One hopes no one over the age of 15 or so has ever had childlike trust in the government. Having said that I was very pleased with how the Bush administration handled the situation post 9/11 and with how they approached Afghanistan. Before they went off the deep end with what was essentially a vendetta on Saddam I thought Bush’s foreign policy was actually quite strong. Since then not only have they drawn us into a war on the basis of what turns out to be a complete set of fabrications but they’ve also managed to drop the ball on Afghanistan in the process.
There is a great deal of international politics that is based on the ability to trust the government that you’re making a deal with.
Even if you believe that there’s a profit motive behind everything (an obvious overgeneralization) you can’t continue to make deals with people who won’t stand by the agreements they reach.
The fact is that one of the greatest problems I have with Bush is that he lies about so much. Currently he’s claiming that “We’ll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along.” When he actively campaigned to stop upgrade legislation in 2001. (Sources here)
One of the reasons that I liked McCain is that even though I disagreed with his politics, he bothered to explain his motivations and seemed to act with consistancy. Which brings us right back to world politics…
But not on blind faith. Not relying on some extraordinary breach of human nature in which they’ll accomodate your interests before their own.
Even if you believe that there’s a profit motive behind everything (an obvious overgeneralization)
It depends on what you mean by obvious. It can be a vague enough assumption as to be practically meaningless, but it is omnipresent. From bacteria upwards.
In IR, unless you are dealing with mental incompetents (insert obligatory Bush joke here), motivations tend to be fairly obvious beneath the rhetoric, because you are dealing with massive issues that impact many. But they are always self interested.
you can’t continue to make deals with people who won’t stand by the agreements they reach.
Absolutely. But there is a non-theoretical point past which any human being will betray another, just as there are with countries. The key is to do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis for BOTH sides before making any such agreements. The question isn’t whether you can trust someone, but can you trust them far enough (a matter of degree rather than a binary).
The fact is that one of the greatest problems I have with Bush is that he lies about so much. Currently he’s claiming that “We’ll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along.” When he actively campaigned to stop upgrade legislation in 2001. (Sources here)
Bush is unexceptional in virtually any sense. As that article you cite shows, the GOP wasn’t opposed to energy grid reform per se, but rather to all the other baggage that came with the bill. The same way Democrats blocked Bush’s energy plan (which included similar provisions for grid modernization) because they objected to the oil drilling that came along with it. What we have is a problem of both sides, now made a crisis by current events. Hopefully, since it is legislation that virtually any reasonable person can see is necessary, it won’t take the form of other hasty responses to disaster.
One of the reasons that I liked McCain is that even though I disagreed with his politics, he bothered to explain his motivations and seemed to act with consistancy. Which brings us right back to world politics…
Consistency when you are often wrong is no virtue.
I think this is the crux of where we agree. America has reached a point where there media has shirked (or sold off) it’s responsibilities to the public trust, and there seems to be no system of political accountability and oversight to hold people responisble in terms of results.
It concerns me greatly when we continue to do the same things over and over again and actively try to spin away the fact that they have horrific results for the majority of the people involved. (Supply side economics anyone?)
I think this is the crux of where we agree. America has reached a point where there media has shirked (or sold off) it’s responsibilities to the public trust, and there seems to be no system of political accountability and oversight to hold people responisble in terms of results.[/quote]
I am not sure how that regrettable altruism of mine, the product of 1. haste and 2. lack of desire to discuss McCain in detail indicates agreement. Should I assume you agree also with the previous points? I somehow doubt that.
I am also not sure I agree with you about it being a media failure; rather, I think it is one of the failures of American democracy as a whole we are addressing. The media has a responsibility to stay in business, first; if America, or for that matter any other country, demonstrated an interest in ethical, hard-hitting reporting on a massive scale, you can bet Murdoch would be selling it by the bushel. Instead, it is clear that people want entertainment and created news, or events run through a filter of other people’s opinions. The ultimate check and balance in democracy as in the free market is that people get the government, goods, and services they have earned; no better, no worse.
The fact is that in a system that becomes more and more a simple question of majority rule, on social and political levels, accountability and transparency are only going to become issues when either crises or demagogues bring them into the limelight. Then whichever proposal can be made to sound appealing in the fewest number of words will be offered as a solution, irrespective of what it actually means.
Take McCain, for instance, and one of his signature issues, campaign finance reform. In a funding setup in which ANY faint attempt at transparency and disclosure would be a massive improvement, he skirts the actual problems entirely and offers what amounts to an incumbent defense act as a “solution”. Meantime, demanding that all candidates fully disclose contributions in an easily accessible, this-guy/pac-gave-this-much manner beyond minimal amounts would do far more to clarify the issue. Don’t like the NRA? Michael Moore? Barbra Streisand? Then look up who they gave money to, and be informed when you brand someone their lackey.
Now, the suggestion I offer above doesn’t solve the “problem” of money influencing politicians, but (as my use of “problem” rather than problem might indicate) it makes it an issue that can be dealt with more effectively through democratic pressures, with minimal unintended consequences (unlike McCain’s arbitrary caps, etc).
It concerns me greatly when we continue to do the same things over and over again and actively try to spin away the fact that they have horrific results for the majority of the people involved. (Supply side economics anyone?)
I am not sure what you mean by supply-side economics, since it is a much abused term these days. Could you provide a more obvious example, or clarify that one? I ask because a lot of the time it is the very people that seek to rectify mistakes from the past that are the biggest creators of “horrific results”, not for lack of good intentions, necessarily, but because they identify the wrong cause for a problem, seek to deal with complex issues using simple, viscerally appealing solutions, etc.
The idea that there are some kind of all powerful “market forces” that float around the ether and create balance is a religious belief, not a fact. It’s a lovely myth that can make you feel warm and fuzzy when things go wrong, but it’s no less a belief system for all that. The reality is that our economy and our government is built on restrictions and opportunities. Humans created the market, just as the create regulations. It’s democracy that has created the opportunity for the free market to exist, but it’s not beholden to it, nor is it the same thing.
The ultimate check and balance in our Democracy is the intentions our leaders. We, as citizens hold them accountable for their actions. When the walls between money and citizenship are shaved too thin, very bad things begin to happen.
The fact is that in a system that becomes more and more a simple question of majority rule, on social and political levels, accountability and transparency are only going to become issues when either crises or demagogues bring them into the limelight. Then whichever proposal can be made to sound appealing in the fewest number of words will be offered as a solution, irrespective of what it actually means.
So far, and I’ll admit it’s been a short run, the thing that has made the US great is that at moments of crisis it elects leaders who find a new vision for the country. It’s in those moments of crises that the system needs to work best.
Take McCain, for instance, and one of his signature issues, campaign finance reform. In a funding setup in which ANY faint attempt at transparency and disclosure would be a massive improvement, he skirts the actual problems entirely and offers what amounts to an incumbent defense act as a “solution”. Meantime, demanding that all candidates fully disclose contributions in an easily accessible, this-guy/pac-gave-this-much manner beyond minimal amounts would do far more to clarify the issue. Don’t like the NRA? Michael Moore? Barbra Streisand? Then look up who they gave money to, and be informed when you brand someone their lackey.
But you said that you thought that outside of crisis it’s simplicity, not transarency that people pay attention too. If we believe that’s the case then shouldn’t we be looking for simple effective solutions?
I am not sure what you mean by supply-side economics, since it is a much abused term these days. Could you provide a more obvious example, or clarify that one? I ask because a lot of the time it is the very people that seek to rectify mistakes from the past that are the biggest creators of “horrific results”, not for lack of good intentions, necessarily, but because they identify the wrong cause for a problem, seek to deal with complex issues using simple, viscerally appealing solutions, etc.
I mean “supply side” economics as it’s been practiced in the last three decades. I’m sure that there’s some “purer vision” of it, that if it were properly implemented would be a wonderful thing. I’m sure the socialists feel exactly the same way about their belief system.
It comes down to paying attention to results. One of the simplest maxims for improving human experience is “If what you’re doing isn’t working try something else.” You can make all the excuses you want, but “Supply Side Economics” has been a cover for theft and abuse for as long as it’s been around. It’s not a baby anymore, so it’s time for it and the bathwater to go.
[quote=“Andrew_Mayer”]
The idea that there are some kind of all powerful “market forces” that float around the ether and create balance is a religious belief, not a fact. It’s a lovely myth that can make you feel warm and fuzzy when things go wrong, but it’s no less a belief system for all that. The reality is that our economy and our government is built on restrictions and opportunities. Humans created the market, just as the create regulations. It’s democracy that has created the opportunity for the free market to exist, but it’s not beholden to it, nor is it the same thing.
The ultimate check and balance in our Democracy is the intentions our leaders. We, as citizens hold them accountable for their actions. When the walls between money and citizenship are shaved too thin, very bad things begin to happen.[/quote]
I was drawing a parallel between the free market and democracy, not saying they were equivalent, or even all that similar on the whole. The fact that you get what you deserve in both, that’s all; an illustrative comparison. “The intentions of our leaders” is almost by its very nature not a check; it is precisely those intentions that are what needs to be limited in terms of government.
The idea that there are some kind of all powerful “market forces” that float around the ether and create balance is a religious belief, not a fact.
No shit. Really? You mean terms designed to broadly describe complex phenomena are not accurate verbatim? HOLY CRAP! What point does this prove again? I guess we’ll get to that later in your post.
So far, and I’ll admit it’s been a short run, the thing that has made the US great is that at moments of crisis it elects leaders who find a new vision for the country. It’s in those moments of crises that the system needs to work best.
What? I don’t know what US history you studied, but apart from a select few instances like the civil war, I can think of numerous crises weathered despite absolute incompetency at the top. In this last century alone, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Johnson and (probably) Bush II will be some of the signature names that mark defining moments. Reckless, incompetent, ignorant, and stupid in varying degrees are not the hallmarks of greatness in my book.
The US is great in the aggregate, as a result of a number of outstanding people who make good decisions, who achieve their potential across the spectrum of occupations. Just as often as not, it is in spite of that framework, political or societal, that you seem such a fan of that people succeed.
But you said that you thought that outside of crisis it’s simplicity, not transarency that people pay attention too. If we believe that’s the case then shouldn’t we be looking for simple effective solutions?
Right. And I think full disclosure is straightforward, inexpensive to implement, and goes a long way towards educating the voter. I don’t see the problem.
I mean “supply side” economics as it’s been practiced in the last three decades.
Well, if that’s what you meant, then I guess we have very different perspectives on the progress of the United States in the last century. Problems? Sure. But hardly something that can unqualifiedly be called a failure. Especially relative to the alternatives.
I’m sure that there’s some “purer vision” of it, that if it were properly implemented would be a wonderful thing. I’m sure the socialists feel exactly the same way about their belief system.
I’m sure there is. I guess you’re implying that anything that has an ideal version is therefore invalid? I am curious to see what you would postulate as an alternative.
It comes down to paying attention to results. One of the simplest maxims for improving human experience is “If what you’re doing isn’t working try something else.” You can make all the excuses you want, but “Supply Side Economics” has been a cover for theft and abuse for as long as it’s been around. It’s not a baby anymore, so it’s time for it and the bathwater to go.
Yes, that’s true. But you fail to account for the inherent subjectivity of the evaluation of those results. Two equally intelligent people can be paying just as much attention, and where one sees crisis the other sees a land of plenty. This is not to advocate relativism, since it is a far cry from that to saying they are all equally correct; rather, how useful your suggestion is depends on your priorities and criteria for success.
What I like about open markets and democratic republics (which are not necessarily what we have in the US, a lot of the time) is not so much the empowerment of individual ideas but the limitation of their scope and impact by competition. Your approach would seem to require that these “creative” thinkers (otherwise known as people that agree with you) have a disproportionate effect relative to the success their ideas have had thus far in a competitive market. My default position, open to reevaluation if you produce some real brain melters, is that unless a proposal allows for greater decisionmaking at the individual level (whether economic or social, within reason) it is probably a bad idea. Occasional, short term, easy to evaluate government programs with tangible results are the frequent exception (rural electrification, etc).
How did we end up here?