesn't care if it makes things better"). Of course they CARE. Even the worst leaders think their decisions are right at the time.

This is of course immaterial to the point of whether they are, indeed, right.

Only a very criminally-minded (and therefore short-sighted) "leader" wouldn't see the futility of pursuing plans and laws that even they didn't think would work.

(05-28-2009 10:53 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 10:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think he's a hard-line ideologue who is interested solely in pushing his world view and ideas on all of us, and whether those ideas actually make things better or worse is of little or no concern to him.

I have heard this line or a similar one (Pelosi or Obama, or whoever "doesn't care if it makes things better"). Of course they CARE. Even the worst leaders think their decisions are right at the time.
This is of course immaterial to the point of whether they are, indeed, right.
Only a very criminally-minded (and therefore short-sighted) "leader" wouldn't see the futility of pursuing plans and laws that even they didn't think would work.

I agree totally with your analysis and I retain the same conclusion.

I really don't believe that our political leaders care about anything more than sustaining their own power. I believe the same about Bush (and particularly Cheney) as I am expressing here about Obama. I would feel pretty much the same way about ANY democrat or republican on the national scene, just some more than others.

Emmie, you posted something a while back (and I'm doing this from memory, so I may not have all the details exactly right, but I think the main thrust is correct) to the effect that you believe that the best political and/or economic system would start from the assumption that people are inherently bad. I don't disagree, and I make the same assumption about anyone in politics.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way we can defend ourselves at all is to keep the three loci of power--political, economic, religious--as far apart as possible. Republicans want to merge religious and political. Democrats want to merge economic and political. I want them kept separate.

(05-28-2009 10:53 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 10:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think he's a hard-line ideologue who is interested solely in pushing his world view and ideas on all of us, and whether those ideas actually make things better or worse is of little or no concern to him.

I have heard this line or a similar one (Pelosi or Obama, or whoever "doesn't care if it makes things better"). Of course they CARE. Even the worst leaders think their decisions are right at the time.

This is of course immaterial to the point of whether they are, indeed, right.

Only a very criminally-minded (and therefore short-sighted) "leader" wouldn't see the futility of pursuing plans and laws that even they didn't think would work.

IF you are referring to the thread I started which asks if anyone genuinely believes that the administration's economic policies will work in promoting economic growth, I think that was and is a fair question.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that certain people in the administration might not actually care whether the policies "work" in the sense of promoting growth. This doesn't mean that such people are criminally-minded. It just means that growth is not something they really care about. For example, if your goal is to increase government ownership of the economy, then collectivizing farms (as in Soviet Russia) or nationalizing industry "works", regardless of the (inevitably harmful) effect it has on actual food production or long-run prosperity. If your goal is to keep out imports, protectionism "works" -- regardless of the effect is has on the economy as a whole -- and certainly there are business and labor leaders who ardently pursue protectionism PRECISELY BECAUSE they believe that the goal of suppressing imports in their particular market niche trumps the goal of overall economic growth.

Thus, it seems entirely plausible that some politicians might be more than happy to permanently curtail prosperity in favor of other goals. The United Kingdom did exactly that for two generations; Argentina has done it for nearly a century (becoming the first large country on earth to descend from First World to Third World status); the Soviet Union was founded on this very notion. By the same token, people are often willing to sacrifice liberty to achieve some notion of equality or security. (History shows this is usually a fool's errand -- but one that mankind is forever willing to repeat, time and again.)

To ask "does the president care whether his policies will actually promote growth" is not, ipso facto, an unfair question. Maybe he:
A. really wants to promote growth, and thinks his policies will do so; or
B. really wants to promote growth, doesn't necessarily think his policies will do so, but isn't sure what else can or should be done; or
C. believes his policies will achieve other goals he considers more important, and doesn't really care whether they promote growth.

The public posture is obviously A. Some folks on both the right and the left have argued that B is closer to the truth. Others suspect that the real story is C. C is not intrinsically evil; countries sacrifice growth all the time to achieve other more important objectives (e.g. the British blockade of Napoleonic France; the Union blockade of the Confederacy; and the Allied blockade of Germany.) But if the real story is C, I wish the administration would say so.

My suspicion is that the real story is this:
- Some people in the administration are C -- and would probably admit to it if asked off the record;
- President Obama has some sympathy with C, but is probably mostly a B, with occasional notions of A
- We'll never really know anyway, because (1) the political process is too inefficient to allow a really strenuous C agenda to prevail; (2) the American economy is resilient enough to achieve some recovery even if a mild C agenda is pursued; and (3) there is no way to measure the recovery that would have happened otherwise.

(1) is a credit to the wisdom of our founders,
(2) is a credit to the ingenunity of the people, and
(3) is a testament to the inexactness of historical study.

(05-28-2009 11:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Thus, it seems entirely plausible that some politicians might be more than happy to permanently curtail prosperity in favor of other goals. .

I think other examples of this would be North Korea and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I think all American presidents immediately start thinking about their legacy, how their Admisinstration will forever be known in the history books, and then many decisions are made under the influence of this goal that seem to make little sense to us.

(05-28-2009 10:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't agree with his characterization of Barack Obama as someone who realizes that the other side has legitimate concerns and reaches out to them.

Well, for what it's worth, the article didn't exactly characterize Obama as someone who realizes the other side's legitimate concerns, but rather as someone who trades in the _rhetoric_ of recognizing the other side's concerns. A small difference, but perhaps you'd be more likely to accept the latter construction?

I think the abortion section of Obama's speech at ND gives an example of this approach (apologies for such a long quote):

Obama's ND address Wrote:...
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
...

But anyway, interesting article, Kinder. I'm interested to know how well the study results the article cited held up for the other posters here.
For the first result (that liberals would be okay with slapping Dad if given permission but conservatives would not) I wasn't able to judge my true feelings because the article's headline gave away the punchline. After having read "Would you slap your Father? If so, you're a liberal", I decided I couldn't be sure of my gut-level response because I'd already been influenced by the "answer".
But I was able to consider the second question ("Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?") without bias. Personally, the answer was "no" - it doesn't disgust me. Turns out the study findings held true there, as that's the liberal's answer and I consider myself a liberal.

Did anyone else self-test on those questions?

(05-29-2009 02:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 10:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't agree with his characterization of Barack Obama as someone who realizes that the other side has legitimate concerns and reaches out to them.

Well, for what it's worth, the article didn't exactly characterize Obama as someone who realizes the other side's legitimate concerns, but rather as someone who trades in the _rhetoric_ of recognizing the other side's concerns. A small difference, but perhaps you'd be more likely to accept the latter construction?

I would agree totally with that construction, and perhaps take the contrast a bit further. I think he is trading in those concerns at the same time that the mass media is giving him credit for being legitimately concerned.

Case in point. Before the "stimulus" plan vote, he invited the republican congressional delegation to the white house. The press portrayed this as "reaching out" to them. In reality it seems to have been anything but. He didn't solicit their input, he gave them an ultimatum, "This is the deal, support it or else." Wen they attempted to provide input he told them, "We already debated that. We won." It was staged to show Obama as reaching out, and the press fell for it, but in reality it was pretty much the ultimate "F you."

I think the Obamacrats have made one huge miscalculation. They claim the last election was a "mandate" for their ideas, when in reality it was--like 2006--primarily a rejection of Shrub. The democrats seem to be going "all in" that their socialist program will revive the economy. So far, the American people are pretty much giving them a free pass, I think because most are just hoping at this point that SOMETHING will work. When it doesn't, if the only alternative we have to democrat socialism is republican theocracy, we will truly be hosed. That is the truly unpretty future that I see.

(05-29-2009 02:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  For the first result (that liberals would be okay with slapping Dad if given permission but conservatives would not) I wasn't able to judge my true feelings because the article's headline gave away the punchline. After having read "Would you slap your Father? If so, you're a liberal", I decided I couldn't be sure of my gut-level response because I'd already been influenced by the "answer".
But I was able to consider the second question ("Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?") without bias. Personally, the answer was "no" - it doesn't disgust me. Turns out the study findings held true there, as that's the liberal's answer and I consider myself a liberal.

Did anyone else self-test on those questions?

I did:
With permission for a comedy sketch -- my answer was yes... but that of course means I have to be doing a comedy sketch, which is highly improbable.

Faucets in public restrooms -- I'm fine with it but prefer if the washroom in question uses paper towels rather than blowers so that I may wash, dry and use the towel to both turn off the spigot and open the doors (note to all you archis -- when designing a public restroom be sure to place a trash can close enough to the exit inside the door for people like me).

So what would my answers say about me? Perhaps they'd say I'm a liberal with a few conservative tendencies, which wouldn't be unfair. Or maybe they'd say I display some minor OCD tendencies, which also wouldn't be unfair.

(05-29-2009 02:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Well, for what it's worth, the article didn't exactly characterize Obama as someone who realizes the other side's legitimate concerns, but rather as someone who trades in the _rhetoric_ of recognizing the other side's concerns.

Uncannily accurate, I'd say. Hit the nail on the head.

(05-29-2009 02:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I think the abortion section of Obama's speech at ND gives an example of this approach (apologies for such a long quote):

Quote:Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
...

This excerpt is excellent proof of your point: the rhetoric of supposed empathy, but in fact conceding nothing. Removing abortion law from the arena of debate is EXACTLY what the pro-choice lobby seeks to do -- there is little secret about that. They are adamantly opposed to having the issue hashed out in state legislatures, where (gasp!) they might not prevail. Instead they insist that the issue must remain the exclusive province of the judiciary. The courts are a wonderful way to decide disputes between individual parties under the laws, but not well-equipped to decide what the laws should be -- not least because once they announce a decicion (even one whose factual foundations are transient and whose reasoning is sloppy), they tend to get rather rigid in applying it. It would have been more honest if the president had said "Have fun debating, but the game is over."

If one wants to enshrine a particular activity as a constitutional right, there is a very straightforward way to do it: amend the Constitution. This is exactly what abolitionists did in 1865 to make freedom from slavery a right. It is exactly what proponents of 18-year-old voting did in the 1970s. In fact, it's exactly what the proponents of free speech did in the 18th century. It takes political muscle, but it is not unprecedented (there have been 27 amendments, after all.) It also takes exactly the kind of debate that the president says he encourages. And after all that, if you don't win, if you are not persuasive enough, then guess what -- your proposed right does not get enshrined. Welcome to a republic.

Alternatively, one could realize that the activity is not a constitutional right but still a rightful subject of legislative policy, and hash out solutions state by state. Again, welcome to a republic -- and a federal one, at that.

But to argue that something already IS a constitutional right, because you don't think you could succeed legislatively and thus constitutional status would really be a lot more convenient for you, is sophistry.

(05-29-2009 08:21 AM)texd Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 02:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Did anyone else self-test on those questions?

I did:
With permission for a comedy sketch -- my answer was yes... but that of course means I have to be doing a comedy sketch, which is highly improbable.

Faucets in public restrooms -- I'm fine with it but prefer if the washroom in question uses paper towels rather than blowers so that I may wash, dry and use the towel to both turn off the spigot and open the doors (note to all you archis -- when designing a public restroom be sure to place a trash can close enough to the exit inside the door for people like me).

So what would my answers say about me? Perhaps they'd say I'm a liberal with a few conservative tendencies, which wouldn't be unfair. Or maybe they'd say I display some minor OCD tendencies, which also wouldn't be unfair.

I answered the two as a liberal is supposed to (according to Kristof). But I have some of texd's tendencies, as well. I always use soap. But I know what most males consider to be "hand washing" and, during the early days of the swine flu hysteria, used the paper-towel-on-the-door-handle maneuver.

As for Obama's motivations - I lean toward the region between George's A and B, but maybe there are some differences among the policies one would implement to get out of the financial/economic crisis and those one would implement to promote growth under more nominal conditions. For instance, I still see no reason to believe that Obama wants the government running banks and auto companies.

(05-29-2009 11:24 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  For instance, I still see no reason to believe that Obama wants the government running banks and auto companies.

I don't either, except for his actions. That's exactly what he IS doing.

As for motivations, on George's scale I would make Obama a hard C.

FWIW, that's not a partisan sentiment. I don't trust any politician, republican or democrat. That's why I favor small government. If we can't trust them, then the best we can do is limit the scope of the things they can do that we can't trust them about.

At this point I see no reason to believe that Obama has a stronger moral and ethical compass than, say, Ken Lay. That's not partisan, either, at least not R-vs-D partisan. You could replace "Obama" with the name of any of at least 95% of the politicians in Washington, and I'd feel exactly the same way.

Owl 69/70/75, i'd like to say your glass is half empty, but after reading your various posts in the Quad (particularly the ones suggestion our world is basically coming to an end in the near future), I have to say that I'm pretty sure there is no water in your glass at all. Is it exhausting being this negative so much of the time?

(05-29-2009 11:56 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  Owl 69/70/75, i'd like to say your glass is half empty, but after reading your various posts in the Quad (particularly the ones suggestion our world is basically coming to an end in the near future), I have to say that I'm pretty sure there is no water in your glass at all. Is it exhausting being this negative so much of the time?

Actually, people who know me well tend to think of me as the eternal optimist. To continue your glass analogy, I once had a co-worker say that I would describe a glass with one drop in it as "partially full."

This is just my read of the tea leaves. I see absolutely no basis for any belief that any of this is going to work out well. I will repeat the question I have put to many friends who supported Obama: If you can see a way that this can work, what is it? So far, I've gotten no answers.

Probably the closest I can come to a reason for optimism is the feeling some of my fundamentalist Christian friends have that God has this all planned out and He is going to make it all work for the best. That's not the way I think God works. I consider myself a Christian; that strikes me as some kind of voodoo. Otherwise, my greatest cause for hope is recalling that when Richard Nixon gave us the 55 mph speed limit, Americans figured out how to use CB radios. We are a very resourceful people, particularly adept at keeping our government from screwing us.

I have no confidence in Obama, nor would I have had any in McCain. I do have confidence in my ability (with God's help), or more properly in God's ability (with or without my help) to get through this. But I don't think my government will be helping.

(05-29-2009 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point I see no reason to believe that Obama has a stronger moral and ethical compass than, say, Ken Lay. That's not partisan, either, at least not R-vs-D partisan. You could replace "Obama" with the name of any of at least 95% of the politicians in Washington, and I'd feel exactly the same way.

Could you give us a few names out of the 5%?

Ray LaHood would be on my x% list. I was very excited to see him get a post in the administration since he didn't run again.

(05-29-2009 12:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point I see no reason to believe that Obama has a stronger moral and ethical compass than, say, Ken Lay. That's not partisan, either, at least not R-vs-D partisan. You could replace "Obama" with the name of any of at least 95% of the politicians in Washington, and I'd feel exactly the same way.

Could you give us a few names out of the 5%?

Interesting question. Trying to come up with names, and I'm realizing that the number is probably way smaller than 5%. I would put Ron Paul on the list. He at least does not appear to have sold out to the Washington inside crowd. Past that, it's hard to find another.

(05-29-2009 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 11:56 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  Owl 69/70/75, i'd like to say your glass is half empty, but after reading your various posts in the Quad (particularly the ones suggestion our world is basically coming to an end in the near future), I have to say that I'm pretty sure there is no water in your glass at all. Is it exhausting being this negative so much of the time?

Actually, people who know me well tend to think of me as the eternal optimist. To continue your glass analogy, I once had a co-worker say that I would describe a glass with one drop in it as "partially full."

This is just my read of the tea leaves. I see absolutely no basis for any belief that any of this is going to work out well. I will repeat the question I have put to many friends who supported Obama: If you can see a way that this can work, what is it? So far, I've gotten no answers.

Probably the closest I can come to a reason for optimism is the feeling some of my fundamentalist Christian friends have that God has this all planned out and He is going to make it all work for the best. That's not the way I think God works. I consider myself a Christian; that strikes me as some kind of voodoo. Otherwise, my greatest cause for hope is recalling that when Richard Nixon gave us the 55 mph speed limit, Americans figured out how to use CB radios. We are a very resourceful people, particularly adept at keeping our government from screwing us.

I have no confidence in Obama, nor would I have had any in McCain. I do have confidence in my ability (with God's help), or more properly in God's ability (with or without my help) to get through this. But I don't think my government will be helping.

Don't look to me for Obama answers. I wasn't a supporter.

(05-29-2009 12:48 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Don't look to me for Obama answers. I wasn't a supporter.

Just to be clear, the scope of my concern extends far past Obama.
Shrub was a disaster, and I think McCain would have been as well.
This has been getting worse for a while, and while I think Obama is going to make it worse still, I see him as continuing a downward trend rather than screwing up a good situation.
What I don't understand is why so many bright people are absolutely convinced that his changes are exactly what we need.
I think that is about as far from the truth as I can imagine anything being.
It's the people who believe that (apparently excluding you) that I wish would give me some answers.
The only difference I see at this point between McCain and Obama is that we were going to h*ll in a handbasket either way, it was just going to be slower under McCain, if nothing else because of some degree of gridlock with a democrat-controlled congress.
That's pretty much what I wrote last fall, and that's still the way I see it.
I suppose the one advantage of Obama is that the sooner things crater, the sooner we will be able to start putting things back together on the other side.
That's not much, but it's what we have.

My grandfather got rich during the depression (unfortunately, he remarried after my grandmother passed, and the step-grandmother ended up with all of it). He did it because he was prepared for the worst when it happened. I've done the best I can to do the same. I hope it works as well for me as it did for him. And I'll stay single before I'll remarry a gold-digger.

and, this is why it seemed to me you see the glass as half empty. i see a sunny day and baseball only hours away. i'm trying not to worry about the rest of it -- not that it's not important but i don't want to miss out on what is good today either.