You didn't build it

Political Philosophy
21

I don’t particularly care whether you think the politician or their policies will change culture; I don’t consider the distinction relevant, and wasn’t alluding to such a distinction. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your derision of others for (allegedly, nobody actually did this) asserting that we should elect politicians because of their direct effect on cultural trends when your defense of Obama (here and elsewhere) amounts to: “The policies of Obama and Romney are just as bad as each other, but the Republicans are so unreasonable, and therefore electing Republicans will effectively move the culture toward unreason in some small way.”

For the record, I actually agree that small changes in culture can happen as a result of elections. Obama holds to a philosophy that sees material goods as rights, which leads to a policy of class warfare. Romney holds to some bastard form of “natural rights” philosophy that leads to a policy of theocracy. But I don’t know if there is a way to predict whether a politician’s ideas will wax as a result, or whether those ideas will wane due to backlash - and if so, which philosophy will fill the vacuum. Even if we could predict, can you really say with certainty you know which set of ideas is worse? I think both are unacceptable.

Voting as a means of directly effecting cultural change is a fool’s errand. Romney supporters (on this forum) are saying Romney’s policies will more slowly bring statism, with the chance to reverse one or two particularly bad recent changes in healthcare, foreign policy and all-around executive branch ineptitude in the short-term. In the long-term, that means we have more time to change the culture. But we certainly aren’t going to change the culture if we don’t energetically pounce on every opportunity to support each side when they are in the right. Like right now, when the Republicans suddenly decide they won’t sanction their own victimhood, just this once.

22

Well said FeatherFall.

23

I don’t particularly care whether you think the politician or their policies will change culture; I don’t consider the distinction relevant, and wasn’t alluding to such a distinction. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your derision of others for (allegedly, nobody actually did this) asserting that we should elect politicians because of their direct effect on cultural trends when your defense of Obama (here and elsewhere) amounts to: “The policies of Obama and Romney are just as bad as each other, but the Republicans are so unreasonable, and therefore electing Republicans will effectively move the culture toward unreason in some small way.”

I understand you don’t agree with my conclusions, but where is the hypocrisy? I find the Democrats a symbol of reasonableness in this election cycle and Republicans a symbol of an abandonment of all facts from public discourse. Fine, you disagree with that opinion (and this is, let’s be clear, a far-flung opinion or estimate of the current state of things, not some statement of obvious, verifiable fact).

But given my premise, my conclusion is perfectly reasonable.

Also, I should be clear, I did discuss the pointlessness of people like us voting or thinking it might make a difference. Insofar as anybody (even dumb dumbs like ******* and **********) are in this discussion, they are hundreds of times more influential than their mere vote, and potentially thousands and thousands of times more. By saying, “vote Obama” I am saying (and yes, I should have been more clear) “advocate a vote for Obama with a detailed explanation as to why in order to make a broader point”. I am saying that the current–and to be sure the last–frontier we’re defending as rational discourse and fact-based discussion. Once that goes, everything else is moot.

24

If you promote Obama as some sort of agent for cultural change toward more rational discourse and fact-based discussion relative to Romney, then you write, “Many people here want to believe that politics will drive culture when it’s always been the other way around for all of human history,” you engage in hypocrisy. If it is indeed the other way around (which it is), then electing Obama can’t have some sort of effect on logical discourse unless Romney plans to initiate a campaign of censorship. But as far as I know, the only campaign dedicated to censorship in any way is Obama’s. He would have us amend the 1st amendment so that pesky decisions like Citizen United don’t stop the government from telling us who can speak out and to what extent.

1 Like
25

There’s an upside to Obama winning a second term - by a small margin, I imagine - which I’m

positive hasn’t passed anybody’s attention: that four more years of the Grand Egalitarian

Experiment (GEE) would convince a major part of the electorate of its failure, and shift

the culture to increased individualism - for a long time to come.

Question is could the nation withstand it? GEE must fail incontrovertibly; I’m afraid

most people only learn the positive by way of the negative.

Excuse the butting in in these deep waters, but we all have a vested interest wherever

we live.

26

There’s an upside to Obama winning a second term - by a small margin, I imagine - which I’m

positive hasn’t passed anybody’s attention: that four more years of the Grand Egalitarian

Experiment (GEE) would convince a major part of the electorate of its failure, and shift

the culture to increased individualism - for a long time to come.

… and the Grand Old Presumption (GOP) that government is required to define and regulate moral issues, e.g. marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc., according to the mandate of a narrow group of religious crusaders, might finally wander out of the political desert and become relevant to political affairs once again…

27

If you promote Obama as some sort of agent for cultural change toward more rational discourse and fact-based discussion relative to Romney, then you write, “Many people here want to believe that politics will drive culture when it’s always been the other way around for all of human history,” you engage in hypocrisy. If it is indeed the other way around (which it is), then electing Obama can’t have some sort of effect on logical discourse unless Romney plans to initiate a campaign of censorship. But as far as I know, the only campaign dedicated to censorship in any way is Obama’s. He would have us amend the 1st amendment so that pesky decisions like Citizen United don’t stop the government from telling us who can speak out and to what extent.

I believe that anything very popular and focused on by lots of people will change culture (to a greater or lesser extent). The campaign for the presidency is one of those things. That is what I am reacting to.

I do not, however, think that Romney’s policies will change things one iota, and as such I do not judge him on that.

The Republicans are putting on a spectacle of unreason. This should be met with scorn. They are advocating, politically, virtually the same mix of welfare state policies as the other guys. This should be met with indifference. They are advocating it while paying lip service to a few distant ideas that have nothing to do with the welfare state they are supporting it. This should be met with scorn.

The Republicans should lose this time in order to show people that facts still matter. A victory for them will demonstrate the opposite. That will be a defeat for reason, and ultimately a setback for freedom.

28

Crow, it’s hard to tell whether you are avoiding the point I made about giving support to each side when they are in the right, or whether you have accepted it.

And bunk, by the way. Your theory relies on the assumption that the Obama campaign deals in facts, which is one of the worst assumptions I can think of in this context. It seems to me that you’re not holding each campaign to the same standard.

29

Crow, it’s hard to tell whether you are avoiding the point I made about giving support to each side when they are in the right, or whether you have accepted it.

And bunk, by the way. Your theory relies on the assumption that the Obama campaign deals in facts, which is one of the worst assumptions I can think of in this context. It seems to me that you’re not holding each campaign to the same standard.

I’m unclear on what the first paragraph means…

And yes, I am making the assumption that the Obama campaign deals in facts much more so than the Romney side. I am, of course, talking only about the top-most issues (which are the only issues I track and generally mean anything in this context).

Those two central issues are the economy and health care.

In both cases the democrats offer more-of-the-same welfare statism and the Republicans offer the same in actuality but lie about it. Romney’s recent re-re-re-backtracking about what he’ll want to do about Obamacare is case and point: coverage of pre-existing conditions is logically impossible without the other parts of Obamacare. It makes no logical sense. It cannot work, and no honest person who has thought the matter through could possibly say it could.

Ryan’s, “insert belief suspension here” plan to cut the deficit is another example: he basically says we can have the same old welfare state, not cut anything than costs real money, have the inevitable population and demographic growth, make giant tax cuts–and still balance the budget. That’s not a fight against statism, it’s a war on math.

***

By the way, it’s clear that I’m cutting across the grain of many people’s assessment of the current state of things, so humor me: what specific implemented policies have made Obama so incredibly bad? I’m not saying he’s great or anything, I’m saying he’s a middle-of-the-road welfare statist and hasn’t done anything significant the other guy wouldn’t have done when it comes to actual implemented policy. All I’ve heard thus far is how he has socialism in his heart (see: the original subject of this thread) and that’s bad.

And to be clear, somebody who has a deep-seated belief in socialism and somebody who has deep-seated beliefs that even religious kooks call religious kookery is a toss-up for me. In both cases you have to assume they are just going to shelve those views and just govern from the center.

So convince me. How is Obama going to change things so drastically? What will he do?

30

He will continue to do the things he has done, but at a greater rate since he will not have to run foragain.

You can make the points about the GOP, and I agree with you mostly, but it doesn’t change the fact you can say the same for Obama and make the case it will be worse. Obama only needs to keep his current pace and that won’t happen when handed a win he’ll claim is a “mandate” to “move forward” much like Clinton did.

31

He will continue to do the things he has done, but at a greater rate since he will not have to run foragain.

You can make the points about the GOP, and I agree with you mostly, but it doesn’t change the fact you can say the same for Obama and make the case it will be worse. Obama only needs to keep his current pace and that won’t happen when handed a win he’ll claim is a “mandate” to “move forward” much like Clinton did.

What things are those? Yes, Obamacare. We’ve discussed that–it’s a wash. What else? What should be afraid of? Where is the imminent threat?

Recall that the government is going to expand in dollar terms, massively, no matter who gets elected since the policies driving the expansion were put there by Obama, sorry Clinton, sorry JFK, sorry, FDR.

So where’s the cliff we’re driving off of? Again, the unique cliff to Obama, not all of the things that are going to happen regardless…

32

Crow, my first paragraph amounts to this question: Do you believe that we should support both Democrats and Republicans on the particular issues they get right?

If you are ready to seriously consider the last question you asked me (what has Obama done that his alternatives wouldn’t), then I can respond to the questions you had in post 29 of this thread. I can also show you why I’m certain a Romney campaign would be significantly different, if you’re interested. And for the record, Obama does have some marks in his favor.

33

Crow, my first paragraph amounts to this question: Do you believe that we should support both Democrats and Republicans on the particular issues they get right?

I guess I am not sure what “credit” means in this context. I’m happy when politicians say true things. I reiterate those things when I hear them said…

If you are ready to seriously consider the last question you asked me (what has Obama done that his alternatives wouldn’t), then I can respond to the questions you had in post 29 of this thread. I can also show you why I’m certain a Romney campaign would be significantly different, if you’re interested. And for the record, Obama does have some marks in his favor.

Um, I’m lost…

34

What else? What should be afraid of? Where is the imminent threat?

Republicans would say his foreign policy..

Not that the ultra militaristic, let’s-spread-democracy-everywhere Romney plan is much better.

35

Crow, please feel free to ask questions that will help clarify anything I have failed to explain. And again, if you are actually interested in thoughtful responses to the question you asked, I am happy to give one.

36

… and the Grand Old Presumption (GOP) that government is required to define and regulate moral issues, e.g. marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc., according to the mandate of a narrow group of religious crusaders, might finally wander out of the political desert and become relevant to political affairs once again…

:slight_smile: Yeah, I know - not forgetting ‘creationism’ in schools…

Still, these are concretes that can be fought and opposed in Senate and Congress, one by one,

under the principle of separation of Church and State, don’t you think?

Whereas, from my experience of living under advanced collectivism-egalitarianism is that

few people understand its harms, no one can see its roots, and it is meekly accepted as

implicitly ‘good’. Its effects are pernicious and lasting, so a tougher battle for you to tackle,

in my opinion.

Maybe then, not so much of “the lesser of two evils”, and more of the lesser of two battles.

37

post 29 of this thread.

Oops! That would be post #12, on the 29th of August. Thanks again for pointing out my misake, M. I hope that clears up some of the confusion, Crow.

38

Oops! That would be post #12, on the 29th of August. Thanks again for pointing out my misake, M. I hope that clears up some of the confusion, Crow.

I’m still lost. I didn’t ask any questions in that post, I just answered a bunch.

I’m always interested in rational discussion, yes…

39

What things are those? Yes, Obamacare. We’ve discussed that–it’s a wash. What else? What should be afraid of? Where is the imminent threat?

Recall that the government is going to expand in dollar terms, massively, no matter who gets elected since the policies driving the expansion were put there by Obama, sorry Clinton, sorry JFK, sorry, FDR.

So where’s the cliff we’re driving off of? Again, the unique cliff to Obama, not all of the things that are going to happen regardless…

Obamacare is not a wash - There is no reason to believe that McCain or Bush would have pointed a gun at me and force them to buy a product from a Government protected cartel against my will. Voting for Obama alone sanctions this basic gross violation of rights alone. I will not sanction it. Or to put it another way, get back to me when you are standing in a line at your State Exchange to get your Government mandated healthcare in '14. I’ll be waving at you from the top of the cliff.

Everything from Romney is by definition less that Obama, which is not a postive for Romney but a mark of how out of control Obama is. Will Romney still increase Government like the others? Of course. But his party is running on reduced spending and his party and supporters are demanding this, something Romney will need to observe in some detail if he doesn’t want the grass root ground troops his part needs, and talk radio, busting a nut on him now and the next four years. Obama on the other hand will spend more money and is running against the idea of “the deregulation that got us here” when we know Bush added tons of regulations. If he is campaigning now that the Bush years were a “cut” then we know Obama will just add red tape until the flag turns red. Obama fully endorses spending economics to the nth degree and worse his party has no structure to oppose it sense they want more on principle. I’ll take the projected slow speed of Romney versus the high speed drive towards the cliff of Obama. We know this because he has done it and every speech and every commercial tells us he will continue to do this.

When he says “Forward” I believe him.

Romney is running on firing the current idiot running the Reserve who today is pumping more fiat dollars into the bubble economy, and while Romney will not follow through on most of this you can expect a motivated Rep party to force change to some degree from the hyper inflation we are already running at. If Ron Paul has done anything good, it is making the Federal Reserve an issue. Obama has shown he will only do more of the same and when there is no re-election in site there is every reason to believe he will follow FDR’s lead and do more and more blindly with a confused look of why it doesn’t work (and hope/find a war to pull his ass out of the fire).

I mean, really, do I need to continue? Do you want to talk about “You didn’t build that” collectivism again? How about abandoning Israel? Environmentalism? Punishing the coal industry and blocking drilling while giving loans to other countries to do so (egalitarianism gone wild)? Appeasement of Islamic fundies instead of defending free speech? Hell, for all of Romney’s faults (and I agree there are many) he even took a moral stand on the issue versus appeasement.

I’m not saying Romney is a good choice. He is the product of a party clashing over political pull with a void of real principled thinking. But I could write all day on how Obama is Bush on Red Bull and Jack driving out of control.

40

Crow, I count 7 question marks in that post of yours. Some are reiterative, some follow requests, and yes, some appear to indicate the presence of questions. For a comparison, look at the post you responded to; there were no question marks outside of the quote brackets.

This is pretty basic stuff, and if we can’t agree on things like this I don’t know how we could possibly talk about something as complicated as politics. This makes it difficult for me to believe you when you say that you are interested in thoughtful discussion. This is especially true after you tried to leave yourself an escape by saying you wanted us to prove Obama was worse than Satan. If you want to have a rational discussion about how two candidates differ, you need to drop that kind of folderol.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try this again, but I don’t want to hijack this thread with what could be a long, off-topic discussion. You’ll find my response here when I post it.