From Foreign policy magazine...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...bamas_new_deal
Printable View
From Foreign policy magazine...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...bamas_new_deal
Waiting for the haters to rebuke this...and you know it's coming...
Prospero, thanks for the link to a fascinating and almost balanced analysis -it probably can't be bias free. I think in the circumstances, particularly with a House that seems to block everything for no other reason than to act like a tough guy on the street corner, Obama has done well -it illustrates an interesting comparison to the economics of austerity being practised by Conservatives here in the UK -as I said in another post I wonder what the US reaction would be if Romneyshambles promised austerity to 2020 and offered Americans growth rate predictions per year of 0%-0.8% as the Bank of England has for us.
This paragraph I think is most judicious:
In reality, the Recovery Act provided early evidence that Obama is pretty much what he said he was: a left-of-center technocrat who is above all a pragmatist, comfortable with compromise, solicitous of experts, disinclined to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the ideal but determined to achieve big things. It reflected his belief in government as a driver of change, but also his desire for better rather than bigger government. And it was the first evidence that despite all his flowery talk during the campaign, he understood that bills that don't pass Congress don't produce change.
However, I think there is am emerging trend against investment in alternative energy in the US -or rather that it is lower than investment in conventional hydrocarbons. Hydraulic fracturing has 'captured the imagination' and with the promise of an exponential increase in domestic petroleum supplies the cinderallas of energy may be waiting for that coach way past midnight; and their prince won't be coming soon.
Hmm....you want him for another 4 years....O_o? I won't vote for Mitt, so I guess I will sleep in this election!
Actually, Erica, as a former soldier for the GOP, I'd be interested on your take on the mud slinging going on right now. Personally, I love it. Democrats finally dishing shit back - at least at the Presidential/VP level. As a lib, I obviously want Obama. However, if he loses but goes down swinging, I'm all for that. I would like someone to put the GOP on notice that there are some Democratic candidates who just aren't going to take their 40 years of crap anymore.
You talk as if mudslinging is a new thing for the Democratic Party...as if they never get their hands dirty...that's ridiculous...how quick we forget the ruthlessness of the Clinton political war machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odelay
You mean how Clinton ruthlessly murdered Vince Forster?
fred41, in sheer volume the Democrats haven't held a candle to the Republicans. And we just haven't had good counterpunchers through the years, i.e. Dukkakis, Gore, Kerry, and yes even Clinton. In 1992 Clinton was all about the economy while also drafting on Perot, who was doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
there is and always has been mudslinging by both parties...if not directly by the parties...then indirectly by the campaigns...it's just that when it's done by a candidate that an individual backs...it's often seen as a half truth (or complete truth) and therefore fair game...or, as a fair knee jerk reaction to an opposing slander that's always seen as having been slung first (if that makes any sense)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Odelay
...and the Clinton's became terrific at digging and digging. That's one of the reasons no one wanted to run against her here in New York.
Gore and Kerry were fine ...Kerry just wasn't very likeable, something that's very important in any election (though I agree Dukkakis was terrible at it).
Speaking of Kerry, even the GOP these days uses the word "swiftboating" to mean a scurrilous, unfounded slander campaign to ruin someone's good name in order to gain political advantage.
A not so refreshing look at Obama by authoress Naomi Wolf.... As she points out: Obama is continuing Bush policies.
I mean, as Chris Hedges has pointed out: it makes no difference who you vote for.
Romney might be slightly better. Who knows. Or worse. Who knows.
But the absolute system and structure won't change... unless there is a widespread popular movement. Oh, we had it: Occupy Wall Street.
Still don't know what that was all about.... Or what they really wanted.
I guess they wanna be part of the managerial class and serve the top 1 percent -- ha ha ha!
But Naomi Wolf, again, is correct in the sense that Obama is carrying out the same policies as Bush. Who carried on the same policies as Clinton. In the sense of letting Wall Street run wild. It was Clinton who deregulated Wall Street. One can't blame Reagan for that.
Anyway, the silly charade of politics goes on and on -- :)
Naomi Wolf: Obama Continuing Bush Administration Torture Policies - YouTube
This is akin to the sort of 1960s naivete that proclaimed "politics is pigshit"... so don't vote. Just look at what the Republicans in office have done over the past 25 or 30 years. Really look and you'll see why it matters.
Ben these days its ok to call a woman who writes books an author...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?
:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I understand that on certain issues there may not be enough different choices offered by the present political parties. But I never did understand those who say they don't see the difference between the policies of the Republican and Democratic parties. Yes, they are both beholden to some special interest groups and so the political process is occasionally corrupted.
But with respect to taxation and our budget the differences are enormous. The process was designed to balance a lot of those differences out so neither party gets free rein, but if you think about what either party would propose in the absence of necessary political compromise, the differences are stark. Health care, disability, education, fiscal policy (supply side v. neo-keynesian), monetary policy, campaign finance reform (some similarity here due to those pernicious political pressures), but a great deal of divergence. We can look at social policies. Gay marriage, civil rights legislation, abortion rights, administrative law. It's just that the way our system has been set up prevents us from getting our way too easily, so change is incremental. We can see which way the tide is going on several issues, including gay rights, health care, and civil rights generally. It will just be a while before the norms shift further to the left and the reactionary forces in this country become more and more nostalgic.
I was reading a case last year that involved the department of transportation during the Reagan years. Under the law they had the mandate to ensure public safety by enacting regulations that protect motorists. The Reagan appointees were considering a proposal that would have required car companies to either mandate those automatic seatbelts that fold across your body as soon as you sit down or airbags. The data they had demonstrated that either increasing the use of seatbelts with such devices or mandating airbags would likely save thousands of lives a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
The appointees to the department focused on the phrase economically feasible or something similar to justify adopting neither mandate. In other words, those who were appointed to ensure safety and regulate the market were arguing that neither policy was economically feasible and that the market should win out. I can't remember the case holding, but I believe the court said that though agencies should not have their substantive rulemaking micromanaged by judges, they have to at least demonstrate that their decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Or perhaps, under the arbitrary and capricious standard the court allowed them to commit this injustice. I just remember the attempt, and of course am pretty sure they eventually failed.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to be long-winded but in this attempt we can see the immorality of their attempts at regulatory sabotage. The lives of thousands of people were not worth forcing car companies to do something they did not want to do, even though it was their legal mandate to regulate. I really don't believe Democrats have the same cavalier attitude when it comes to regulatory law. They have not been particularly effective when it comes to banking law but that's because the issue of how much regulation banks should be forced to submit to is actually complicated unlike whether car companies should install airbags.
Odelay I can attest for the fact that party leaders DID NOT want Mitt on the ticket, and from what I here from a few of my former co-workers the party leaders in the south are still worried even with Paul Ryan on the Vp ticket. Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odelay
Won't they worry about the same thing with a Papist?Quote:
Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.
Would they rather vote for a Mormon-Catholic team than a man many of those bright people still believe to be a Muslim?
To anwser both of you, Yes the anger at the POTUS out weighs any short comings that most rank file southern republicans have, but there are more than a 'few' that will choose not to vote for the simple reason that Mitt is a mormon.
Is it possible -theoretically- for the delegates at the Republican National Convention to change their vote/minds, and select Ryan instead of Romney? As in switch them round, or select Ryan and choose someone else for VP-?
That would be interesting, wouldn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...eds-to-go.html
Jesus - Niall Ferguson, in-house historian to the neo-cons.
You can't be an angel in politics or business. You can only be a monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
He is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
..And a pompous hugely self-important and arrogant distorter of fact.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/gd...s-obama-poorly
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
How was Steve Jobs (when he was alive) a monster, or Bill Gates? Does the man who runs a grocery store on the corner of your neighbourhood really look like and behave like a monster? And who was asking for Angels to run a business anyway? Aung San suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela are both politicians, albet retired in one case -again, what sort of monsters are they? Jimmy Carter brokered the fist significant peace treaty between Israel and the Arabs in 1979, are those the actions of a monster?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-obama/261306/
Ben is an idealist it seems - full of youthful passion and, just perhaps, a degree of naivety, as Stavros clearly points out. Or perhaps hugely and deeply cynical?
Anyone who thinks Nelson Mandela is a monster is lacking in political judgement, I wouldn't call it idealism.
Indeed - though to be fair to ben he didn't name Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi by name. They might transcend Ben's definition of politicians as monster.
Not according to the comment Ben made.
Yes - the quote IS dogmatic. No grey areas in Ben's vision of politics or business. Presumably markets in the developing world where poor people barter their few old possessions for enough to eat are also populaled by monsters.
So BEN.... over to you
One has to separate the person from the office. (Martin Luther King Jr. said that if he entered political life he'd have to compromise his principles.) Even Noam Chomsky, who I admire, was asked if he became President, well, what would he do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
He said that he should be placed under arrest for the crimes that he's going to carry out. I mean, it's impossible not to commit crimes when one is a politician or a business executive. (Well, any oil executive is committing crimes against nature. Same with a forestry executive. Or the coal industry, their executives. Or a mining executive. Or take the entire food industry, their executives. Ya know, in these positions one is a monster. Take, say, McDonald's. A monstrous industry.
Take a look at the entire agricultural industry.
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may...tart:int=0&-C=
Take, say, Bill Clinton. Is he a nice guy? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.
But he put in place policies -- like NAFTA, like repealing Glass-Stegall -- that harmed the country, that harmed the majority of the population. And the likes of Clinton know full well that the policies they put in place harm the vast majority of the population.
I mean, Jimmy Carter is quite Saintly. But in assuming the role of President of the U.S., well, he had to be a monster. You can't avoid it. (Well, take a look at Rex Tillerson. CEO and Chairperson of ExxonMobil. He may be the nicest guy in the world. Nice to his kids, his wife, the family pet. But we've got something called global warming.
And in his institutional role, under legal obligation, he can't think about that. He has to ignore that. It's required of him. That's monstrous. But that's the institution.
And global warming might be the death knell of the species. But Tillerson treats it as an externality.
So, there are institutional constraints imposed on him. And it's fully rational. He is serving the company &/or the shareholders. And himself. Again, it's fully rational. That's why it's so scary.
Oh, The Nazi Doctors by Robert J. Lifton is quite good. It shows how even doctors can become absolute monsters. Depending on the circumstances.
So because some doctors bought into Nazi ideology ALL doctors are corrupt. This is an insane view of the world.
Ben, I think even with more finesse your arguments fall flat and have no impact. To take some of yours in sequence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
1) Crimes against Nature? Nature did not create villages, towns and cities, are all urban settlements that have transformed the earth on which they ae built crimes against nature? Are we all guilty of crimes against nature? But if we are also part of nature doesn't that mean cities are nature in concrete and glass? Do you indict Elephants who flatten grassland, I mean, how do you think the grass and the insects crushed in it feel about Elephants destroying their habitat?
2) Clinton know full well that the policies they put in place harm the vast majority of the population...I think realistically that politicians making policy know some will not benefit from it, it is said to be part of the dilemma inherent in democracy, but any politician who said he was going to harm 'the vast majority' would never get elected, and not twice either. What can be monstrous about the Oslo Peace Accords? Yasir Arafat to many people was a monster, to some others Yitzhak Rabin wasn't much better, yet there was a treaty; Jimmy Carter brought together Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in an earlier treaty: in the context of the Middle East these treaties were major events, monstrosity seems an inapropriate word to attach to them.
3) The only occasion when Carter sent the US military on an expedition was the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, otherwise, as far as I recall, he has been the only US President since 1945 not to send US troops to a battlefield; his major blunder, but in retrospect, was Afghanistan. It's not about monstrosities, but looking at his record and making a balanced judgement.
4) Rex Tillerson -the US does not own an oil and gas company; Exxon historically has been its biggest and most successful since Rockefeller's Standard Empire was broken up in 1911 (creating Standard Oil of New Jersey = Exxon) -the company is controlled by its shareholders, and you can become one and vote for Tillerson to be sacked every year if you want. Oil and gas companies are not the worst offenders in environmental degradation or carbon emissions, as I pointed out to you before -they have the money to adapt their installations to reduce emissions, but the key point is that these companies are legally obliged to file detailed reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, and can be forced to give evidence in Congress -you as a US citizen have the right to challenge all they do, and not to use any of their products, from gasoline to the CD's, DVD's, plastic bags, biros and packaging used on foods that are produced from crude oil and natural gas by the petrochemicals industry.
Criticism where it is due, yes, but to lump everyone under one label, 'Monster' does not make sense.