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
I don't really think Bush is a very reflective person. It seems that in Bush's world, there are bad guys and good guys, black and white, and nothing in between.
I've always considered his rhetoric in this regard to be not only true but appropriate to the subject and, unlike his Europeans and domestic critiques, haven't extrapolated past that. I think such rhetoric in regards to terrorism shows a true understanding of the issue. To make it sound more complicated just to try and sound more intelligent would not be very honest. And he hasn't, after all, used this type of rhetoric when talking about domestic issues such as taxes or even abortion. Whether he has a simplistic thought process in regards to other things I do not know but I suspect the perception is stronger than the reality due to his strong and frequent rhetoric concerning terrorism.
Bush also seems to have a problem with "people-skills." This is not to suggest that he's not a good and decent man, only that he doesn't seem to warm up much to people.
I *think* we talked about this before in regards to Bush being more natural and at ease when giving speeches and that he appears less comfortable in informal conversation and interviews, although by all accounts he is a very personable and charming man.
Take away 9/11 and the American people don't really know George W. Bush, I don't think.
The thing is, I think we've gotten to know him quite intimately through his reactions to 911. Granted, we might not have seen quite as much had he been dealing only with small domestic issues, but that's not what happened. Isn't character revealed through adversity?
Bush didn't help himself much with that jet landing/air jacket bit following the ending of major combat in Iraq. On the one hand, it shows how much he loves the military/soldiers; on the other, he doesn't seem to have a clue about the importance of the image he projects and how important that is in the eyes of the world.
I find it hard to damn him for not worrying about his image and being what I think was authentic.
Bush came on board with a government running well in the black and now it is deep in the red. That's not completely his fault, but he surely can't claim to be much of a fiscal conservative. Government spending has gone up, up, up during his tenure, and it's not just because of Iraq and Homeland Security. As during the Reagan years, the legislature abnd executive branch have proven themselves to be as hopelessly addicted to spending as the Demoncrats they so ardently denounce for doing so.
Agreed.
Aside from the w.o.t. and his leadership there, I don't find much to get excited about re. George W. Bush.
Good analysis, Phil. Now, on to my diatribe.
I've pretty much given up on the idea that we'll ever have a President or Congress that significantly implements conservative ideas regarding anything other than foreign policy and military matters. Even Reagan, while his philosophy was rock-solid conservative, was less interested in, or less able to affect, social policy even though he was highly successful in candidly meeting the communist threat in a very conservative way. Dissatisfaction with the state of government, the state of taxes, or the state of the economy will, from time to time, make the conservative philosophy quite an electable position to hold, but I think we're getting to the point of "everyone talks about a smaller, more limited, more personal-responsibility-oriented government, but nobody every does anything about it."
I think we're inexorably on the road to a quite liberal and socialistic society. And while I think it's possible to live in a society of expanding freedoms and fairness for all without "slouching toward Gomorrah" or embracing Marx, I think people have already grown too accustomed to the way things are now. They simply want more of it. Too many core conservative principles have been redefined to mean "mean" or "insensitive" or "intolerant". The best a good conservative can do these days is simply to try and put the breaks on spending. But cutting it? That doesn't look likely to happen, particularly since Bush himself has shown little inclination toward such things. And with juries across the land awarding outrageous amounts of money to frivolous lawsuits, it's unlikely the idea of "personal responsibility" will catch on anytime soon. The one institution that might stop or slow this rush to socialism; the institution that instills values distinct from consumerism or materialism; and the only institution that reminds us why governments are instituted in the first place (that is, the institution of religion), is being marginalized at every turn. And capitalism in particular is under direct assault. We have a whole generation of people who are apparently clueless to (if not somewhat hostile toward) the whole concept. I can only assume this is so because we have a Democratic presidential candidate who proposes making it illegal to out-source jobs to foreign countries. This is a direct assault on the very idea of capitalism. It is, once again, the mistaken idea that government knows best how businesses should invest their money and run their companies. Even our institutional system of "checks and balances" is getting out of whack with unfunded federal mandates, activist courts and the loss of true diversity (which *is* a good thing) in the form of states' rights. It's one thing for the Federal government to grow. It's quite another thing for it to take out the only means of moderating or challenging that growth; the rights of states.
That said, although I don't particularly like Bush's domestic agenda (his recent laundry list of programs given at his last State of the Union was so very Clintonesque), it rates very low on the importance of the issues immediately facing us. When one mad terrorist with a suitcase can take out a whole city (and I think it's just a matter of time until this happens) it makes this other stuff rather unimportant by comparison. Because Bush has done remarkably well in this one vital area I can and will cut him some slack in the other areas – particularly because, as I've already said, I don't expect anybody to do much about them.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hard to damn him for not worrying about his image and being what I think was authentic.
Authentically what?
The Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military is a civilian, the President of the U.S., who sends the troops to battle reluctantly and only as a last resort. Bush had already violated the "relucantly" and "last resort" principles in the minds of many; acting like he was a member of the military instead of its civilian leader only reinforced the perception that he is having just a tad too much fun waging war.
But I'll admit to the innocence about it--more indications of Bush's lack of reflectivity and occasional tunnel vision. On foram occasions when he speaks as President of the U.S., he needs to be very conscious of the image he projects, as it influences the attitudes of people in many ways.
Thanks for the rest of your reply. It's late, and I'll reply to some of the points tomorrow.
[ March 17, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
acting like he was a member of the military instead of its civilian leader only reinforced the perception that he is having just a tad too much fun waging war.
Bobby Kennedy, Senate Campaign speech in the Catskills, 1964:
quote: The Catskills were immortalized by Washington Irving. He wrote of a man who fell asleep and awoke in another era. The only other area that can boast of such a man is Phoenix, Arizona ... Barry Goldwater wants to give control of nuclear weapons to commanders in the field. Now, that's my idea of high adventure. General Eisenhower says that he could live with a Goldwater administration. Well, I suppose he'd have as good a chance as anyone else.
Bobby Kennedy, Senate Campaign speech in the New York City, 1964:
quote: People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.
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
he needs to be very conscious of the image he projects, as it influences the attitudes of people in many ways.
If you think too much about being reelected, it is very difficult to be worth reelecting.Woodrow Wilson
The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.Adlai Stevenson
As most of you remember, it was a very clean campaign, without the usual name-calling that goes with a presidential election. To this day, I have a great deal of respect for Barry Goldwater and his running mate, what's his name.Hubert Humphrey
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 |
Authentic un-self-conscious gool ol' American patriot! But my point would be that I find it refreshing that he didn't succumb to a Clinton-like poll where 39 out of 100 advisors recommended a black suit with a blue tie which just won out over the second place choice of a dark blue suit and red tie.
The Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military is a civilian, the President of the U.S., who sends the troops to battle reluctantly and only as a last resort. Bush had already violated the "relucantly" and "last resort" principles in the minds of many; acting like he was a member of the military instead of its civilian leader only reinforced the perception that he is having just a tad too much fun waging war.
I'll grant you that his actions are open to many interpretations. And I would also grant you that his actions could have been quite calculated to give the effect of being "just one of the guys" and not an unapproachable Harvard or Yale blue blood. But first of all, I see no reason to become a prisoner of the left, to always accede to how the press or Michael Moore will interpret things. And I find any action that is not as cold and calculated and manipulative as Clinton's to be refreshing. Do you remember that shot of Clinton walking with someone as he was coming away from Ron Brown's funeral? He was laughing and smiling, which one will tend to do at such tragic occasions, along with the tears and somber frowns. But as soon as Clinton spotted a camera he immediately went into his "bite the lip" frown.
But I'll admit to the innocence about it--more indications of Bush's lack of reflectivity and occasional tunnel vision. On foram occasions when he speaks as President of the U.S., he needs to be very conscious of the image he projects, as it influences the attitudes of people in many ways.
Well, it's may be a subtle point, but I remember Reagan being vilified by the left, particularly in Europe, when he squarely faced down the Soviet Union – even to the point of calling them an "evil empire" which they most assuredly were. That freaks out the lefties. Kerry is the president we will get if we think it most important not to rock the boat. Bush doesn't mind rocking the boat. You may be right. It may be a lack of reflection on his part. But the other side of the coin is that too much reflection is not leadership. It's trying to get everyone to like you. I simply take Bush's act in question to be one meant to honor the troops. He sometimes draws stark contrasts but I think that is sometimes desperately needed in a world that tends to "diplomatize" away right and wrong.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad Nelson: I simply take Bush's act in question to be one meant to honor the troops. He sometimes draws stark contrasts but I think that is sometimes desperately needed in a world that tends to "diplomatize" away right and wrong.
Nothing disappoints me more than to see the words of Paul VI sloganized and placed on bumper stickers by socialist-leaning liberals: If you want peace, work for justice.
Just for example, this is the underlying sentiment often intended:
quote: Global corporate led development has made the rich richer, and millions poorer. Children are starving in Africa, Afghanistan, and Central America. Making the majority poorer has produced new forms of resistance. Some of the people will be organized into resistance, such as the Zapatistas resistance in southern Mexico. Unfortunately, lacking effective progressive social movements, some poor people will be organized into terrorism as a response to global injustices. If we want peace, we must work for justice. We must feed the poor and the starving. We need to change the international economic and power relationships which produce starvation, murder, and terrorism. The brunt of this administration's war effort is aimed at and will be borne by innocent people of color, first in the Arab world and South Asia. Democratic Socialists of America
Why do they believe this (re: quote above)?
The middle path is this:
quote: 2425. "The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with 'communism' or 'socialism.' She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.[Cf. CA 10; 13; 44.] Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of SOCIAL bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails SOCIAL JUSTICE, for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.'[CA 34.] Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended." The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Reagan, defining communism: Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And, how did Reagan define an anti-communist: It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Robert Frost, defining a liberal: ... someone who won't take his own side in an argument.
Frank Rizzo, late mayor of Philly: A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Lyndon Johnson: Do you know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals eat only their enemies.
Reagan: I have come to realize that a great many so-called liberals aren't liberal --- they will defend to the death your right to agree with them.
Quotes today have been courtesy of Political Wit by Bob Dole.
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 |
If there is a "middle path" it exists because capitalism provides the wealth-creation engine that is aligned with freedom, imagination and merit, while democracy provides the socialism which tempers any excesses with notions of equality.
But if you start with a state that requires socialism, and nothing else, then you can achieve only equality of poverty. I think the main problem comes when one takes a look at this (sometimes) healthy mix and sees capitalism as the inherent evil and socialism as the inherent good. If one does that then one is tempted to dispense with capitalism altogether and keep just the good. It is one of the most dangerous delusions of our time.
Reagan, defining communism: Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And, how did Reagan define an anti-communist: It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
I love that, JB. Hadn't heard that one.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Authentic un-self-conscious gool ol' American patriot! But my point would be that I find it refreshing that he didn't succumb to a Clinton-like poll where 39 out of 100 advisors recommended a black suit with a blue tie which just won out over the second place choice of a dark blue suit and red tie.
Bush is the President of the U.S., not a "good ol' American patriot." This is not a free speech issue; it's about the image of the Presidency and his leadership that he projects. The alternative, here, is not Clintonism, but professionalism.
. . .I see no reason to become a prisoner of the left, to always accede to how the press or Michael Moore will interpret things. And I find any action that is not as cold and calculated and manipulative as Clinton's to be refreshing. . .
Again, why the comparison with Clinton? Can one not criticize something Bush does without him being compared to Clinton? This is the same kind of attitude that people who support Kerry have, in many ways, because "at least he's not Bush." That's what Ed Asner said on a talk show recently--that he'd support anyone just so they're not Bush. Lots of people like that.
Well, it's may be a subtle point, but I remember Reagan being vilified by the left, particularly in Europe, when he squarely faced down the Soviet Union – even to the point of calling them an "evil empire" which they most assuredly were. That freaks out the lefties.
Right, but I'm not criticizing Bush for his axis of evil remarks, for example, nor for using the strongest possible language with regard to terrorism. Note that when Reagan made those remarks, he wasn't dressed like a general trying to act like he was "one of the gang" with other military officers. He was clearly reflecting the dignity and power of his office as President, which gave the remarks even more significance, I believe.
Kerry is the president we will get if we think it most important not to rock the boat. Bush doesn't mind rocking the boat. You may be right. It may be a lack of reflection on his part. But the other side of the coin is that too much reflection is not leadership. It's trying to get everyone to like you. I simply take Bush's act in question to be one meant to honor the troops. He sometimes draws stark contrasts but I think that is sometimes desperately needed in a world that tends to "diplomatize" away right and wrong.
Reflectivity and critical thinking doesn't necessarily lead to approval-seeking behavior. Too much can lead to scrupulosity and immobility, but that's hardly the alternative to a lack of critical thinking. There's a vast realm in-between where one seriously considers options, consequences, listens to feedback, prays, reflects, and even waits patiently for the answers to come, rather than rushing them. This means learning to live with a certain amount of ambiguity, even "grey" zones, if you will. Decisions can be made out of "greyness," at times, using the best lights one has to go on, and when one does so, there is more cognizance of the risks and possible consequences.
Bush's lack of reflectivity and critical thinking is a strength in some areas, but a greater weakness overall, imo. It makes him incapable of really connecting with those who have a different p.o.v. from his. He came on promising to be a "uniter, not a divider," but he has been anything-but! He doesn't seem to have great skill in building consensus and finding common ground with people who think differently than he does. This alienates those who have a different p.o.v., for what they sense is that, with Bush, it's his way or the highway. A good leader is one who can convince others of the merits of his p.o.v., but Bush doesn't do that very well. I'm not even sure he thinks that doing so is important. What comes across to many (self included) is a certain arrogance, unintended, I'm sure, but very off-putting to leaders around the world whom we really shouldn't be putting-off. Eventually, some come around because the w.o.t. is so important that we have to stand together somehow, and because you just can't do this without the U.S.
I could go on, but we probably just ought to agree to disagree about some of this, Brad (and others, I'm sure). I'm just sharing my perceptions/opinions, but they are quite commonly held, I've found, even by people who are more or less disposed to support Bush and who will likely vote for him. Expressing criticisms like this of Bush doesn't mean to me an endorsement of some of Clinton's flaws, nor an accession to the agenda of liberals. It's simply noting that there are problem areas with Bush, and consequences which ensue from them.
[ March 18, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is the President of the U.S., not a "good ol' American patriot." This is not a free speech issue; it's about the image of the Presidency and his leadership that he projects. The alternative, here, is not Clintonism, but professionalism.
I guess from my perspective I see Bush as acting, overall, quite professional. I guess I don’t view it as a problem for someone to step outside once in a while, to “let their hair down” so to speak and to remove some of the stuff from their stuffing. I think it’s healthy.
Again, why the comparison with Clinton? Can one not criticize something Bush does without him being compared to Clinton?
Of course, but Clinton is the perfect poster child for the tightly-controlled image maker.
This is the same kind of attitude that people who support Kerry have, in many ways, because "at least he's not Bush."
And I unabashedly proclaim “I’m glad he’s not Clinton!” But I’m certainly not for Bush strutting out in his underwear at his next press conference. I remember a certain president, Reagan, who had so much respect for the office that would not enter the oval office without wearing his suit coat. Then there was this other guy who had a slightly different view of proper behavior in the oval office and I’m very glad Bush is not like him, although Bush is apt to show a little Texas-like informality now and again. I guess I just think it’s somewhat genuine, and I while I might worry that this behavior is not always preferred by you, I don’t lose any sleep that it might bother the crowd who…and let’s be fair…is not disgusted by some truly outlandish things.
Note that when Reagan made those remarks, he wasn't dressed like a general trying to act like he was "one of the gang" with other military officers. He was clearly reflecting the dignity and power of his office as President, which gave the remarks even more significance, I believe.
It might be helpful to go back and look at the full event on the aircraft carrier, including his speech, and not just focus on that brief public relations moment as he descended from the jet in a flight suit. I didn’t see any sign of his dignity or the dignity of the office being diminished. He gave a great speech and wasn’t skipping around the deck giving high fives to the sailors.
There's a vast realm in-between where one seriously considers options, consequences, listens to feedback, prays, reflects, and even waits patiently for the answers to come, rather than rushing them.
Yes, but what we don’t see, and rarely will ever see, is all the behind-the-scenes planning, strategizing and even reflecting. It’s difficult to tell from outward actions just what exactly did, or didn’t, go into them.
Bush's lack of reflectivity and critical thinking is a strength in some areas, but a greater weakness overall, imo. It makes him incapable of really connecting with those who have a different p.o.v. from his. He came on promising to be a "uniter, not a divider," but he has been anything-but!
Well, as Rush would say (and I think correctly so), the only way in some people’s eyes to be a “uniter, not a divider” is simply to give in to the other side. That’s not what politics is about or necessarily should be all about. It’s about drawing distinctions, not just splitting the differences (which is often what sometimes happens anyway – but only after first drawing the distinctions).
I could go on, but we probably just ought to agree to disagree about some of this, Brad (and others, I'm sure). I'm just sharing my perceptions/opinions, but they are quite commonly held
Clinton was a smart man and, with Bush’s background both in business, school and politics, there’s no reason to believe that he isn’t also a very smart man. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this because I’m not going to give in, particularly considering there has been a very long, protracted and organized campaign by the left and by the media to portray Bush as a simpleton.
It's simply noting that there are problem areas with Bush, and consequences which ensue from them.
Hey, I don’t like everything he’s done either. But I guess I just see the problem as him being TOO accommodating and compromising and not enough from-the-gut instinctual conservatizing, particularly because I think he’s got a pretty good gut.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton was a smart man and, with Bush’s background both in business, school and politics, there’s no reason to believe that he isn’t also a very smart man. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this because I’m not going to give in, particularly considering there has been a very long, protracted and organized campaign by the left and by the media to portray Bush as a simpleton.
The point I was making about lack of critical thinking doesn't mean he's not intelligent. He is! He also gives a good speech and has good debate skills, as we'll no doubt see in the months ahead. But that's not critical thinking. Critical thinking is weighing the options, evaluating consequences, holding these up against principles, noticing the vast amount of greyness and ambiguity there really is about almost everything, praying and reflecting on all this, and waiting patiently for the answers. I don't sense that Bush knows much about the world of grey, which does give the impression of him being a simpleton, at times.
Just wanted to clarify the point about critical thinking vs. intelligence as we continue to agree to disagree.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point I was making about lack of critical thinking doesn't mean he's not intelligent.
Perhaps I’ve shown a lack of critical thinking in reference to the subject of Bush’s lack of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is weighing the options, evaluating consequences, holding these up against principles, noticing the vast amount of greyness and ambiguity there really is about almost everything, praying and reflecting on all this, and waiting patiently for the answers.
If there is a problem in this regard then I think a few of Bush’s principles are in need of a little fine tuning, if judging only by the results. It’s difficult to say how much or how little critical thinking may go into his decisions. Where you see apples, I tend to see oranges, but however he goes about making decisions, I just wish he produced more strawberries (or is that fruit too liberal? Mangoes? Oranges? Right wing contra bananas?)
A person in Bush’s position is surrounded by all sorts of advisors all whispering their different opinions, and there’s truly no dearth of other information he has to sift through. My problem, if I were president, would be to ever come to a decision about anything. Truly I think a mark of a good president is to have some well thought-out core principles that one has obtained over a lifetime of trial and error in order that they may cut to the chase on a number of matters. One can either be too detail-oriented and thus bury themselves in minutia and lose sight of “the big picture” or, I suppose, one could be overly simplistic. Part of the problem, I suppose, is that his administration, and rightly so in my opinion, has been so focused on a very right/wrong, black/white issue and thus we really haven’t seen that much of Bush regarding other matters. But when we have, I agree that he has left me scratching my head a time or too. But again, where you might see a lack of critical thinking (and I suppose this could be the case), I see a lack of solid conservative principles – or at least the willingness to too espouse them.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed that Bush has moral instincts that are fundamentally sound, not to mention an excellent upbringing (how I wish his Mom was young enough to run for President; she'd have my vote, for sure). From what I've picked up on his faith-development, he's kind of Fundamentalistic, which goes along with the rest of what I've been saying.
Much about Bush can be understood in terms of what I believe to be his ISTJ personality type. As with all the types, there are great strengths and yet weaknesses. All the strengths described on that linked page apply very well to W., but so do the weaknesses, some of which I've been describing. A few snippets follow:
ISTJs are quiet and reserved individuals who are interested in security and peaceful living. They have a strongly-felt internal sense of duty, which lends them a serious air and the motivation to follow through on tasks. Organized and methodical in their approach, they can generally succeed at any task which they undertake.
. . .
ISTJs have tremendous respect for facts. They hold a tremendous store of facts within themselves, which they have gathered through their Sensing preference. They may have difficulty understanding a theory or idea which is different from their own perspective. However, if they are shown the importance or relevance of the idea to someone who they respect or care about, the idea becomes a fact, which the ISTJ will internalize and support. Once the ISTJ supports a cause or idea, he or she will stop at no lengths to ensure that they are doing their duty of giving support where support is needed.
The ISTJ is not naturally in tune with their own feelings and the feelings of others. They may have difficulty picking up on emotional needs immediately, as they are presented. Being perfectionists themselves, they have a tendency to take other people's efforts for granted, like they take their own efforts for granted. They need to remember to pat people on the back once in a while.
ISTJs are likely to be uncomfortable expressing affection and emotion to others. However, their strong sense of duty and the ability to see what needs to be done in any situation usually allows them to overcome their natural reservations, and they are usually quite supporting and caring individuals with the people that they love. Once the ISTJ realizes the emotional needs of those who are close to them, they put forth effort to meet those needs.
. . .
Under stress, ISTJs may fall into "catastrophe mode", where they see nothing but all of the possibilities of what could go wrong. They will berate themselves for things which they should have done differently, or duties which they failed to perform. They will lose their ability to see things calmly and reasonably, and will depress themselves with their visions of doom.
In general, the ISTJ has a tremendous amount of potential. Capable, logical, reasonable, and effective individuals with a deeply driven desire to promote security and peaceful living, the ISTJ has what it takes to be highly effective at achieving their chosen goals - whatever they may be.
In my own life, I can say without a doubt that I have found ISTJ types the most difficult people to reason with. Once they get ahold of an idea and start to run with it, you can usually forget it; they just can't seem to see the other's p.o.v. It's also very cut and dry with them: black/white, right/wrong, good/bad, etc. ("I'm repeating myself, I know.)
[ March 18, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad Nelson: The middle path is this:
If there is a "middle path" it exists because capitalism provides the wealth-creation engine that is aligned with freedom, imagination and merit, while democracy provides the socialism which tempers any excesses with notions of equality.
But if you start with a state that requires socialism, and nothing else, then you can achieve only equality of poverty. I think the main problem comes when one takes a look at this (sometimes) healthy mix and sees capitalism as the inherent evil and socialism as the inherent good. If one does that then one is tempted to dispense with capitalism altogether and keep just the good. It is one of the most dangerous delusions of our time.
Right. It is not enough to set a middle course. It matters greatly which pole we designate as the default position, as the built-in bias. Even the attainment of the common good is realized in terms of the greatest number of individuals enjoying their truest dignity and most authentic freedom, socialization processes checked by subsidiarity principles and NOT vice versa. Solidarity, unity and community are ideals to be realized by radically free, genuinely sovereign wills coming together in love. There is no such thing as coerced love or involuntary charity. Socialists confuse uniformity with unity, bureacracies with communities, solidarity with consolidation. In justice issues there is a presumption FOR individual freedom and not against it.
Same thing with just war principles. Their is a presumption FOR peace and not against war.
Perversions and inversions of these biases and default positions can sound holier than thou as competing values battle one another, but it really isn't about compromise or charting a middle course between such polar realities but moreso about tolerating necessary evils in the pursuit of our highest aspirations for the greatest numbers of people, until we arrive in paradise where distributive justice will no longer be an issue even as freedom will perdure, where criminal and military justice will no longer be an issue even as peace perdures. We choose the wrong pole if we choose something that we are against or something that will not exist in the perfect world scenario. This is hard to say but I think we are on the same page.
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
So do you gents see Kerry and the Democratic Party promoting socialism as what JB calls above the "default position"? I'm not sure I would go that far, but just wondering what your thoughts are.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil: So do you gents see Kerry and the Democratic Party promoting socialism as what JB calls above the "default position"? I'm not sure I would go that far, but just wondering what your thoughts are.
Only the fringe radicals do that re: subsidiarity principles. This is moreso a problem elsewhere.
When it comes to just war principles, the presumption against war approach is definitely coming in vogue, so to speak being mainstreamed into the Democratic party. It's a BIG problem elsewhere, too, including in the Catholic church.
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 |
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
Decisions can be made out of "greyness," at times, using the best lights one has to go on, and when one does so, there is more cognizance of the risks and possible consequences.
In the law there is what is known as the Business Judgment Rule. As long as one uses a good deliberative process with the best information available at the time, one can not be held liable for what retrospectively looks like a bad decision.
What I required my employees to do in problem solving mode was to come up with several scenarios setting forth, for each alternative course of action, a listing of all of the relevant, available facts, and the advantages and disadvantages for each proposal. Then, they were to choose one of the alternatives/proposals/scenarios and tell me why they chose it above the others.
If one applied the Business Judgment Rule in a court of law to the Bush administration's course of action in Iraq, they could not be found liable. Those that substantively pretend otherwise or who make superficial judgments about the WMD issue (eg Sean Penn et al) are the most cynical of Monday Morning QB's with no real sense of how to properly assess the outcome of deliberative processes.
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
Regarding the Bush vs Kerry personality analyses and their critical thinking, don't we elect, to a large extent, a political machine, in addition to an individual? Also, when speaking of CEOs, one of the overriding issues of importance requring critical thinking involves personnel decisions: With whom does one surround himself?
In that regard, Carter was an abyssmal failure though no doubt a man of large intelligence and profound goodwill.
Bush chose Cheney, Rice, Powell! And, contrary to popular belief a cabal of neoconservatives has NOT hijacked the Bush administration’s foreign policy and transformed the world’s sole superpower into a unilateral monster. In truth, stories about the “neocon” ascendancy—and the group’s insidious intent to wage preemptive wars across the globe—have been much exaggerated. And by telling such tall tales, critics have twisted the neocons’ identities and thinking on U.S. foreign policy into an unrecognizable caricature.
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
It is not enough to set a middle course. It matters greatly which pole we designate as the default position, as the built-in bias. Even the attainment of the common good is realized in terms of the greatest number of individuals enjoying their truest dignity and most authentic freedom, socialization processes checked by subsidiarity principles and NOT vice versa. Solidarity, unity and community are ideals to be realized by radically free, genuinely sovereign wills coming together in love. There is no such thing as coerced love or involuntary charity. Socialists confuse uniformity with unity, bureacracies with communities, solidarity with consolidation. In justice issues there is a presumption FOR individual freedom and not against it.
It's not that you're not often brilliant, JB, but this was truly brilliant.
Perversions and inversions of these biases and default positions can sound holier than thou as competing values battle one another, but it really isn't about compromise or charting a middle course between such polar realities but moreso about tolerating necessary evils in the pursuit of our highest aspirations for the greatest numbers of people…
I think the part about "tolerating necessary evils" is huge. A superficial, simplistic, uninformed or "road to hell is paved with…" view will often simply substitute other evils (or worse evils or more evils) for existing ones. The law of unintended consequences is a law that ought to be respected more. I'll grant you that defining "necessary evils" is not easy – particularly since we all seem to weigh the various evils differently. I might say that free speech, while it might cause some hurt feelings, should be by far the default position. Others, particularly in the politically correct university environment (quite often disingenuously, because they'll tell you that free speech isn't being abridged) believe that the potential for "hate speech" (as they define it, of course) is so harmful that limits on speech is but a trifle concern (and the real evil here is the institutionalized entrenchment of an ideology under the guise of protecting something other than the entrenched ideology which itself is a limit on the means to question this entrenchment to begin with).
We choose the wrong pole if we choose something that we are against or something that will not exist in the perfect world scenario. This is hard to say but I think we are on the same page.
Never thought of it like that. Hmm.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil said: So do you gents see Kerry and the Democratic Party promoting socialism as what JB calls above the "default position"? I'm not sure I would go that far, but just wondering what your thoughts are.
I'll grant you that it's sometimes hard to tell with a personal like Kerry whose default position is simply "not Bush". But I think there is also a default position (and Bush is as guilty as any) for curing all ills at the Federal level. Of course, a United States Senator and a President are both Federal politicians, so every nail is pounded down with a Washington DC hammer.
There are also a number of default positions that define the two political parties. The Democratic Party, by far, is the most socialistic one. I think at least a tinge of socialism can and should be accredited to Kerry. And frankly, JB, how in the world can you or anyone else tell what positions Senator Kerry holds these days? He might have first not voted for NAFTA and then voted for NAFTA. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democratic Party, by far, is the most socialistic one.
I think it is fair enough to say that both parties value the subsidiarity principle. Even the European Union incorporated it explicitly into its constitution.
Underlying this principle is the idea of competency. In delimiting competencies distinctions are drawn as to which are held exclusively by a given level, which are shared between levels and which are complementary. If competence exists at a lower level, then one should desist from taking action. Arguments will thus tend to focus on competency and incompetency.
For every human need, then, we can ask who is most competent: the individual? the municipality? the parochial or regional authority? the state? the federal govenment?
One can look through this lens at every debate and cut to the chase in what is substantively to be argued.
National Security: who is most competent in protecting our citizens from terrorists? The US Department of Defense or the United Nations Security Council?
Employment: who is most competent in job creation? Entrepreneurs, small business and corporations or the US Congress?
Education: who is most competent in holding educators and school systems accountable for results?
Competencies, of course, are dynamic and can change through time and through circumstances, so we must remain vigilant in re-delimiting them.
It does seem fair to say that when it comes to assessing competencies that individuals, municipalities, parochial and regional authorities and states are declared INCOMPETENT much more often by the Democrats than by the Republicans? There is a certain amount of elitism and arrogation inherent in all such declarations? And the concepts, elite and arrogate, are not necessarily pejorative, HOWEVER ...
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
Underlying this principle is the idea of competency. In delimiting competencies distinctions are drawn as to which are held exclusively by a given level, which are shared between levels and which are complementary.
Well, yuze guys keep me forever struggling with new concepts – which is a good thing. I found what I thought was a good explanation of Catholic subsidiarity principles here.
If competence exists at a lower level, then one should desist from taking action. Arguments will thus tend to focus on competency and incompetency.
That would be great if held to. But when I look at the "no child life behind" initiative I wonder if mere imperfections (or "diversity" itself) at the state level aren't used as an excuse to federalize everything.
And in a very real sense, I think that the more the Fed intrudes on state and local governments (with unfunded mandates and/or all their little bribes of funding they have), the easier it is, at the federal level, to create the circumstances where it's quite easy for them to say "see…you guys aren't doing it right." Federal intrusion makes it harder for the states to experiment and to come up with unique solutions. They sort of set up the circumstance for failure at a lower level – at least in my opinion.
It does seem fair to say that when it comes to assessing competencies that individuals, municipalities, parochial and regional authorities and states are declared INCOMPETENT much more often by the Democrats than by the Republicans?
There may be some truth to that, JB, but I can't help thinking that the difference is more in how federal authority is implemented rather than it being invoked or not. Just call me a crusty old "state rights" advocate. But truly, without the "diversity" of state there would be no way for California to correct itself. I think we should keep that in mind. And I think the same thing can be said for education.
Thanks again for your clarification of all this. It does help.
[ March 19, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Brad Nelson ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
