Or to achieve competing goals. Sometimes different factions really do have essentially different and incompatible visions of what society should be like.
Other times not. Paul Ryan and the Republican Party made Keynesian nosies when they pushed W’s tax cuts during 2000-2001. Insurance mandates came out of a Heritage Foundation report: now they are vilified. It’s widely understood that the US spends 18% of GDP on health care, has mediocre health outcomes on a variety of metrics including life expectancy and at any rate has an unsustainable cost trajectory. Taxes on CO2 emissions represent a tax on consumption, which conservatives say they like. There is scope for grand bargains.
Back during the 1970s there was a great compromise to push food stamps as it appealed to farmers, liberals and a certain variety of common sense. Bob Dole was one of the deal-cutters. But today’s typical Washington Republican fears being primaried by a lunatic more than he fears losing to a Democrat. So he votes in lockstep with Boehner, Ryan, DeMint and Mitch McConnell. The Republican Party no longer heeds the median voter.
Yes, but everyone in Washington has a common goal, at least in theory. It’s not like half the elected officials have announced their goal is to serve the United States and the other half have announced their goal is to destroy the United States. If that was the case, there really would be competing goals.
But that’s not the case. Everyone in Washington is supposedly there for the same reason - to serve the country. So the disagreements should only be over issues of what policies and programs serve the country best.
There is a paradigmatic difference between property and human though, espoused with crystal clarity by Robert Nozick. Roughly paraphrased, it is not worth upsetting the hierarchy or infringing on the rights of property in order to bring about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We cannot agree to appropriate taxes for the sake of extending people’s lives and reducing infant mortality (by providing unemployment benefits or public healthcare), as doing so could lead to the acute pain suffered by the magnanimous industrialist giving repose to property (The Utilitarian Monster). The only appropriate appropriations are for the enforcement of contracts and hierarchy - the army and police. Just reject the notion that human suffering exists and accept the boot upon one’s face. If only there were a product that curtailed empathy…
It’d be possible. Spanish civil war style.
I’d say your post is a good example of what the problem is. You’re denying the possibility that your opponents have any virtue. You can’t accept the idea that they may be doing what they think is right - much less the possibility that they might actually be right. You want to believe that not only are your opponents wrong but also that they know they’re wrong.
One party has the stated goal of obstructing anything that will allow the incumbent to be re-elected. They’re actions are wrong, they know they’re doing it, and they’re even proud of it.
Apart from that, I think they are more-or-less sincere in their ideas of how to turn the economy around. I think most of them really believe it. Unfortunately history shows they are incorrect. Their strategy destroyed the country five years ago, and they urge a return to the same policies on the basis that this time it will work.
What if, instead, I believe that my opponents believe they are correct only for a subset of the population. In other words, I believe that there are people in politics today who are there only to serve certain groups, rather than the nation as a whole. They seek to raise the fortunes of some, but not others. And, yes, I believe that they know this.
Yeah, this is definitely a strategic thing, and it’s tempting to read it as an unintentional commentary on the arguments Romney is making. There’s no way previous campaigns would’ve sent a campaign bus to an opponent’s speech and had it just drive around honking the horn and being annoying for an hour. It’s not that it’s a particularly huge deal, it’s just that it’s so pointless and overtly dickish that it’s hard to imagine it happening in an earlier campaign.
Didn’t it used to be common to throw rotting vegetables at politicians you disagree with? Seems like the occasional unkind word is a lot less problematic to dodge, so things are better. (At least when not visiting countries where shoes are thrown at you)
Theater audiences might’ve done it a couple of centuries ago- aiming at performers, not politicians. That’s not going to be the standard for civility here, is it?
Nope. If someone isn’t more uncivil than everyone else, ever, we can’t really call him uncivil or we’d be a hypocrite. Do you know who ELSE was pretty uncivil to people he didn’t like?
The problem in this instance isn’t unkind words anyway. Those are to be expected. The Munro thing may or may not be strategic in the sense of being coordinated with the Romney campaign, but it’s completely unprofessional for a journalist. The bus thing is just dickish. It isn’t really satirical or a protest or anything of that type, it’s just intended to be annoying and maybe keep people from hearing Obama.
The bus thing, in light of Romney’s prep school history, suggests that if Mitt does win to the Oval Office the “bully pulpit” would be put to quite a different use than current usage implies.
Just a couple of questions: Did any reporter heckle Bush during a speech on the White House Lawn? When if ever did a Congressman call the President a liar during a SOTU address? Has a Supreme Court Judge ever before silently called the President a liar during a SOTU address? I really don’t know the answer to these questions and would like to know.
The bus thing is the epitome of how an over privileged, immature bully thinks. I can just see Romney snickering about it. It’s just stupid.
I agree.
If I had a shit load of money, I wouldn’t want to give it away to help people, either.
Yeah, I’m a potential asshole. Sue me.
Sounds more like red necks to me.
Well? You don’t think he’s wrong, do you?
That’s my whole point. Yes, I do think he’s wrong.
I don’t believe people like Romney and Boehner and Ryan are thinking “Fuck America. We’ll just rip off the country for everything we can take and then become tax expats.” I think they really do believe that their economic policies are a good idea and will work. I personally think they’re wrong in their beliefs and that they’re deluding themselves with self-serving policies. But I think they’re sincere. And I’m willing to at least give their ideas a look and not dismiss them out of hand.
I’m not being sarcastic here, honest, but can one really have a business that acquires a failing company, guts it for any money it can, and then fires everyone, and believe they are doing good?