What do you think of it?
Great. Sorry if I misunderstood. What point were you trying to make with “standard democratic fare”?
I think it’s terrible. I have never been in favor of this war.
Just a disagreement that **Liberal **I have had. He thinks Obama’s tax plan is bold, but it looks pretty much like standard Democratic policy to me (and to the analysts that I’ve read, too).
Ditto
Then I did misunderstand. My apologies and thanks for explaining.
I just have to ask where in the OP’s link does it say that Obama inspires anyone at all. The nearest I can see is that a majority of people in some countries have “more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs.”
It would seem to be the height of hyperbole to count not doing the wrong thing as inspirational.
Better you should worry about this.
Let’s just say the past seven years have taught the world to lower its standards.
Yow!! Fears realizd??
The only scary thing in that article is that Jason Furman “will be drawing on the expertise of two Keynesian economists”. One can only hope it isn’t true.
What scares me is that we may discover that Obama is as smart as we thought he was but not as sincere.
That’s rather random.
That’s rather pragmatic.
Smart-but-not-sincere is rather Nixonian.
Then what did you mean when you said that it sounded like “from each according to his ability” to you? That sounds like Communism to me.
Then what do you say to those now fretting that Obama has abandoned Keynesian economic policy? You’re saying he’s Karl Marx, and they’re saying he’s Ludwig von Mises.
What seems to occur is that political leaders have to balance public service, the interests of who elected them and all the diversity they bring into the equation, and their own interests and the interests of thier staunchest allies. What I’ve noticed is the rationality that seems to go, “if I do X amount of good for tje general public, I deserve to do X amount of good for myself and my friends, business partners, and allies.” What actions this prompts varies on what balance a partcular politician justifies. A little favortism and looking out for number one is understandable. Too much, at the exspense of others, is immoral and possibly criminal.
Some of it is justified as political realism. as in “that’s how it works” and that’s not entirely untrue. Too much justification and too many get hurt. Too much idealism and things don’t get done. Realistically , Obama can be insincere to some degree and still do a whle lot of good.
How so?
I still think Obama is the better choice of the two. I’d like to think he is completely sincere, but that seems a bit naive. I’m willing to give him his chance and see what happens. If we trust too much without watching it is we who have let down our democracy.
Ayuh. The Nation has a special issue on that this week. (Click the tab “This Week In Print.”)
Well, what other kind of approach would remedy the current problem of massive Gilded-Age-level wealth inequality?
I think the premise that he is insincere is random. He is one of the few politicians I’ve ever seen who maintains a consistent sincerity. Despite whatever political blowback there might have been from the Democratic Party core, he has told people the truth as he sees it. He has talked openly about his faith. He’s the only candidate I heard during the campaign who openly and explicitly confessed Jesus Christ as his personal savior. He has told people they might never get their old, low-tech jobs back, that they would need retraining for new jobs instead. He has said that it would be best if we talk to our enemies, advocating firm and assertive diplomacy. He was saying the war was a mistake when Bush’s approval ratings were at their highest. He has talked openly about race and race relations, including this weeked when he called on the Americans in general and the African-American community in particular to demand that fathers honor fatherhood. I think that’s why, when he called repealing the gas tax a gimmick, people believed him. And it was just another example of his honesty. I’m not saying he’s a saint, but presuming that he’s insincere in order to draw a conclusion that we should be frightened of his intelligence just strikes me as … well, random.
I see. To clarify, I’m not presuming he’s insincere or saying we *should *be frightened. I’m trying to be realistic.
But the reality, as I’ve shown, doesn’t square up with that. How can we be realistic by flying in the face of reality?
I have to agree with Liberal on this. Pessimism and cynicism are often mistaken for realism. Realism looks at what is. It’s true that what is is usually bad, and pessimism/cynicism and realism line up more often than not, but it isn’t realism to look at someone and go, “Well, he’s displayed integrity and sincerity every time he’s been in the public eye, but he’s a politician, so it’s probably a facade.”