Since the Inauguration thread has now transformed to the the First 100 days thread and we never really moved beyond talking about the music to the substance of Obama's address I thought I'd start a new thread to talk about the speech.
If you missed it, you can see it here and/or read the full text here.
Here are some of my favorite excerpts.
quote:, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the worlds resources without regard to effect.
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
quote:For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.
quote:those values upon which our success depends hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
quote:know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do. "
Yup. Good government=/small government. Quite a few government programs are both successful in fulfilling the intent of the program, while simultaneously being more efficient and effective then private sector alternatives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Why do you see this as a problem? I recognize that you don't want government to do what Obama wants government to do, but if you can put that aside -- why is size the issue? Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Isn't a small police force that can't stop crime lords from terrorizing the streets every bit as bad as a police state that tramples peoples rights?
Size is a red herring. The real issues are whether our government is doing what we want it to do and whether it is doing that efficiently. If we ensure those questions are properly addressed, government will end up being the right size.
[ January 21, 2009, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
Thus, I think it is fair to say that our government should be smaller than a government that does whatever we want it to do.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Size is a tricky measure anyways. Say the government pulls out of Iraq and thus doesn't have to pay for fighting that particular war. But say the US then goes for nationalised healthcare, a more concrete measure like cost would probably be lower but people's perception of "size" may very well be higher.
So it really depends on what your measure of "size" is.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
I'd say the majority of voters would like the government to do something different, not necessarily do more.
After all, those Obama signs said "CHANGE" on them, not "MORE".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In this case, I think "different" fits the popular conception of "more".
Or, what Mucus said.
I do think the public ought to question its desires, but "Government ought to be smaller than we think it ought to be" just doesn't seem like a very useful maxim to me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I actually related to the big government small government quote. I felt it summarized my political leanings very well.
I'm generally very conservative, fiscally and socially, because I don't think that government is ever very successful in it's programs. But if Obama can convince me otherwise, he has my vote.
Sometimes we needs to step back and consider why we are Democrats or Republicans, and if the situation ever changes, perhaps our loyalties should as well. I'm surrounded by people who treat their politics like they do their sports teams. If someone can show me the logic, I hope I'm open minded enough to follow truth and success wherever it is presented.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
I'd say the majority of voters would like the government to do something different, not necessarily do more.
After all, those Obama signs said "CHANGE" on them, not "MORE".
Thepollingdisagreeswith you. It's pretty clear even from a cursory glance over recent surveys that the majority of Americans are in favor of a "bigger government" approach to fixing the economy in general, and the stimulus package specifically.
I was highly impressed with Obama's inaugural address. People seemed dismayed that he avoided the usual lofty words and uplifting language, but it was important for him to emphasize that he is planning on being more than an inspirational speaker - that he is deadly serious about doing the work to which we have appointed him.
I particularly liked the line that has been the focus of discussion here, because it demonstrated what I have always considered Obama's most important attribute: his pragmatism. Despite the media's portrayal of Obama as a naive child, or Republicans' attempted portrayal of Obama as a radical pinko commie, Obama's defining trait is his refusal to adhere to any classical ideology. Instead, he sets out goals in terms of clear or measurable outcomes ("How can we get cameras into police interrogations?" "How do we get the most caucus votes in Iowa?" "How can we use the Internet to make federal spending more transparent?"), and then methodically sets out a strategy to achieve those goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. In the process, he inevitably brings in a diversity of opinion, and synthesizes their collective advice into as pragmatic a policy approach as possible.
This approach to governance is what I was hoping to get from an Obama presidency, and his actions throughout the transition as well as yesterday have convinced me that my hopes are about to become reality.
Along similar lines, I *loved* that he spent time talking about the importance of science to America's intellectual and economic prosperity. I had zero doubts that his administration would be immeasurably better than Bush's with regards to scientific research and dissemination of scientific findings, but I was really not expecting him to put that aspect of the agenda into the inaugural address. I think this indicates more than that revitalizing American science is a policy priority for Obama's administration. I think this is further evidence that Obama values the scientific approach to truth-finding and problem-solving, and intends to use it in all aspects of his governance.
And that, to re-use a well-worn phrase, is change I can believe in.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Translation: I don't like him regardless of how he seems, so just ignore my posts in this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Not when you're the type of person who wants to do away with practically all taxation, government and government programs, including police, roads and highway maintenance, and schools.
For the rest of us, that is the question, since many systems are by their very nature huge in order to be able to be effectual at all, such as interstate upkeep, public schools, the military ...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
How do you determine what a government should do? This is something that philosophers have debated for millennia. There is no accepted consensus on this issue.
Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
Frankly, I find the implication that most adults want more than is good for them to be a bit insulting. I think few of us really know exactly what is good for us, but the idea that some elite group may know better than I do what's good for me is offensive to say the least.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The polling disagrees with you. It's pretty clear even from a cursory glance over recent surveys that the majority of Americans are in favor of a "bigger government" approach to fixing the economy in general, and the stimulus package specifically.
That poll you linked to doesn't say anything about favoring bigger government. It says people are in favor of a stimulous package that includes increases in spending (bigger government) AND tax cuts (smaller government). It also doesn't say anything about whether voters think more government is better when it comes to military spending, regulating moral behavior (banning gay marriage for instance), health care, education, welfare, etc. It doesn't say whether voters prefer big government in general, as opposed to favoring big government to solve one particular issue.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
I've got to admit, my interpretation of this wasn't exactly like Lisa's, but it was similar.
It's kind of like if you heard Dick Cheney say, "The question we ask today is not whether our interrogation techniques are too severe or not enough, but whether they work-- whether they help us obtain reliable intelligence as efficiently as possible to stop terrorist attacks."
An optimist might hear this and think, "torture been shown to be extremely ineffective in recovering reliable intelligence, so perhaps he's going to examine the evidence and stop torturing American prisoners."
A realist would probably hear that and think, "well, it looks like he's getting us ready to crank up the torture program."
I'm not saying that increasing the size of government is as unambiguously evil as torture, but I think there's some clear political double-talk in either statement.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
But this is why the Founding Fathers put so many distinctly undemocratic checks on the government - because they knew that what the people want is not always what the government should do. That's why the Supreme Court is not subject to elections, for instance. And why it is so hard to change the Constitution. We are not intended to be a nation where the government bends always to the will of the people. Instead we are intended to be a nation where an elite group of people are elected or appointed to figure out what we should do, within limits provided by the Constitution and other rules.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Not when you're the type of person who wants to do away with practically all taxation, government and government programs, including police, roads and highway maintenance, and schools.
Perhaps if you really want no government at all, but if you want the government to do anything, even something very very minor -- the question shouldn't start with "how big should it be"", but "what do I want it to do?".
I'm fairly certain that if you start by defining what you want government to do and then create ways of assessing whether the government is doing that effectively and efficiently -- you will end up with the right size government to achieve your aims.
I think that's true whether what you want from government is grandiose or extremely minimal. Even if what you really want the government to do absolutely nothing, starting by defining that leads to a pretty clear answer about what size government you want-- you want no government.
I think politicians put the size discussion first because its much easier to get people to rally around the idea of small government as an abstract principal then it is to get people to agree on which eliminate programs we should eliminate. Its much easier to say you want smaller government and issue across the board cuts than it is to evaluate and decide which programs really could be done more efficiently.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
I've got to admit, my interpretation of this wasn't exactly like Lisa's, but it was similar.
It's kind of like if you heard Dick Cheney say, "The question we ask today is not whether our interrogation techniques are too severe or not enough, but whether they work-- whether they help us obtain reliable intelligence as efficiently as possible to stop terrorist attacks."
An optimist might hear this and think, "torture been shown to be extremely ineffective in recovering reliable intelligence, so perhaps he's going to examine the evidence and stop torturing American prisoners."
A realist would probably hear that and think, "well, it looks like he's getting us ready to crank up the torture program."
I'm not saying that increasing the size of government is as unambiguously evil as torture, but I think there's some clear political double-talk in either statement.
Correct. Both statements are "whatever it takes" statements. Both are all about the ends justifying the means, whatever those means might be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
But this is why the Founding Fathers put so many distinctly undemocratic checks on the government - because they knew that what the people want is not always what the government should do. That's why the Supreme Court is not subject to elections, for instance. And why it is so hard to change the Constitution. We are not intended to be a nation where the government bends always to the will of the people. Instead we are intended to be a nation where an elite group of people are elected or appointed to figure out what we should do, within limits provided by the Constitution and other rules.
If our founding fathers really intended a government of the people, by the "elite" who know better, for the masses who are childlike fools -- then they were wrong. While I am pleased to have some checks against the tyranny of the majority, I find the tyranny of "a small elite group" to be far more common, far more likely to happen, and typical far more tyrannical.
The founding father's weren't gods. The constitution isn't divinely revealed truth. Need I remind you that the constitution had to be ratified by a supermajority of the people and can be changed if a supermajority agree that it does not establish the kind of government we want. The ultimate power in our government does not reside in the constitution or in any of the three branches -- it resides with us, the people. We are the government and we are negligent if we forget that or allow those we've have chosen to represent us to forget it.
[ January 21, 2009, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Obama did say that if he found programs that weren't working, they would be scrapped. That doesn't sound like only increasing the sound of government to me, it sounds like there'll be some increases and some decreases, depending on what's working and what's not.
Government can be more efficient but have more impact, or it can be huge and sprawly and totally inept.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse.
In fact, the more I've come to understand this, the less inclined I am towards extremist philosophies of what the government should do. The government should do what the people want it to do. Since the people are all saying different things, then the people should do what the majority of people want it to do.
The minorities, meanwhile, retain the right and even the responsibility to try to persuade others than their view is correct.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Correct. Both statements are "whatever it takes" statements. Both are all about the ends justifying the means, whatever those means might be.
I don't have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that the ends justify the means. I think that the problems generally arise because we disagree about what are truly desirable ends and whether the means discussed are capable of achieving those ends.
So if we look at the hypothetical statement on terrorism -- my biggest problem is that it incorrectly assumes that our ultimate desire is to stop terrorism. Its shouldn't be. Our ultimate desire should be to promote and protect human rights. Stopping terror attacks is a means to that end -- it is not the end. Once we've correctly identified the end (promoting and protecting human rights)-- its not hard to see that some means (like torture) are fundamentally at odds with achieving the desired end.
I suspect that people who disagree with Obama's statement, don't really disagree with the first part -- its the second part they take issue with. They don't agree that helping families find jobs with decent wages, care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified should be the goals of government. In fact, they likely find those goals to be at odds with what they believe constitutes good government.
I'm fairly confident Lisa would object to any government program that had those aims, regardless of how big or small, efficient or efficacious the program was because she disagrees with the fundamental idea that these should be the aims of government. I can't imagine her approving of any means the government would use to that end.
I don't think the issue here is a question of means justifying ends-- the question truly at issue is whether or not you desire the same "ends" from government.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -attributed to Winston Churchill
There are some things that are just too important to be left to a private sector that regards money as the only true measure of efficiency or worth.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't see Obama's text as advocating "whatever it takes;" rather, he says the question we ask today isn't whether government is of a particular size, but whether it works.
As it stands, that is a matter of focus and priority, not of exclusive consideration.
---
Edited to add: Citing it as an exclusive consideration requires an added axiom or qualification which just isn't there -- e.g., "the only question at all relevant..."
Would make sense to me to argue that one would prefer he had added some sort of qualification, but not to claim that he had restricted it to another qualification. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that The Rabbit is right, but I think that the means matter, too. "The means justify the ends" implies that the means themselves are bad to need justification.
I don't think that a reasonable amount of taxation requires the same degree of justification as torture.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] [QUOTE] We are the government and we are negligent if we forget that or allow those we've have chosen to represent us to forget it.
That's true, but when you choose someone to represent you, you are in fact admitting that they know better than you. Look around you at the people in this world, in this country, do you see very many people capable of governing even their driving habits? Their misbehaving children? Their empty bank accounts? In a country where the majority of people are vacant, unmotivated sensualists, who can't even take a real interest in who runs their country (just voting doesn't count, one should know who they vote for and why, not just vote for the candidate they were told to vote for the most times on T.V. spots.), don't you think someone a little more "elite" should run the country? Competent, educated, responsible people, like you and I, and alot of people on this board, while being a minority, should run this country, because we want whats best for it we don't though because there are not enough of us to win a damned election.
That being said, great speech, and I hope my new president has abounding success.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -attributed to Winston Churchill
There are some things that are just too important to be left to a private sector that regards money as the only true measure of efficiency or worth.
That's ... pretty much it, yes. Often I argue as an advocate of government regulation over markets under the principle that there is a sensical 'sweet spot' between state and private, and that extremes and near-extremes on both sides are fundamentally unworkable.
This sort of argumentation is outmoded, now. I'm saying this as equitably as possible. After the cash crunch, I've noticed that communists are more liable to be taken seriously in economic debates than freemarketeers. Communists.
So people are by and large not arguing the near-absolute abolition of government or markets, post-crash.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse.
Our current government does not follow the will of the majority or the will of the minority. Instead, it follows the result of a somewhat complicated system that balances different minorities against eachother - some of which are selected by the majority, but others of which are appointed. It does work pretty darn well - but that's because it doesn't just give the people what they want, but also doesn't just give any single group whatever they want. American government, both in the way the founders conceived it and how it functions today, relies both on the idea that power rests in the hands of the people AND the idea that people can't be trusted to know what's best.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I don't have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that the ends justify the means. I think that the problems generally arise because we disagree about what are truly desirable ends and whether the means discussed are capable of achieving those ends.
So if we look at the hypothetical statement on terrorism -- my biggest problem is that it incorrectly assumes that our ultimate desire is to stop terrorism. Its shouldn't be. Our ultimate desire should be to promote and protect human rights. Stopping terror attacks is a means to that end -- it is not the end. Once we've correctly identified the end (promoting and protecting human rights)-- its not hard to see that some means (like torture) are fundamentally at odds with achieving the desired end.
I suspect that people who disagree with Obama's statement, don't really disagree with the first part -- its the second part they take issue with. They don't agree that helping families find jobs with decent wages, care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified should be the goals of government. In fact, they likely find those goals to be at odds with what they believe constitutes good government.
I'm fairly confident Lisa would object to any government program that had those aims, regardless of how big or small, efficient or efficacious the program was because she disagrees with the fundamental idea that these should be the aims of government. I can't imagine her approving of any means the government would use to that end.
I don't think the issue here is a question of means justifying ends-- the question truly at issue is whether or not you desire the same "ends" from government. [/qb]
QFT. Whenever I've had a problem with a person saying "The Ends Justify the Means," it was never because that philosophy led them to commit bad acts. It was because that person was so blind to the consequences of their actions that they didn't see how bad the end result actually was.
Also:
quote:That poll you linked to doesn't say anything about favoring bigger government. It says people are in favor of a stimulous package that includes increases in spending (bigger government) AND tax cuts (smaller government).
Smaller governments require fewer taxes, but tax cuts don't equate to smaller government automatically, just a government that'll be in more debt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's true, but when you choose someone to represent you, you are in fact admitting that they know better than you.
Not necessarily. I have at many times in various organization given my proxy vote to someone else. It was never because I thought they knew better than I. In every case it was because other commitments conflicted with my being present for the vote and I trusted the person who I chose as my proxy to accurately represent my views.
I think this is a more accurate explanation of why we have a representative democracy. It is not that we presume our representatives know more than we do. It is that dealing with all the nitty gritty details of each piece of legislation requires a substantial time commitment. Most of us have lives that prohibit us from putting in that much so we select someone we trust will accurately represent our views to act as our proxy. If our representative isn't doing what we want, we may give him a chance to persuade us, after all this person has been working full time on the issue and may have seen things I haven't yet seen, but after all the persuading is done, if he/she really isn't doing what I want, he shouldn't be allowed to represent me.
At least, ideally thats how representative democracy ought to work. Our representatives should represent us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If it becomes a pattern, then it's troublesome. And if he acts in such a way as to make the words empty, then it's troublesome.
If Bush had actually acted in a way that made his rhetoric believable or true, he wouldn't have taken crap for it, but when it constantly looked like he was talking about an alternate universe which no one else could see, people started to get skeptical, and then people just stopped listening because he gave the same speech every time he opened his mouth using some sort of Freedom and Liberty Mad Libs.
So, if this was a one off speech to try and both reassure his detractors or spook his enemies, then that's fine. The next speech is more important than this one in that sense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My take on this was much like Lyrhawn's. These bits gave me pause when I first heard the speech. The optimist in me, sees them as an attempt to reassure his detractors, particularly those who keep claiming he will invite terrorist attacks. The pessimist in me sees more of the same misguided rhetoric. I shall wait to see which one is more valid.
It is however worth noting that other parts of his speech did indeed show a dramatic contrast with the Bush administration approach.
For example contrast;
quote:As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
with this
quote:America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
and this
quote:Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist.
with this
quote:America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Posted by MarkE (Member # 11927) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.
At last- a president who recognises the legitimacy of we Agnostics/Atheists and, I hope, Humanists! I LIKE this man, even beyond the respect already owed the President of the USA.
Already, he has closed Guantanamo Bay as a gulag- an illegal outpost of the USA in a sovereign territory even before made into a prison camp for the dissapeared of the USA empire... I can only wish (undevoutly, as an agnostic)that the whole blasted base will follow soonj.
Imagine the fun when Fidel finally dies. The best engineers in the American continent, finally free to sell their skills! Marvellosity, sheer marvellosity!
Posted by MarkE (Member # 11927) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: At least, ideally thats how representative democracy ought to work. Our representatives should represent us. [/QB]
Yes, but with an important(vital?) proviso: We must each accept our own ultimate responsibility to ensure that our representatives do indeed represent us. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders, say, as in the UK we so often do, that they " are all corrupt so what can be done" - and then not even vote. Like blastewd sheep, making no noise even as we are slaughtered.
Posted by MarkE (Member # 11927) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
[QUOTE]America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
and this
This concept was referred to by one Mr Hitler as "Lebensraum", alas. I'm afraid that at some point you either accept that others will not try to hurt you, or you start acting as though you believe that they are people too... Wonder what Mr Card's feelings are on this matter, given that we are in his Eyard after all ?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Welcome to hatrack Mark.
Mr Card does post here occasionally but if you are interested in his feelings on these matters, I suggest you read his WorldWatch essays. You can find the link to them on the Hatrack home page.
I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Mark, can you use the preview button? Or at least practice a little with the UBB Code? You're leaving tags all over the place, and there really isn't any need for it.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
(psst. that's his style.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
"Please don't disillusion me. I haven't had breakfast yet." - OSC
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Are you serious?
How would you suggest she could have put it more politely?
Oh, i guess it could have gone like this:
"If you would be so kind as to indulge me in a bit of speculation, I suspect that you and our esteemed host might chance to disagree in small ways, however I'm sure that won't prove an impediment to fruitful exchange of perspectives."
But is that really an improvement?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Are you serious?
How would you suggest she could have put it more politely?
Oh, i guess it could have gone like this:
"If you would be so kind as to indulge me in a bit of speculation, I suspect that you and our esteemed host might chance to disagree in small ways, however I'm sure that won't prove an impediment to fruitful exchange of perspectives."
But is that really an improvement?
Yes I am serious. And yes, your way of putting it while overly wordy and registering a positive on my sarcasmometer could be a better way.
How about, "Based on your previous three posts though I suspect you and Mr. Card will disagree on a great many things."
The quality of Mr. Cards' opinions is not something I think should be derided in this place.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
How is saying that someone will be disappointed by OSC's opinions a judgment on the quality? If I say
quote:BlackBlade would be disappointed if the end of the world came tomorrow and he found out his religious beliefs were actually false and he was now damned to eternity for not being Catholic
am I somehow being impolite or expressing an opinion regarding how the world actually works or what I think of your religion?
(Sorry for bringing up religion - it was the only thing I could think of where I know you would be disappointed, to put it mildly.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The quality of Mr. Cards' opinions is not something I think should be derided in this place.
In all the years I have been here, I have never gotten the impression from Mr. Card or the moderators that criticism of his political opinions was unwelcome or inappropriate here. Particularly not criticisms as tame as the one I just made.
It is no secret that many of the left leaning fans of OSCs fiction, are disappointed and even shocked when they read his political essays. I thought iI was being polite to Mark to issue a warning before when sending him off to read World Watch.
I suppose it would have it might have been better to say "I should warn you that Mr.Card is an outspoken and enthusiast supporter of Bush and has been highly critical of Obama in his essays." That would have been less speculative but I thought my way allowed more leeway for Mr.Card to speak for himself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jhai: Those are not very equivalent. There's a difference between saying, "You will find this person's opinions disappointing," thus indicating a negative quality, and, "Reality when it entails ill is disappointing."
Also I would be disappointed in that scenario yes, but more because of the hell business, the fact my religious beliefs were wrong would not be the problem.
I certainly hope you aren't disappointed if it turns out that Jesus was actually right about everything he actually said. -----
The Rabbit: I don't mean to say Mr. Cards' opinions are above reproach. I just felt your were perhaps unintentionally putting a negative bias on Mr. Cards' opinions. I agree that later way is less speculative, I don't think Mr. Card would mind it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I thought Rabbit was saying she thought MarkE's and OSC's political views would be different to the extent that MarkE would find them disappointing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, I'll come out and say it: Mr. Card's opinions are frequently bad ones. Ooo. The frisson! *rolls eyes* Seriously, I think his skin is a little thicker than that.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Jhai: Those are not very equivalent. There's a difference between saying, "You will find this person's opinions disappointing," thus indicating a negative quality, and, "Reality when it entails ill is disappointing."
Also I would be disappointed in that scenario yes, but more because of the hell business, the fact my religious beliefs were wrong would not be the problem.
I certainly hope you aren't disappointed if it turns out that Jesus was actually right about everything he actually said.
They're pretty much the same: "If you do x/If x occurs, then you will be disappointed." It's just a conditional statement which is either true or false, and really doesn't tell you anything about the speaker's beliefs or feelings about x.
And, actually, I would be extremely disappointed if it turns out that Jesus, as reported in the Bible, was right about everything. That's because I don't believe that (the Biblical) Jesus was right about all of what he was talking about, morally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The quality of Mr. Cards' opinions is not something I think should be derided in this place.
.. how fragile do you think that guy is, anyway?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BlackBlade, Do you ever visit the other side of the board? Let's just say that people pretty routinely say far far more derogatory things about Mr. Cards opinions at this forum than what I posted. Those threads don't get locked and the posters don't get banned. Respect for Mr. Cards opinions is not part of the user agreement here and it does not appear it is something Mr. Card expects.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I want to strengthen the warning. I'm really sorry I ever read Uncle Orson's political essays, as it has soured my ability to enjoy his books. Now whenever some character speaks political rhetoric which before I could just take as part of the fiction, now I see it as being OSC's own didactic voice, trying to convince us of his views. Particularly because the Shadow series was so political, it spoiled my pleasure with it entirely. I haven't even read starting with Shadow Puppets.
It's a serious flaw that a whole lot of Mormon art has, in my opinion, that it becomes too explicitly didactic. My theory is that it's because we LDS focus so much on teaching ourselves and each other lessons in church and Sunday School and during our monthly visiting teaching and home teaching (all good things). We also believe in having lots of kids and teaching those kids constantly (also a good thing). So much focus on teaching, though, makes it sometimes difficult for LDS artists to drop the didacticism in their art. In my opinion, didacticism in art is always a total killer for artistic value. I don't want to be preached at in novels and paintings and music. I want it to evoke a response in me that is my own response to the honest real story itself. I don't need to be led by the nose to some pat moral. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that. It's not recognizing the reader's full intelligence and heart and abilities.
Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
So you may want to consider not reading those political essays. I certainly wish I never had.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I really really need to meet you in person some day Tatiana.
You hit my sentiments exactly.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
quote: I want it to evoke a response in me that is my own response to the honest real story itself. I don't need to be led by the nose to some pat moral. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that.
Again, I think you are putting your own biases into what you read as you previously stated
quote: Now whenever some character speaks political rhetoric which before I could just take as part of the fiction, now I see it as being OSC's own didactic voice, trying to convince us of his views. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that. It's not recognizing the reader's full intelligence and heart and abilities.
The story did provoke a real response in you that was your own response and true to the honest story you were reading but at a later date you changed your mind about what your response meant and what the honest story meant. I find it hard to believe that he is leading us all by the nose to some pat moral. If that were true, wouldn't you have noticed it instantly? Should characters in a book behave only in the ways you believe they should? I do not agree with a lot of Joss Whedon's political beliefs but that does not influence my love of a lot of his work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
I think you simply don't understand what Tatiana is saying. The problem isn't that I disagree with Card's political views. It is not this alone which has ruined the experience of reading his books. The problem is that after reading his political essays, it is difficult for me not to read his novels through the lens of those essays. For example, in the scene in Ender's Game where Ender kicks Stilson to death, Card shows us Ender's rational for doing such a monstrous thing. Before reading Card's essays, I thought that scene simply showed insight into the complexity of human nature and motivations. It was interesting and there were lots of thoughts it provoked and questions it raised. But after reading his commentaries on how we should deal with terrorism, I see something completely different in that scene that makes it far less enjoyable for me to read. That problem is even worse in his more recent novels that are more political in nature.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I agree with your last point only Rabbit. Much of his older stuff I can still read with fervor and enjoyment. It's only in his most recent works that his views and opinions seem to ooze out of the stories to a off-putting degree. I admit that I regret reading some of his world watch articles (not all, but enough). Love his reviews on stuff though.
But I read such books as Lost Boys, Treason, and many of his older short stories after becoming aware of his more extreme views and I still throughly enjoyed them(without feeling bombarded with his unsavoury political rhetoric).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
I will say that after my experience rereading Ender's Game, I've largely given up on reading Card. I read for pleasure and I no longer expect reading Card's books to be as pleasurable as it once was. I really wish I had never read his essays, but I have and there is no going back. If you see that as my weakness, fine but I don't think I'm particularly unique here. That's why I issued the warning.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For example, in the scene in Ender's Game where Ender kicks Stilson to death, Card shows us Ender's rational for doing such a monstrous thing. Before reading Card's essays, I thought that scene simply showed insight into the complexity of human nature and motivations. It was interesting and there were lots of thoughts it provoked and questions it raised. But after reading his commentaries on how we should deal with terrorism, I see something completely different in that scene that makes it far less enjoyable for me to read.
Mr. Card wrote that particular passage back in the early 80's so there really is no correlation between what he wrote 30 years ago and his current essays. Again this seems like you are applying your perceptions of your current biases against something he wrote a long time ago. Your intial reaction to the passage is still one that is valid. Stilson's death and the rationalization of it still works as written as showing insights into the complexity of human nature and motivations. Some of his more recent novels are more reflective of current history but picking Ender's game is not the best example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
I will say that after my experience rereading Ender's Game, I've largely given up on reading Card. I read for pleasure and I no longer expect reading Card's books to be as pleasurable as it once was. I really wish I had never read his essays, but I have and there is no going back. If you see that as my weakness, fine but I don't think I'm particularly unique here. That's why I issued the warning.
You are not unique here. I, too, have found that I no longer enjoy reading Mr. Card's fiction after having read his essays.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
You can't expect to get away with such a deliberate misreading of her view. She said that the didactic voice takes away from her reading of the books. Whether you agree with the views or not, this is a valid criticism of writing, not just the person writing. For instance, I generally agree with Michael Moore, but don't like his later work that much because it is so self-satisfied and personal. I agree with the worldview, and yet the writing and the art in it is off.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
The most striking thing about Lost Boys, and the only really definitive thing that comes off as a "Card speaks" moment, is when the family is dealing with the medical community, and the doctor treats Step differently once Step says something that shows some knowledge of medicine. Usually OSC is pretty even handed when it comes to character motivations (with a few big exceptions, like in Empire), but in this moment he forgets himself, and his personal need for vindication seems to overwhelm his ability to stay in the context. I have read that this encounter is autobiographical, and taking OSC's attitude from Step's I can see quite clearly that OSC handled the situation badly, and doesn't really know it.
Now, that's all based on what he's written, which one might expect to favor his viewpoint, but perhaps he does have room in that story for the reader to find step unreasonable? In that particular book, the paranoia and obsessiveness of the whole family, especially the parents, is interesting. I do think it's possible that it is a self-criticism or at least a bit of self-reflection from OSC, showing the reader some of the negative attitudes that he or other Mormons have, and how that isolation from others effects them.
If one's reading takes Step's attitudes strictly as reflections of OSC's own, then it is an interesting but damning self portrayal. I have always found it a little hard to believe that OSC finds the family to be entirely reasonable.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You can't expect to get away with such a deliberate misreading of her view. She said that the didactic voice takes away from her reading of the books. Whether you agree with the views or not, this is a valid criticism of writing, not just the person writing.
I believe she stated that she enjoyed the book and found no issue with EG until after she read Mr. Card's essays. After she read the essays she found EG to be didatic. Her opinion, that he is using a didatic voice, changed after she learned more about the author's personal beliefs. Had she been unaware of his beliefs she would not think EG is didatic. I was not trying to get away with anything. I am merely pointing out that she did not believe EG was anything but a good work of fiction until she found that she dislikes some of Mr. Card's beliefs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Mr. Card wrote that particular passage back in the early 80's so there really is no correlation between what he wrote 30 years ago and his current essays.
I disagree. In an essay on Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, Mr. Card made the argument that by the time people are 21 or 22, their ways of thinking and approach to reasoning are established for life. While I think that's unlikely to be true of all people, I think the fact that he makes that claim suggests it is largely true for him. Mr. Card was more or less the same person 30 years ago. His views on particular issues have certainly evolved, but his way of thinking about the issues is largely the same.
My problem isn't that I think Mr. Card was making a statement about Al Qaeda in Ender's Game. My problem is that when I read that scene now, I see Ender using the same basic rational for kicking Stilson to death that Card has used in his essays on terrorism. Before I read Card's essay, that particular interpretation of the scene would never have crossed my mind but now I can't keep it from crossing my mind and it spoils the experience.
Its like an art show I was at some years back. There was one particular abstract painting that I liked because of the striking combination of colors. Then one of my friends said "I think its a vagina", after that comment I simply couldn't look at the painting the same way as I had before. I still don't know if that was the painters intent, it certainly wasn't an interpretation I would have come up with on my own. Nevertheless, I simply couldn't enjoy the painting after the comment was made because it permanently altered the way I looked at the painting.
Its not really an issue of unfair bias or some sort of prejudice I hold against Mr. Card because of his essays. The issue is one of context. Because I have read Mr. Card's essays, they have become part of the context I cannot escape when I read his books. Therefore, I wish I hadn't read the essays.
[ January 23, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The first time I read the later Ender books (Xenocide), I was slightly annoyed by his portrayal of the scientists and science. I kinda ignored it though and thought, well, he isn't a scientist. Reading his articles and the basic contempt he seems to have for scientists, I can't stand the books now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Isn't this just hatrack. It started off as thread about Obama's inaugural address, immediately veered off to discuss big vs small government, then swerved into a discussion of ends vs means and now somehow its become a discussion of how OSC essays influence our reading.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is an interesting quote.
quote:As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.
Taken by itself, out of context there are several different things one could rationally intuit from the words.
Once you know even a little context, only who spoke the words and where that person stood, only one possible interpretation remains.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Orincoro:
quote:In [Lost Boys], the paranoia and obsessiveness of the whole family, especially the parents, is interesting. I do think it's possible that it is a self-criticism or at least a bit of self-reflection from OSC, showing the reader some of the negative attitudes that he or other Mormons have, and how that isolation from others effects them.
If one's reading takes Step's attitudes strictly as reflections of OSC's own, then it is an interesting but damning self portrayal. I have always found it a little hard to believe that OSC finds the family to be entirely reasonable.
I've seen this from you before, I think. The theory that Card is isolated from the world and it makes him weird and obtuse. The fact that you think the portrayal of the family in Lost Boys to be damning in any way is really very strange to me, and I suspect that you're viewing it through a lens already bent toward negative judgment. Let me put it this way: Step was a totally decent and normal character. There's nothing damning about it.
Personally I think your theory is bunk. Card deals with people in business, in every day life, and in his travels that are not just like him. He's not a hermit.
He is opinionated, and often wrong. I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But he understands human nature well enough to be a successful storyteller. Someone with the twisted, microcosmic worldview you imagine he is limited to would not be able to write about Path, or Capitol.
I think YOU are guilty of bending the truth to fit a preconceived interpretation.
I would be very interested to see specific examples of things from Lost Boys that you think demonstrate a family that isn't "reasonable" in some way that is specific to Card or the subculture(s) he inhabits.
I also want to respond to the specific example that Rabbit offered from EG. If Card at some level considers the "war on terror" to be analogous to Ender's fight with Stilson, he still recognizes the tragedy inherent in both the deaths of children and in the monstrous ruthlessness of someone like Ender. Ender spent decades repenting for what he did; OSC doesn't just give it a pass. I don't see what makes the story of Ender - bred for a purpose, used and manipulated, never comforted or helped by those responsible - so unpalatable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I really really need to meet you in person some day Tatiana.
You hit my sentiments exactly.
If this was the disappointment you were talking about, I'd probably withdraw my original objection. But that might make me a hypocrite, so I'm still thinking about it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays.
Enchantment, while being one of my favorite books, contains one of my least favorite passages in anything I've read.
Paraphrasing since I am at work (though I think its pretty close to the actual text):
Ruth and Ivan find that both are virgins, and discover that despite many young people who claim to have had sex and are liars, pretty much everyone else they know is also virgin, with the exception of a small number of "human mattresses".
Being that Ruth and Ivan were teenagers from upstate NY (and a suburb of Syracuse), and that I myself was a teenager from upstate NY (living in a different suburb of Syracuse) when reading this, the line sat very poorly with me.
The story wasn't set in an obviously fictional America were teenagers don't have sex (like some idealized portrayals of the 50s). The line may or may not be true for a high school in Utah, I couldn't say, but it's very out of place in the mind of a teenager from NY.
The labeling of "human mattresses" for sexually active teens was especially jarring for me, since while I knew lots of teenagers who chose not to have sex, very few would harbor such an uncharitable view of those that do.
I bring this line up about once a year on these boards, since it bothered me that much. Some old timers with good memories are probably sick of me ranting about it . I haven't read the book in a few years though, so I wonder if I'm even remembering it as correctly as I think I am.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Add me to the list of people who have a harder time enjoying Card now that we're familiar with his political views.
We are not trying to convince people Card's views are terrible. We're trying to warn people about a bad experience that we ourselves have had. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
There's a pretty strong correlation between being liberal and having Card's essays make you sad. I don't even remember whether the original poster was liberal or not, but it's a worthwhile warning.
Edited because I accidentally listed the wrong name. My bad.
[ January 23, 2009, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I really really need to meet you in person some day Tatiana.
You hit my sentiments exactly.
That'll be easy! We just hold a huge convention of all the LDS female engineers, get our respective employers to pay for the trip, and then we'll be the only two participants. I think the Bahamas might be nice, or how about Cancun? If you're tired of gorgeous tropical places we could do Paris or London, I suppose. Just let me know. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dark Knight, The Rabbit is right that you've completely misunderstood my point. I'm sorry I didn't state it more clearly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sound great Tatiana, II do know at least one other LDS female engineer, we'll have to invite her too.
I live in the tropics and I was in London last year so I'd favor Paris. Its been several years since I was in Paris.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: BlackBlade, Do you ever visit the other side of the board? Let's just say that people pretty routinely say far far more derogatory things about Mr. Cards opinions at this forum than what I posted. Those threads don't get locked and the posters don't get banned. Respect for Mr. Cards opinions is not part of the user agreement here and it does not appear it is something Mr. Card expects.
Yes I do, did you see the open letter to the forum I posted about it?
edit: Looks like you posted in it. Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
Originally posted by Tresopax ------------------------------- What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
Thus, I think it is fair to say that our government should be smaller than a government that does whatever we want it to do --------------------------------
I agree with this. I think the bottom line with governments is people expect too much. The government is expected to do More and more every year.
I equate the Nation to a family. The kids are always going to want what they can't or shouldn't get. In the same analogy, what child who is given everything in life is really better off than the child who is expected to labor and fight for what he gets.
Politically, average Joe Q. Public is just a child- wanting and demanding what he either shouldn't or can't really have. The bigger the government, the more capable big daddy is, and therefore the less capable the average person will be. I think this is a sure-fire way to draw stronger lines between working classes.
Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
------------------------------- <Originally posted by ChristineChristine>
I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse. -------------------------------
This is absolutely true <in my opinion>! We have the best working government in the entire world. It's no wonder why our government is always so scrutinized by other world nations. They are both admiring us, and looking for flaws. Did you see all the world's pirana devouring the problems we had over this conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and with President Bush?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Let me put it this way: Step was a totally decent and normal character.
Which is a subjective judgment. I think the character is so obsessed with righteousness, that he seems to be totally oblivious to how he deals with others. His constant victim mentality was not healthy, and he alternated between aggressive vindictiveness and self-victimization. I'm not going to argue that he isn't a likable or good character, because he is, but he is not "totally normal." Perhaps he's a better character for having these flaws, but they are certainly there for me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by DC Morphis:
Politically, average Joe Q. Public is just a child- wanting and demanding what he either shouldn't or can't really have. The bigger the government, the more capable big daddy is, and therefore the less capable the average person will be. I think this is a sure-fire way to draw stronger lines between working classes. [/QB]
Whereas I think that the public is made up of adults and our government reflects the way we decide as a group of adults to organize the parts of our lives that affect one another.
I can't tell you how glad I am that our laws are set up to reflect my veiw on this rather than yours.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Amen dkw.
Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
DKW- Thank you for spelling out my analogy for me. I understand we are a bunch of adults, and I understand the government is set up to act on the voice of the public- working class adults.
One problem I see, something that supports my initial analogy <if you take two seconds to think about it> is there are too many uneducated voices. I hope you agree with me in that not enough people are educated on the state of the government and politics in general. The average person- good old John Q keeps himself naive or ignorant of the details that surround the important decisions, "the parts of our lives that affect one another" thanks for the quote, and instead bothers himself with going to work to support the family and watching TV or Movie entertainment. the fact the average person is naive supports that they keep themselves in a state of political pupescence or immaturity.
I assure you our laws are set up to reflect my views as I hope yours as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
DC, I think you fundamentally misunderstand dkw's comment. If you did, you'd recognize that it is diametrically opposed to your views and that a no government can simultaneously have laws that treat John Q public with the respect due an adult and hold that most of the public are children who don't understand what they really need.
One of the big difference between a child and uninformed adult, is that the uninformed adult can be taught and persuaded. A leader who sees the people as adults, will try to persuade the people by educating them and engaging them in the issues. A government that sees the people as mature adults, will strive for openness and work toward building a consensus.
A leader who sees the people as children, will ask the people to trust him blindly and feel free to work through lies and deception if he feels it expedient. A leader who sees the people as children will have no problem with secrecy and will work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible and with out regard to or respect for the opposition.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One of the big difference between a child and uninformed adult, is that the uninformed adult can be taught and persuaded.
This isn't accurate. Children are more easily taught and persuaded than adults.
There are other differences between children and uninformed adults, so I don't think you can equate the two in government. Nevertheless, it is still true that a significant percentage of adults are uninformed, and an even more significant percentage of adults lack the wisdom, experience, and understanding to make good laws. To admit that fact is not akin to calling adults "children". Rather, it's just accepting the reality of our (and probably every) society. A large percentage of adults do not have a high school degree. Large percentages of adults lack a basic understanding of government and history, as demonstrated in studies like this. There's also plenty of adults out there, even among those who have a lot of experience, education, or knowledge, who act unethically on a regular basis. And even among the segment of adults who are ethical, knowledgable, and generally capable of making good political decisions, many of them lack the time or desire to become informed on the specifics of all the many issues that face our government every year. I suspect the number of people informed enough about economics to make sound economic policy in a national banking crisis, or the number of people who understood Iraq well enough to make a sound foreign policy towards Iraq, or the number of people who know enough about rocket science to decide whether or not NASA is ready to spent billions of dollars on a proposed trip to Mar is well under 10% of the adult population.
That's why following the public's whims is not a wise thing for government to do. And that's why the government does not function in the way The Rabbit was describing above. We have a vast bureaucracy that makes many decisions on all sorts of technical issues - and it doesn't ask for a public vote. We have a court system that is neither elected nor accountable to public opinion. We have a Federal Reserve that does not ask for the input of public opinion. We have a military that doesn't put military strategy up for a vote. We have a president who can't be kicked out of office early just because the public no longer agrees with what he's doing. We have a constitution that requires an overwhelming agreement among the people in order to be changed. In summary, we have a government that does NOT generally decide most things based on what the general population thinks is best.
We are not a democracy because the people themselves decide all the laws. We are a democracy because the power that underlies those who do make the laws and the responsibility for that power rests with the people. That is why America treats its citizens as adults rather than children. Adults are not automatically smarter or better at learning than children. But adults ARE independent and responsible for their actions in a way that children are not. We, the people, are in control of and responsible for our government - even if we don't vote on every decision made within it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This isn't accurate. Children are more easily taught and persuaded than adults.
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently specific. While children are able to learn certain things more readily than adults, their ability to understand a line or reasoning, to comprehend long term consequences, to empathize with others, to delay gratification, and generally exercise sound judgement is not yet fully developed. While some adults its true have weaknesses in these things, they aren't weaknesses or character flaws in children. Children's brains simply aren't sufficiently well developed to understand certain things and be able to exercise good judgement. The overwhelming majority of adults are.
So when a three year old wants chocolate cake for breakfast, its very likely because their brains aren't sufficiently well developed for them to understand why healthy food is important. So after you've explained to the three year old that chocolate cake doesn't provide the nutrients they need to grow strong and health and the child is still crying "But can't I wanna eat chocolate cake", a responsible adult doesn't just give in and let the child eat nothing but cake.
But you don't treat an adult the same way. If an adult wants to eat chocolate cake for breakfast, I might give them all the latest research on why eating a a healthy breakfast is important. But once I've given them the data, I presume that an adult is capable of making their own decision. Once they are informed, I presume that if they still prefer to eat the cake for breakfast it is because for them the pleasure of eating cake outweighs any negative consequences. Because they are mature adults, I respect that they value pleasurable eating more than they value their long term health. That is their right.
And the fact that the some adults never graduate from high school, that some peoples brains never mature enough to make rational choices and that some adults still can't follow a line of reason is really irrelevant. In a democracy, it isn't necessary to persuade every single adult, only the majority. And the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of these things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In other words, for adults in a democracy, "because I said so" is not sufficient.
Much to the surprise of former VP Cheney.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Is this dependent on natural conditions, or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice in this situation, would still be unable to parse the long term consequences of the plan?
I would argue this is not a great leaping-off point, as I have been educating myself on this crisis, and have come across too many expert opinions that say, essentially, the outcome is too difficult to predict with good accuracy. Long term economic variables may actually be too complex for humans to analyze effectively.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Is this dependent on natural conditions, or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice in this situation, would still be unable to parse the long term consequences of the plan?
He didn't say that they couldn't understand the general "long-term consequences" - he said they couldn't "figure out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis".
And no, I don't think the majority of adults can correctly figure that out (where "that" means the likely effects of the Obama stimulus plan), even with education. Unless you think the majority of adults are capable of earning a ph.d in economics with a specialization in macroeconomics? Most adults are, frankly, not capable of the mathematics required to understand this field. It's very, very hard stuff.
Even with a year of ph.d level macroeconomics under my belt, I can't get close to truly understanding the likely effects (altho, I hate macroeconomics and have tried to purge my brain of it). At best, I can give you a very general overview of what the likely outcomes will be, and - probably more importantly - I can evaluate professional macroeconomists' arguments about the issue.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
But that doesn't mean anything. What matters is if the general public can listen to the experts as well as the elected officials can. Senators don't have a PhD in economics with a macro-economics concentration either. They listen to the experts, just like the general public does (or at least should).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
That's why there's such a thing as consensus among experts.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Xavier - there's a reason why the Federal Reserve was set-in in such a way that the economists there had some free reign from the legislature. I don't believe that Senators are good at economics either.
Juxtapose - we're currently in the long tail of economic scenarios, which means there isn't much data on past occurrences. Which means there isn't much consensus beyond the basics among experts. This problem is part of the reason I hate macroeconomics - the models are too broad and the data too scarce to deal with events like today's economic crises. It's difficult to be scientific when you have a bunch of rare variables interacting in a system that's difficult to accurately model.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Forgive me, but if even the pros have little understanding of the situation beyond the basics, what does it matter that the general population doesn't either? The whole thing seems like a wash.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I didn't say that there was little understanding, just that there wasn't consensus among the researchers - which is a very common occurrence in the sciences when you have little data on a subject that hasn't been studied in great depth. Think of how many medical studies there are which have shown different results on things like developing food allergies or the positive/negative effects of different types of nutrition. And there are literally billions of test subjects these medical researchers could be studying. There's only one global economy, and only one US economy for macroeconomists to consider. You can't run a randomized experiment or test outlier situations with data constraints like that
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier - there's a reason why the Federal Reserve was set-in in such a way that the economists there had some free reign from the legislature. I don't believe that Senators are good at economics either.
I think, then, that we've drifted off of the original subject of debate in this chain. The original debate was whether we elected officials to make our decisions for us because the general public lacks the capability to make them ourselves.
If the elected officials don't have the capability either, I don't see how this is relevant to the point.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The original subject was whether officials in government should make decisions for us because the general public lacks the capability to make good decisions ourselves about the issues that face government. Elected officials are one group of individuals in government who make those decisions. Appointed or hired experts are another group of individuals in government who make decisions. In the case of the current banking crisis, most of the decision making so far has been done by unelected experts - ranging from members of the Fed to officials at the Treasury.
A system in which elected officials simply voted on every decision to be made would not be much better than a purely democratic system where people were polled on every decision. Our government is effective because it has many different groups (some elected representatives, some civil servants, some appointed experts, along with the general public) who serve as checks against one another. It's a system that often doesn't give the people what they want (for instance, the auto industry got a bailout even though the majority of the public was against it and Congress voted against it), but it's a system that tends to create pretty good public policy without allowing any single group to consolidate all the power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the average citizen can become informed enough to have a good opinion as to whether elected officials are making good* decisions or appointing people who will make good decisions.
*whatever that citizen's definition of "good" is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the average citizen can become informed enough to have a good opinion as to whether elected officials are making good* decisions or appointing people who will make good decisions.
*whatever that citizen's definition of "good" is.
If you listen real close, you can hear the hearts of innumerable populists break at the difference between can and does or will.
Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
I don't have much to add on this topic, since Tresopax has been stating more or less how I feel. _______________________________ originally published by Orinoco: "or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice" ________________________________
I'm not sure where you live, or who you interact with, but the overwhelming majority of adults have NOT been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practic.
Xavier- You're right, the general public SHOULD listen to the experts, but I say the general public should take a more active role in their political education and the government as a whole.
Rabbit- I'm not suggesting adults are being treated as children by the government, I'm suggesting precisely what Tresopax has so eloquently explained just above. In short, a "large percentage of adults lack a basic understanding of government and history." A point you brought up that suppports the ideas both Tresopax and I eluded to, that government should not base decisions on the general public, is the general public, or the concensus of the general public might very well be content eating cake for breakfast. They aren't smart enough to do the right thing because of want and desire. In some cases, knowing the consequences and choosing to accept those consequences or in some cases, the possibility of those consequences isn't acceptible. Not everything in life is an absolute, and I think too many people bank on the possibility- especially when it comes to unethical behaviors.
What this section of ideology is missing is that the general concensus is getting biased information. The influence of the media puts a spin to everything, and I fear the general public is romanced along with the rest of the fat and happy, cake-eating adults on the merry go round.
Something else you said that bothered me:
_________________________________ Originally posted by Rabbit: "A leader who sees the people as children will have no problem with secrecy and will work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible and with out regard to or respect for the opposition." _________________________________
This scares me because I feel based on how incapable the general public is, how they are uneducated, and not properly informed with the content of the big decisions pertaining to our government, I fear there are leaders today who might try just what you suggest- "work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible." I think such leaders exist today, and worry the general public will not be ready for them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the average citizen can become informed enough to have a good opinion as to whether elected officials are making good* decisions or appointing people who will make good decisions.
*whatever that citizen's definition of "good" is.
If you listen real close, you can hear the hearts of innumerable populists break at the difference between can and does or will.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I haven't read the book in a few years though, so I wonder if I'm even remembering it as correctly as I think I am.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)