CrowEpistemologist

This is the Tea Party you made up in your own mind. A Romantic (in the literary sense) Tea Party of how it "might be and ought to be". The real Tea Party is staffed with old people who will vote any politician out of office who touches they SS or Medicare with a 10' pole. That's why all of the Republican candidates frame their policies in terms of "saving Medicare" or "bolstering Social Security". Here's a relevant story on Ryan (and just google "ryan medicare" or "ryan social security" for dozens of others): http://www.slate.com...servatism_.html The point is that Ryan and Romney are 1000% committed to the welfare state. If they weren't, the Tea Party people would not vote for them. Yes, you read that right. I defy you to show me a single Tea Party spokesperson who actually understands what Natural Rights are beyond a tax break for themselves and a way to get darky out of office. Oh, here's one more link demonstrating just how many light years the Tea Party is from real individual rights: Republican Immigration Platform Backs ‘Self-Deportation’ From the article: “If you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today,” Mr. Kobach said.

You should try substance for a change. It's far more interesting.

No, the implication is that individual achievement is helped when you have adequate infrastructure. The rest is fantasy fitting with a narrative used by the Republicans to somehow convince us that they are markedly different from the Demos even though they have the same exact premises (guides to their actual actions not campaign BS) in every important respect. I suppose it's progress when one of the parties feels a need to pander to Objectivists, however...

In this thread I'm asking people to explain why Obama is Satan. I guess my point above about comparing him to Repubs in this case is just to point out that he's middle-of-the-road and doesn't do anything unusual compared with other politicians. In the other thread I was trying to say that these days the Demos represent the side of smart and logical and Repubs represent the side of the opposite. The entire Repub convention was based on a misquote by the President. The implication is that it doesn't matter what people say at all anymore, what matters is what we felt you should have said based on our preconceived notions. The Repubs here are breaking new ground in bringing our culture--and therefore our country--down to a new level of unreason.

Spiral -- Your post got hosed somehow. Resend. * You don't think McCain would have done FaF or some equivalent? Why? Sounds like a shenanigan either could have pulled. * Healthcare: sounds like spitting hairs to me. Both are 1000% committed to socialized healthcare--and recall we had this all along before any "reform". * Foreign policy in general -- rational people can disagree about this... here I don't find anything sinister about Obama on FP. I find there to be a lot of trade-offs in that area and I don't pretend to know all of the answers. The Republican gibberish that Obama "apologizes for America" or whatever is crap. * I don't know much about the Black Panther thing (link?) -- but what the Repubs are doing with the "voter fraud" fraud is really awful and scary. * The abortion issue is more important to me personally than all of the mere money issues as the ones about money are matters of degree whereas that issue is either/or. * Taxes? Would McCain want to run the deficits necessary to cut taxes? Really? * Energy: don't know much about that expansion, again, link? Now, keep in mind I wasn't asking for a simple "list of differences" but rather that thing or things that makes Obama a drastically terrible Satan for whom anybody, including Satan, would be better. The entire list above (save the items I need to research more) seems like they are +/- 10%, not some sort of obvious choice.

Folks, can somebody explain to me where the Great Satan that is BO gets this reputation? Personally I see him as middle-of-the-road and implementing policy approximately like any other candidate in that position would in--from either party. Can we get beyond the narrative and into specifics? What specifically has Obama done that McCain would not have done and vice-versa?

Compared to the Republican top-level summary, all of them...

Romney isn't "pandering" to the Religious right by being Morom (believe it or not, even Christian kooks regard Mormons as kooks--Romney's Mormanism is not an asset for him). No, what I fear is Romney's actual Mormon beliefs, and more than that, I fear that his attitude--that you can simply go against your core beliefs whenever it suits you--is a bad trait to be exhibited by the President. I guess this is the heart of the issue for me.

Thanks Nicky. I always appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

But that doesn't matter.* What matters is how they are being sold--what they are a symbol of. Obama is the "elitist" these days, and Romney is the opposite... [*That said, you do recall that Romney is a freakin' Mormon right? You know, with the hat and the gold bars and dum dum dum dum dum dum...?].

Well, I'm glad you seem to see my point even if you don't agree with my conclusion. To be clear, I personally don't see any major change occurring, one way or another, in the next 20 years. I'm just not seeing the unbelievable evil of Obama, only a middle-of-the-road politician who is bending with the currently slightly-right-flowing winds. We all know that neither side is going to change things fundamentally (even "slightly fundamentally") at all and the only real difference is around personality and presentation. Hence my focus is around personality and presentation. I'm voting for the guys with the cloak borrowed from Aristotle. At least they still see some reason to wear that cloak. The other side attacks the cloak not the thing behind it. They call Democrats "elitist" (which is what Democrats used to call Republicans back in the day of Barry Goldwater and WF Buckley). The word "elitist" is code for "intelligent and rational". Forget politics folks--it's pissing in the ocean at this point and time. The real battle is culture, logic and rationality. Vote pro-elitist, not pro-moronic truck driver. (BTW, in watching JS or reading PK... I don't find myself turning into a closet socialist. I don't swing that way, I just don't. I'm comfortable with my... rationality. :-) ).

Thanks again for your participation.

I never said that. I said the Republican side is in opposition to intelligence and logic--in an official, top-line capacity. But sure, compare Paul Krugman or Jon Stewart to Fox News if you like. Wrong premises, sure, but at least they make a strong attempt to be internally consistent. Their demeanor is that of smart people trying to use facts and they don't make use of out-right lies as is the norm for the Republican side of today. (Note how this entire situation has flipped in the last 20 years...).

Clearly we have to look at the overall picture, not anecdotal samples. The dominant voice of the Republicans these days is Fox News. The VP candidate for the Republican party is a bald-faced liar who once made his staff read AR and now says his interest in her is an "urban legend". Their presidential candidate was recently featured on the cover of The Economist with the question, "who are you?", alluding to the fact that he basically has no past that he will stand upon. On Fox News we regularly hear speakers conflating Obama's support of Regan's programs as, "communism" all they while they tell the dumb dumbs who watch that crap that lowering taxes on the rich will make poor truck drivers like themselves oh-so-much-more rich sometime in the future. Meanwhile, the constant drone of the Democrats seems to be, "okay, so you want a welfare state, let's actually make it mathematically work". Crazy stuff. I feel like many people here simply refuse to believe the indisputable fact that every one of those geriatric t-party followers are on Social Security like all old people are, and when push comes to shove they aren't going to vote themselves a pay cut. They are there because somebody at Fox News told them that 94% of the Federal budget is actually spent on homosexual atheist art specials on PBS and if they just get rid of the Democrats we can cut those and balance the budget. Af for reality, Paul Krugman (!) said it best: the US government is an insurance company with an army. Given the premises and the political realities for the next, say, 25 years, we're going to spend what we're spending on our Army and social safety net, and we're going to have to pay for it somehow. Our choices therefore are either deficit spending or higher taxes. Period. One party acknowledges this, and one party lies about this. Ayn Rand did not write what she wrote so her ideas could be used as a floating abstraction. People need to get real. I always thought that one of the most misunderstood things she ever wrote was the following: "those who fight for the future live in it today". Correctly interpreted that was a great guide for living your life and doing what you can/should to change things for the better. It is often misused, however, as a psychological enabler for the crack pipe of rationalization. You imagine a world that could be and ought to be. You live in the world that is.

Sadly, no, not that war on reason... We should be so lucky to have Republicans who are merely religious yet on the whole honest about it basic precepts. I'm talking about what is becoming an "secret handshake" of unlogic being required of Republicans. That you have to believe that Obama's Obamacare is socialism yet Romney's Obamacare was not. Or that the Republicans will somehow cut the deficit, cut taxes and retain all major programs. That tax cuts for the rich will help poor people (not "long term" mind you, right now). Or that Sarah Palin would make a great VP. Etc. Etc. They are basically asking the American voters to suspend disbelief on simple, surface-level math and logic. The Republicans are pursing a mindless, populist strategy today just as the Demos did in the 70s. The tables have been turned and now it's the Democrats who are the smart, "elitist", logical ones. (And yes, I'm generalizing, and there are examples on the Demo side of mindless populism too but I have yet to find a counter-example on the R side). To be sure, I'd say that the "Fox News Axis" if you will--its media, "intellectuals" (if you can call any of them that: compare any of them to, say, WF Buckley just to remind yourself how far down they've slid) is perhaps a single location where the "culture" of today's Republican party resides. Fox News has a simple motto: "the Republicans must win at all costs, no matter what". It's not about an ideal, or even a religious cause anymore--it's just their side winning power for power's sake.

???

A tax cut that is not associated with a corresponding cut in expenses, e.g. leading to an increased deficit.

I don't recall claiming that. I am claiming that Democrats are saying openly what Republicans are simply lying about. Democrats are saying we need to tax the rich. Republicans are saying we don't have to tax anybody and can actually cut taxes because we have magic. Now, if you think that once the Repubs get elected they will suddenly turn 180 and actually move to dismantle the welfare state, more power to you. History has shown that once they get in power, they tend to want to stay there. Touching social security--even with a 10' pole--will kill your political career dead as Dillinger. Or to put it another way, my (albeit cynical) view of politicians is that they exist to get elected. Saying, "the Republicans, on the other hand, aim to prevent that from happening" is mighty naive to me. They've never aimed for that before.

You can substitute "Romney" in the above paragraph and it works just fine. Keep in mind that unfunded tax cuts are just as Keynesian as unfunded fiscal expansion... Also keep in mind that demographics and the economy have been by far the biggest drivers of spending increases in the last ten years, not some sort of latter-day New Deal. No, Obama didn't move to dismantle the social safety net and social security in order to offset the expansion. No, Romney wouldn't either...

The point is, "marginally better" (and of course that's debatable but we're both just guessing at the future). My overall point is that even if there might--might--be some soft of marginally better political outcome associated with the Rs this year, we absolutely do know that the Republican war on reason is in full swing, and we know that is more destructive than any imaginable marginal political gain.

One quote from the article I especially like: "To take ideas seriously,” Rand writes, “means that you intend to live by, to practice, any idea you accept as true, that you recognize that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life.” Those who call themselves Objectivists should read this again and again and make sure it applies to themselves...

Your premises being: 1. That we will absolutely positively have a QE4 if Obama is reelected. 2. That Romney will absolutely positively prevent QE4 from happening if he is elected (you understand Benanke was appointed by a certain Republican named George Bush, right?). 3. That a "QE4" will absolutely positively plunge the country into an immediate death spiral (actual description of said spiral TBD) even though QE1, 2 and 3 did not. I think my point is made by this posting: speaking with a lack of evidence followed by a non sequitur is the opposite of reason. If this is what the Republicans stand for these days, they are taking us farther from freedom not closer.

If you want to give me an example of a diabolical that plan Obama started in his first time and will be completed in his second term, I'm all ears. Short of that, this is unsupported nonsense. It's the sort of hyperbole that gives the entire realm of ideas a bad name. Let me guess: you said the same thing about Obama four years ago, right? That we are absolutely positively going to fall into the ocean unless McCain gets elected? Well, here we are, four years later, and my living room is dry as a bone. Objectivism is the "philosophy for living on Earth", not Jupiter or Neptune. What we can expect from four more years of Obama is what we got in the last four years: middle of the road muddling and congressional gridlock--and a slow ooze toward a "day of reckoning" (which won't be a actual day but will be dragged out over a decade or two) based on demographics and entitlements being on a collision course with basic math. The president, recall, exerts most of his influence over foreign policy, not lawmaking...

Sure. Take the USA under Obama and Clinton for instance. :-) Recall that the budget got balanced under Clinton... To be clear, I'm just not seeing the overwhelming amount of new statism coming from the Democrats right now. Even OC is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic which is our already socialized medicine here. If anything, OC is less socialist since at least a few more deadbeats have to pay for their free health insurance now. Both before and after OC we've had free health care available to anybody who wants it, so there's no essential change there. Besides OC, there's not much new "statism" coming purely from Obama that wouldn't have come from Romney....

I wouldn't want to put an exact time frame around it--probably too depressing to think about--but the sequence is pretty easy to figure out. Step one, a firm academic foundation around reason and the correct ethics, is still a work in progress--we might be 5% of the way there? I "hope" that step is completed relatively quickly. What you'd need to do to envision political change occurring before that step is accomplished is not "hope" but rather "prayer". The objectives for "step one" involve reason and rationality and honesty. Right now that vote goes to the Democrats...