Michele Bachmann could win the nomination...

[nonnonnon]

snl shouldn't be a deciding factor when you're in the booth but I'm sure it is

[Ben]

I don't consider it entertainment at all when the President has the key to the nuclear arsenal. Nor when he or (maybe one day she) has the executive power to wage war as the CinC. Nor as showbiz when he (or she) is the most powerful political figure in the world. etc.... but yes the showbiz dimension is so clearly there in how we choose these people.

Thank god for Tina Fey last time around. Is there as good a Michele Bachmann baiter in the wings for the next election?

It is serious. I agree. I mean, politicians have power. They're extremely powerful. They shape policy.
But the point being: acting, theatrics have a lot to do with politics. (The former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, described politics as like, well, wrestling. Ya know, in front of the cameras we're at each other's throats. But behind the scenes we're all friends. Again, acting.
I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan. Both actors. Um, Al Franken. Fred Thompson. It's entertainment.)
The "entertainment" aspect to politics is clearly evident.

[Ben]

I just want principled politicians who are genuine. But, well, politics is all entertainment, ain't it -- ha! ha! ha!

There are principled politicians out there, but it doesn't mean a thing if it aint got that swing -ie where policy matters. Also to describe it as entertainment is to let them off the hook -its much more important than that. As I said, on a range of issues people expect too much of government -the quality of our environment would be so much better if we, as individuals were more careful with our rubbish, to take just one issue. Its about balance, in the end. But if you descend into cynicism, you end up with nothing to say, which suits politicians who too often prefer to listen to the sound of their own voices.

There are principled politicians. But few and far between. OK. I'm cynical -- ha! ha!
Policies are imperative. And if we lived in a meaningful democratic society public policy would reflect public opinion. That's democracy.
We have a profound democratic deficit. Whereby public policies do not reflect public opinion.
So, if you look at public opinion, well, Americans are -- now this is the majority -- social democratic. So, policy decisions should ultimately reflect that.
Now one could either be for it or against it. That's one's personal choice. But, again, I don't see how anyone would be against this unless they're high up in the corporate or political structure. I mean, meaningful democracy doesn't benefit, say, the CEO of Microsoft.
I think another crucial point is: it isn't fair for the many to control the few. That's very unfair.
And likewise it isn't fair for the few to control the many. That, too, is highly unfair.
So, what's the solution? Well, Adam Smith had a solution.
Markets.
His argument for markets was quite clear. He supported markets under the conditions that, well, under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. That was the argument he gave in support of markets. Again, under conditions of perfect liberty (capitalism &/or free markets) you get perfect equality.
Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets. Look at any TV commercial. What they want is: UNINFORMED consumers making IRRATIONAL choices. Therefore markets can't and don't work in their proper and appropriate fashion.
And I haven't even mentioned externalities -- ha! ha!

[trish]

Did someone in this thread claim Michele Bachmann was smart? Smarter than Palin doesn't mean smarter than a doornail.

In just the last couple of weeks, Bachmann revealed her reading of the First Amendment by signing a pledge to eradicate pornography in all forms. She showed which side of the Emancipation Proclamation she stands on claiming slavery was better for black families than living free in the second decade of the 21st century. And today we learn that before she joined Congress, she wasn't really an attorney as she claimed to be, but a tax collector for the IRS. Irony or hypocrisy?

[Stavros]

Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets

Ben, the modern corporation that we know today emerged in the last quarter of the 19th century, almost a hundred years after Smith, who was describing an industrial capitalism in its infancy -one of the reasons for his reputation is the relative objectivity with which he wrote. Smith's free market capitalism in his day was revolutionary -industry was both increasing yields and power to agriculture, but eroding the 'landed gentry' most of whom sat on their easy profits without investing in machinery, and for whom, socially -and esp in the UK- connections in high places were more important than practical evidence of achievement: Smith was in favour of a social and political economy unfettered by the privilege of birth, that succeeds from hard work, imagination, enterprise. Smith himself believed that markets and trade were the natural condition of humankind, and that a government was pledged to defend the state from attack/invasion by its enemies, but also believed that if the market could not provide then in some cases the state should -his free market capitalism was never 'pure', Smith was a genius, and a practical Scotsman, not an idiot. Historically, there is no one explanation for economic development, the same rapacious corporations you probably sneer at, opened up virgin territory to industry, they built the roads people used to drive down; they built towns, places for people to live, to work in: Marx, whose description of capitalism in the 19thc is loaded with moral indignation, goes to great pains to show how the circuits of capital -production, distribution and so on -resemble a fish eating its own tail: producers consume, consumers produce: this is capitalism: if you want to overthrow it, fair enough, but what replaces it? If you want to be more practical, its not such a big deal: corporations create jobs and products, contribute taxes and so on: regulation in a democratic society to maintain healthy competition and restrain arrogant corporations really isn't that difficult: I have accepted that capitalism is here to stay for a hundred years or more, the best we can do is ensure that the Murdoch's of the 21st century do not act like the robber barons of the 19th -I think thats fair for all. No need for cynicism or despair, just use the democratic instruments you have to create a level playing field, and give a red card to the ones who get out of line!

[Ben]

[Ben]

[Faldur]

Did someone in this thread claim Michele Bachmann was smart?

Well my bet would be she knows how many states are in the US, she probably knows that Hawaii is not in Asia, and if she stumbled upon a gasping asthmatic child odds are she wouldn't give them a breathalyzer.

[trish]

My god, she doesn't even know we don't have an embassy in Iran!!!!!! It wasn't just a slip of the tongue sort thing...she ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

[Faldur]

My god, she doesn't even know we don't have an embassy in Iran!!!!!! It wasn't just a slip of the tongue sort thing...she ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

57 states sweetie.. Do we have selective hearing? Or are we vacationing in "Asia"?