No, not really. I was just inside the bottom right quadrant, close to the center. The program said I was closer to Guliani than any other, farthest from Obama. No great surprises, there, I guess.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was pretty neat how they set it up. I was close to the center of the lower right quadrant. It said I was closest to Romney, but when I looked at the percentages, the difference was negligible between him, Guiliani, Huckabee and Thompson . I was also furthest from Obama, which I found surprising and interesting. I tend to "like" him better than the other candidates, which says a lot about style over substance.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like it will come down to Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama for the Democrats. I once thought Hilary had a lock on it, but now I'm not so sure.
On the Republican side, who knows? Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Guliana and even Thompson still have a shot at it.
Whatever the case, I think the Republican will win easily.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another good article from Peggy Noonan, sort of dissecting what is going on in each party right now - she's pretty tough on Bill Clinton AND George W. Bush:
Exit polling and national surveys ask voters which issues are most important to them and responses to same vary as priorities shift between different demographics, ideologies and interest groups. Paramount in most people’s hearts and minds, assuredly, are issues of life and death. What has been called a Consistent Ethos of Life, or the Seamless Garment of Life, entails a broad spectrum of issues that don’t neatly fit simple classification schemes and that often defy facile analysis.
At the forefront of social issues, political discourse broadly addresses civil rights, healthcare, education, immigration and poverty, for example, and also, more specifically, addresses such as the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives and school vouchers.
Economic concerns certainly overlap with certain social issues and almost every issue will also have a fiscal dimension and one of jurisprudence, too.
National security issues include foreign relations, immigration, war and peacekeeping, terrorism, natural disasters and such, generally speaking, as well as more specific concerns like torture, war crimes and genocide.
When it comes to choosing and articulating ideals, guiding principles are not that difficult to come by. Certainly, the sanctity of human life, basic human dignity, human solidarity and the common good --- with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness --- are foundational. They are the non-negotiable ends toward which all ways and means are ordered. They are the intrinsic goods for which we strive in all other human affairs and without which nothing else could truly matter. Thus it is that we can speak of a hierarchy of values and of a prioritization of ideals. These foundational values are essentials, while gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, creed and national origin are accidentals.
Anyone who has paid attention to recent political discourse could come away thinking that our political parties and ideologies differ mostly with respect to the ideals and ends to which they aspire. And, when one truly believes this, then it is perhaps easier to demonize others and to caricaturize their positions, attacking their character and ignoring their nuances. So, this brings up one of the more critical distinctions we need to make. Prudential judgment has both a moral and a practical component.
Most often, our political differences are not based on disagreements in defining foundational human ideals and aspirations and ends, rather, they are grounded in practical considerations regarding ways and means. One would never know this by listening to all the heated rhetoric and polarizing demagoguery. Thus we have buzzwords like class struggle, identity politics and wedge issues.
This is not to ignore that there can be and that there are genuine differences in some values and ideals and their prioritization, or even in their very definitions and metaphysical categories; however, these authentic differences tend to center around those issues that do not more readily lend themselves to moral clarity and transparency to human reason; however, again, this is not always the case and, further, this is not usually the case. Rather, our two-party system seems to be mostly about nurturing the tension between time-honored subsidiarity principles and indispensable socialization processes.
Subsidiarity principles (getting the job done as close to the individual as possible, for the sake of human dignity) and socialization processes (that recognize our solidarity and commitment to the common good) --- should exist in a creative tension, as needs change thru time. Some ideologues take these small vs large govt approaches and treat them as a fetish rather than a tool and when the only tool one has is a hammer, everything suspiciously looks like a nail.
To clarify what we mean by: subsidiarity principles and socialization processes --- let's call them, respectively, small government and BIG government.
Now, did you ever notice: 1) how some almost always invoke small government re: the economy, while, at the same time, calling for BIG government on social issues (for example, conservative extremists) ? 2) and others almost always invoke BIG government re: the economy, while, at the same time, calling for small government on social issues (for example, liberal extremists)? 3) and still others who are almost always suspicious and pessimistic re: BIG government on most all domestic affairs but are otherwise eternal optimists re: BIG government's role in foreign affairs (for example, the neoconservative extremists) ? 4) how, on the surface, appearing most consistent of all, there are those who always invoke small government whether re: social, economic or foreign affairs (for example, the libertarian extremists)? Still, our modern libertarians, in my view, seem to confuse license (to do what one wants) with liberty (following Lord Acton, to do what one must).
To avoid these extremist approaches, one can navigate through the history of our country’s origin, which takes as its foundation those universals negotiated by our Founders and codified in our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution: human dignity, the common good, human solidarity, human equality, a natural law (a minimalist conception thereof), a humanist-personalist perspective and so on, with nonestablishment but free exercise of religion.
Because we are finite and have finite resources, these principles of human dignity can then be combined with a realist approach that would not let the best become the enemy of the good vis a vis our great American pragmatic tradition. This tradition has a jurisprudence (which asks: What makes a good law?) that draws critical distinctions between civil and moral laws and follows time-honored rules re: when they should or should not overlap (e.g. John Courtney Murray).
This tradition recognizes that subsidiarity principles must give way to socialization processes in order to get certain indispensable jobs done as ordered toward the end of human dignity, but that our socialization tents must fold as soon as those jobs are done, as soon as individuals are empowered to do for themselves what no one else should otherwise do for them. This is not a judgment call that can be made casually, though, as some are assuredly born on thirdbase? as some others proudly hit a triple, while others, still, never even got a chance at bat.
These themes are not ideological biases of an ideologue, but are principled foundations of pragmatism, realism and a classical American thought. These are foundations that can help us change with the times and with the emergent circumstances and exigencies of the world stage. These principles are tools and not really the elements of policy; they are the ways and means but not the ends of policy-making.
We must transcend the extremes of liberal, conservative, neoconservative and libertarian divides and avoid the fetishes of partisan politics. We must elevate our political discourse and bring out the best of our diversity --- e pluribus unum --- and call our American politicians to a celebration of their diversity in ministry with their unity of mission.
Let me now turn and narrow my focus to how practical considerations come to bear on political deliberations.
First, let me draw a crucial distinction, which is that between the intended and unintended consequences of casting a vote. The reason this distinction is pertinent is because, while it would seem that no one would deliberately vote for a candidate who would advance what one considered, per one’s chosen ideals, to be an intrinsically evil agenda (for example, the prosecution of an unjust war or the advocacy of abortion rights), in only a very few cases will one find a candidate with whom one resonates on every single issue, even regarding what one might consider to be an entire suite of non-negotiable issues (e.g. abortion, war, euthanasia, death penalty, torture).
The technical distinction we can draw here is that between what is known as formal and material cooperation in evil, the former involving the deliberate and intended outcome, the latter involving what is considered remote cooperation, which is unintended (regarding both its means and its end). Our decision to support a candidate with whom we agree on, what are for us, some non-negotiable issues (let’s say, for example, an unjust war) but with whom we otherwise disagree with on, what are for us, yet other non-negotiable issues (let’s say, for example, abortion rights) can thus be both logically consistent and morally permissible when that decision is properly bolstered by proportionate reason, which is to say that, when there is a double-effect of any given action, which is not in and of itself intrinsically evil (let’s say, for example, voting), then, it can be morally justified if the good accomplished by that action outweighs the bad. I will parse this further, below.
Here, we must introduce another distinction, that between the certain and the probable; we must not pretend that the desired, or undesired, effects are certain but must prudently judge, best we can, which effects --- good or bad --- are probable. This brings in a host of other considerations that invite the tempering of an unbridled idealism with political realism.
When it comes to voting for a candidate, then, it is not enough to know their stance on this or that non-negotiable issue, it matters greatly how likely they would or would not be in realizing that stance, effecting its positions and achieving its ends.
In other words, politics is the art of the possible.
In my consideration of the case for war with Iran, several months ago, I inventoried over a dozen steps of incremental strategizing and confrontation that would have to be exhausted prior to military action. The moral justification of a war per just war principles requires us to explore other remedies and to exhaust other more preferable alternatives.
We continue to live in most dangerous times, and this is true re: terrorism in general but also in relations between states. Pakistan is extremely volatile and they are a nuclear power. The Middle East remains a perennial powder keg ready to ignite, not just re: Iran and Iraq, but also re: Israel, the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria. China is emerging as a major military power. North Korea remains a rogue state. America's military resources are finite and stretched to the breaking point already. We cannot be the police of the world even if that was desirable. We have no clue who will attack us next, or where, but we must remain vigilant. We must ask ourselves who will best maintain the peace and who will most prudently employ just war principles.
Where abortion is concerned, if one has a goal of reducing, then even eliminating, abortions, one would wish to consider all of the manifold and varied alternatives, and discern which are the most achievable realistically, for the near and the long term. And one could strategize on several fronts simultaneously insofar as these strategies are not mutually exclusive. One could explore remedies: 1) cultural, moral & spiritual, 2) social & civic, 3) economic & political, 4) global, national & local, and 5) executive, legislative & judicial.
At the Vox Nova Blog, devoted to Catholic Perspectives on Culture, Society & Politics, there is an article entitled Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians? The following questions are posed regarding candidates, in general, and abortion:
quote: “Will the legislator be able to influence abortion? What if the office has no authority to address this issue (a local office, for example)? And even with national office, how much influence does an elected representative at the legislative or executive level have in affecting the legality of abortion, given that the “right” ultimately derives from the Supreme Court? How much focus should there be on changing the composition of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? How can we be certain that judges will choose this path, and how do we weigh the potentially harmful decisions they may make in other areas? And even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, will the incidence of abortion truly diminish, or will it just shift to the state level? Is criminalization of abortion sufficient? Evidence from elsewhere (Latin America in particular) points to a booming abortion industry even when it is not legal. How much attention should be paid to the economic factors that affect the abortion decision, given that most women opting for abortion are economically disadvantaged, and, there is a strong link between poverty and abortion? Will policies that focus on poverty, economic opportunity, and access to adequate health care and child care be more effective than coercion? The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world. And what if the pro-life politician scores poorly on other policy issues, such as war and torture, especially if he or she makes barely a dent in the incidence of abortion? None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery -- it will be universally condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.
As it is, a lot of folks misunderstand what overturning Roe vs Wade would entail. It wouldn't make abortion illegal. It would simply turn the issue back over to the states and to voters, rather than the judiciary. In such a federalist environment, those with resources could travel to another state; those lacking same would either take matters into their own hands or forego the "opportunity." See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm
In this day and age, it is necessary, even as it is difficult and repugnant, to have to engage in such calculus and tradeoffs as might be involved in answering this question: By voting for one candidate versus the next, how much more barbarism and how many more brutal atrocities might we prevent on all Seamless Garment of Life issues taken together, such as might come about from reducing the number of abortions, or from reducing the human toll of war (euphemistically called collateral damage), or from reducing disease, poverty, hunger, inadequate healthcare, genocide, etc?
In closing, as reported by Neela Banerjee, in a November 2007 article entitled Catholic Bishops Offer Voting Guide, Allowing Some Flexibility on Issue of Abortion:
quote: The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops approved principles Wednesday intended to guide Catholics in choosing whom to vote for but leaving the door open for them. Abortion is among a few evils greater than others, the document asserts. But it also concedes that Catholics face difficult decisions when voting and in some cases might be able to vote for those who support abortion rights or stem cell research. “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,” the document says. “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB, it sounds like you're going to be casting a very informed vote this year.
Those are good principles and guidelines. Your point about there being no candidate with whom one resonates completely is especially well-taken. That will surely be the case this year!
Re. abortion -- the most important issue to many Catholics -- I don't think the President nor legislators can do much. A "Human Life Amendment" to the Constitution would never get out of Congress, and if it did, the States would never endorse it. So it really comes down to Supreme Court nominees, which the President has control over. Those who place this issue as a high priority need to listen to what the candidates say about this, and they need to realize that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue just reverts to the states.
In addition to the kinds of considerations you've noted above, there are some that are more difficult to describe, measure, evaluate. E.g., leadership skills, trustworthiness, sense of this being the right person for these times. I think people often vote more on those than the issues.
Should be an interesting election. Republicans are rooting for Hilary, but I'm thinking more and more it will be Obama from the Democrat side. The Republican candidate will likely be McCain. Huckabee still has a chance, but it's two out, bottom of the 9th, the count 3 and 2 . . .
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by johnboy: “What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”
Don't you know it's gonna be alright - John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich
Well, don’t keep us in suspense. What’s your conclusion?
IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil: So it really comes down to Supreme Court nominees, which the President has control over. Those who place this issue as a high priority need to listen to what the candidates say about this, and they need to realize that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue just reverts to the states.
re: the Constitution, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote that we should interpret it in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. I see an analog here to the Catholic approach to Scripture and Tradition over against the literalist-like approach of the fundamentalists, whose judicial analog is strict constructionism.
At the same time, I am wary of any who would call the Constitution a living document, who would not, in the same breath, also affirm Justice Robert's aphorism that boldness is not a virtue of the judiciary.
The opposite of judicial activism is neither strict constructionism (distinguished from originalism and textualism by Justice Scalia) nor is it an unnuanced Living Constitution approach. The remedy to judicial activism, is, rather, a principled judicial minimalism, modesty being a virtue of the judiciary. With this approach, for example, we wouldn't have had Roe but we could have gun control .
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil: In addition to the kinds of considerations you've noted above, there are some that are more difficult to describe, measure, evaluate. E.g., leadership skills, trustworthiness, sense of this being the right person for these times. I think people often vote more on those than the issues.
It does seem that those who vote on issues are more often described as being single-issue voters, too. Otherwise, as you say, people do seem to vote for presidential candidates based on character and personality traits and gut feelings. And those are very important.
It seems that one of the most common ways that people attempt to combine character traits and issues, in order to evaluate and measure candidates, is by looking for principles over against political expedience (or pandering). In this regard, it seems to me like the voters have given Huckabee, McCain and Obama higher marks than the Clintons and Romney?
re: the Supreme Court Justice selection processes
Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy. G.H.W. Bush appointed Souter. When it came to Roe, in particular, those three were known as the troika and they voted in unison to preserve the essence of Roe, leaving some conservatives gnashing their teeth.
I have been unable to find a clear consensus regarding the philosophical leanings of McCain’s prospective nominees. Some say that he would not nominate a prospective justice who would overturn the McConnell decision re: campaign finance reform, which is his signature legislation, and that any such nominee would be so philosophically aligned as to more likely side with the liberal bloc of justices on other issues, too. See Catholics in the Public Square and this National Review article. On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal counters such speculation. Just a few days ago they wrote: “In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.”
My point is that, given past experience with three Reagan-Bush appointees and the ambiguity surrounding certain of McCain's conservative credentials, one must recognize that choosing a presidential candidate, based solely on that candidate's stated opposition to Roe & Doe, can be something of a gamble. In my view, that wager is significant.
In 2007, McCain said this: “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.” However, in 1999, he said this: “I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
No doubt, McCain and Clinton/Obama are clear choices vis a vis abortion. My point is that there is substantial doubt that their different positions might have any significant practical import.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From an oldie but goodie America article, Why Gun Control?, by The Most Rev. Michael W. Warfel, who was the bishop of the Diocese of Juneau, Alaska in 2000, when this was written.
quote: While some areas of the United States seem to be more prone to violence than others, no area is particularly safe or unscathed. Even in Alaska, there have been school shootings. For reasonable controls to be effective, regulations must be made on a federal level, like the Brady Bill. Without national legislation, it is simply too easy to transfer firearms across state boundaries.
Will restrictions on the possession and use of firearms totally solve the problem of gun violence? Hardly. Violence in society is recognizably a complex problem fed by a number of forces. The U.S. Catholic bishops’ statement Confronting a Culture of Violence (1994) lists a number of influences beyond firearms, such as the disintegration of family life, violence in media, substance abuse, gangs and youth violence and poverty.
As for Immigration, all of the candidates remaining in the race have said and/or done things that resonate with a compassionate approach to this issue. I found Romney's illegal immigrant bashing, which is of fairly recent vintage, disappointing.
I am proceeding, issue by issue, here, somewhat randomly, throwing out not-so-random thoughts.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I will not bother to provide details on individual personalities, but will give this the broad brush (since this is easily Google-able; I Googled this syntax: candidates' foreign policy advisers; here's a a great link: National Interests Online ).
When it comes to Foreign Policy, one way to discern any given candidate's outlook is to look at their foreign policy advisers, so to speak, the war councils. McCain's is obviously the most hawkish and includes some of the prominent neocons, also some realists, who tend toward a rather adventuresome approach to democratization.
Clinton's advisers were equally gung-ho about Iraq and suspicious of Iran, while Obama's mostly opposed the Iraq invasion from the start and downplay the Iranian threat. Clinton's position, in my view, appears to have evolved out of political expedience?
Interestingly, at first blush, the choices might bifurcate more like this: Obama, on one hand, and McCain/Clinton, otoh. It may be, too, that responses to realities on the ground overseas, in Iraq and elsewhere, and political pressures that come to bear on the homefront, will often tend to make foreign policy decision-making differences blur. Another thing, I think that the tone and tenor of position articulation are important.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by johnboy: [QUOTE] re: the Supreme Court Justice selection processes
Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy. G.H.W. Bush appointed Souter. When it came to Roe, in particular, those three were known as the troika and they voted in unison to preserve the essence of Roe, leaving some conservatives gnashing their teeth.
I have been unable to find a clear consensus regarding the philosophical leanings of McCain’s prospective nominees. . .
No doubt, McCain and Clinton/Obama are clear choices vis a vis abortion. My point is that there is substantial doubt that their different positions might have any significant practical import.
I agree. And ditto for taking a hard stand on militant Islam. The choices are pretty clear when it comes to those, and a few others. I'm not sure where McCain stands on healthcare issues, but it seems Obama and Clinton are ready to promote some kind of national healthcare insurance.
Re. the Judges appointed by Reagan and Bush I, Bob Dole was quoted recently as saying they were misled on Souter. That's surely one reason conservatives have drifted into the "strict constructionism" camp, where the "right to abortion" is considered something about which the Constitution has no opinion and which therefore requires leglislation to provide a basis for judgement.
- - -
Gun control . . . don't we already have that, to a certain extent?
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
an excerpt from Morning Notes by Dr. Michael Berry February 6, 2008
quote: The Fed tries to be the great leveler for the economy. It is becoming apparent that the Fed can no longer be all things to all people. Leveling the business cycle, restraining inflation, encouraging lending, supporting the asset markets and maintaining a strong dollar are all interrelated, yet competing goals. The monetary and fiscal tools we have cannot solve all problems simultaneously. Historically we have often moved to the geopolitical sphere for a solution. In the meantime all will bear some pain. Which of these competing goals will be let go?”
For all the talk about the economy and the presidency in this election year ---
It has long been debated whether there is even such a thing as a political business cycle, which is to ask whether deficit spending for such things as the Iraq War or the so-called economic stimulus plan have any meaningful impact on the macroeconomic level, especially once considering that in both cases we are talking less than 1% of a $14 trillion GDP. What is clear is that such fiscal maneuvers are inflationary and, hence, their true costs are both disguised and deferred. So, for instance, when we speak of the costs of war in terms of blood and treasure, we need to be very clear that it is both our children’s blood and our children’s treasure that we are sacrificing.
In this sense, then, the Fed is more like the fine tuner dial on our old TV’s and not at all like the dial that changed the channels. (Hmmm ... I need a better metaphor for the newer generations.) Such is the nature of monetary and fiscal tools; they can encourage, restrain and support, but they cannot control economic events. The government cannot eliminate the pain of poor business decisions or of un/avoidable wars, but it can impact where and by whom it is most felt and when. How much pain is directed toward irrational lenders, toward unsophisticated and/or spendthrift borrowers, toward consumers and other market segments, toward taxpayers, now or in the future, is what the government can be about. All that is being managed is redistribution of wealth and pain.
One cannot manage what one cannot control. One cannot control what one cannot measure. One cannot measure what one cannot define.
All of this is to recognize that when we define what it is the politicoes are doing, it is very much limited to leveling (Berry’s word) and in no way substantively involves controlling the economic engines or business cycles. Such control resides with the rest of us, some despondent, some exuberant, some rational, some irrational and most saying: Don’t pain you. Don’t pain me. Pain the wo/man behind the tree. (a Huey and/or Russell Longism?)
The easy-fix inflationary approaches that the Administration and Congress all too often turn to, e.g. so-called tax-rebates, will very specifically define by whom and when the pain will be experienced, which is to say that the persons behind the tree are all too often our sons, daughters and grandchildren.
Also, the president's very limited influence over the economy, per my "there ain't no significant political business cycle" theory, somewhat begs the question of how much of an expert the CEO needs to be on economic matters, e.g. Romney vs McCain, not that running a lemonade stand or the Olympics is not a resume builder.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of focus has been placed on criteria like experience and change. Fine, but what are some other criteria?
In my view, there has been too much emphasis on any given candidate’s unique qualifications, as if a CEO must be some type of master-of-all-trades re: fiscal & economic issues, domestic & foreign affairs, national security & political savvy. This amounts to a facile and demagogic sales pitch in some cases.
Many good CEOs maintain that their success is largely determined by one’s ability to surround oneself with good people, which is to say people of character (though not without foibles) and competence (measured in knowledge, skills, experience & high-level critical thinking) and suitable demeanor & comportment (civil in discourse, even in temperament & with good interpersonal skills). Once assembled, such a group of experts must participate in robust deliberative processes, which would mean that there had better be a serious devil’s advocacy dynamic involved.
Personally, I’d like to see Colin Powell serve in any administration, in whatever capacity.
This all points back to Phil's list of intangibles, like trustworthiness, leadership and such.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil: Gun control . . . don't we already have that, to a certain extent?
Yes, to some extent, but some think more should be done. There are proposals from time to time to: allow urban settings to have stricter enforcement; require background checks for weapons purchases; have manufacturers provide child-safety locks with all firearms; extend and maintain an assault weapons ban; ban sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons; tighten regulation of gunshows; limit the right to carry concealed handguns; impose waiting periods for buying handguns; implement a national registry to record every new handgun sale and transfer; etc. Counterarguments suggest that better enforcement of existing laws would suffice.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil: I'm not sure where McCain stands on healthcare issues, but it seems Obama and Clinton are ready to promote some kind of national healthcare insurance.
I think most share the goal of universal coverage (and fear the spectre of single provider) but Obama differs from Clinton in that he would not mandate coverage (except for children). McCain also criticizes mandates. Interestingly, the individual mandate route is the way Romney went in Massachusetts and that Schwarzenegger is trying to go in California.
McCain and Obama have it right re: no mandates. Some invoke an analog to auto insurance, which is mandatory. That analogy fails, in my view, in that driving is a privilege, not a right, while living is a right, not a privilege.
McCain would use what he calls tax dividends to help poor families procure coverage and would seek expansion of both community health centers and children's health insurance programs. Obama would seek a national program and focus on the uninsured and those ineligible for other plans. Some think that the way to get everyone covered without mandates is through presumptive enrollment, where everybody's in and has to opt out to buy their own.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phil: I agree. And ditto for taking a hard stand on militant Islam.
I agree. And ditto for taking a hard stand on confrontational Christianity.
quote:Gun control . . . don't we already have that, to a certain extent?
posted
re: Well, don’t keep us in suspense. What’s your conclusion?
Not to be too coy Here are some conclusions; plug them into the Q&A and I suppose that's who I'll be voting for in November.
On gun control, I'd like to see better enforcement of existing laws and stricter laws put on the books, nationwide, including the banning of semi-automatic weapons and the imposition of registration, licensing and background check requirements. Also, urban areas need more flexibility to deal with this issue.
To prevent illegal immigration, the US should complete the fence along the entire Mexican border. All illegal immigrants without a criminal record should be given the right (let's say, some way) to stay in the US legally. Illegal immigration only modestly threatens our national security. Compassion and pragmatism should guide our way. There ought to be as much talk about fining employers as there is about fining (much less deporting) illegal immigrants.
The death penalty does NOT help deter crime. The government should spend money on keeping drugs off the streets AND on treating drug addicts. Except for the most heinous, each crime there should NOT be a fixed minimum sentence; judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and social agencies need flexibility in rehabilitating persons to society.
No form of torture is acceptable to prevent terrorist attacks. Anti-terrorism legislation, such as the Patriot Act, in some ways, unacceptably violates civil liberties; we should be vigilant in protecting them.
Notwithstanding all the negatives re: the UN, the institution still plays a valuable role in world affairs and I do not believe the US should reduce its financial contribution to the UN.
I do NOT believe that an additional carbon tax on fuel will effectively reduce pollution. Still, since I believe that a more aggressive reduction of our carbon footprint would have many substantial collateral benefits --- like reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, which is one of our most significant national security issues --- I think the US should give serious consideration to signing international treaties on climate change even at some expense to our economic growth. We should be leaders. There will be opportunities to press India, China and others into compliance, especially if we can lead morally on this issue. It is not enough to assert that the interpretation of relevant data on global warming are probabilistic and inconclusive, for that is the nature of most of scientific research. Global warming is a credible scientific hypothesis warranting serious attention and the effects of global warming, itself, are not being grossly exaggerated, even if there is clearly some hype, in some quarters, regarding the amount of our certainty vis a vis the role of humans.
Mortgage lenders SHOULD be more tightly controlled. I lived through and worked in the banking and S&L crises of the last century and know what an indispensable role the regulators play, both in the safety and soundness of financial institutions and in consumer protection from them. The federal government should reduce income inequality within bounds of economic prudence via equal opportunity and on discrimination laws and setting of a minimum wage.
I also think that the best way to reduce the federal deficit is to raise taxes AND reduce unnecessary spending. There should have been a more widespread sacrifice experienced by the American people in prosecuting our recent wars. There is nothing wrong with reversing some of the tax cuts for people with a higher income. Our revenue system is supposed to be progressive, by design. The same thing goes for payroll deductions for social security and medicare; those salary caps need to be increased. The government does have some (ultimate) responsibility to provide retirement funds and healthcare. US law should obligate all companies, at least of a certain size and/or type, to provide health care insurance for their workers. We already mandate hospital emergency rooms to treat all comers with serious illness, whether they can pay or not; wellness programs and health insurance are more cost effective routes. People with higher incomes should receive less Medicare benefits; the essence of such government programs is wealth redistribution for a safety net; why kid ourselves?
Better teachers should be paid higher wages than their colleagues. Creationism should NOT be taught in science classes in school. Government funding should moreso go into public schools than to education vouchers.
I think that compassion requires that same sex marriages, perhaps in the form of some type of same sex civil union, should somehow be made legal.
On the military front, the US should NOT decrease its spending on defense. It cannot be denied that Iran is somewhat of an imminent threat to world peace. Regarding Iraq, the US must keep troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats. And, as long as al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, we must also keep enough troops in Iraq (or, at least, elsewhere in the region) to carry out targeted strikes on them. Otherwise, in my view, the US did not have every right to invade Iraq in that I am no longer wholly convinced that our deliberative process going in was not tainted by motives that would be inconsistent with just war principles and that those motives otherwise tipped the decision-making scales. And the US is not necessarily safer because of the invasion of Iraq. The next president should begin to bring home all US troops from Iraq immediately, for what Iraq needs is a political solution (and a better incentive to proceeed toward one forthwith) and they have shown little initiative in accomplishing same. If our resources --- people and materials and financial --- were not finite, perhaps we could justify a larger and longer presence.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by johnboy: Personally, I’d like to see Colin Powell serve in any administration, in whatever capacity.
How about turning back the clock and allowing him to replace Donald Rumsfeld very early in George W. Bush’ presidency?
I think things would have been far, far better!
One must actively seek the counsel of those with differing opinions. If Bush would have followed the Powell Doctrine, things would have been much better, perhaps. Most all of the neocons and many of the realists, who supported the invasion, do believe that the invasion was a correct decision, even in retrospect, but that it was poorly executed --- is what got us where we are today. Either they are correct or they have a juicy rationalization or cover story; history will judge. In my view, an adventuresome use of the military by a so-called conservative administration is inconsistent with the tenets of conservatism, itself. They are pessimistic about the role BIG Government can play domestically, but optimistic about its role thousands of miles away in a terrain and culture foreign to our own? Huh?
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gun control . . . don't we already have that, to a certain extent?
Surely you jest!
HP, most states already have laws on the book that mandate a waiting period before purchasing a gun and many do a background check as well. There's also guns and guns. Someone buying a shotgun in a sporting goods store usually has a different purpose in mind than those who buy a pistol or, especially, a automatic weapon of some kind. I agree with JB that the latter should be outlawed.
Let's remember here that there is a Second Amendment to the Constitution authorizing citizens with a right to bear arms. Yes, I know those were different times and the Amendment probably had a different purpose in mind, but there are places where having some means of self-defense is a good idea. There's also the sad reality that outlawing weapons won't remove access from those who want them for evil purposes.
[ February 11, 2008, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
LOL!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
but we could have gun control ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
