pacino wrote:

dajafi wrote:New Census data compares economic outcomes through two terms of Clinton to two of Bush:

[T]he summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

Rev_Beezer wrote:I am watching Kindergarten Cop. Heh. Governor of a State.

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Found this interesting, though I'm unconvinced about the crime bill. I think my 68/12 parallels are better.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Found this interesting, though I'm unconvinced about the crime bill. I think my 68/12 parallels are better.

It's interesting to see Douthat, whom I think I liked better as an Atlantic blogger, struggle with the same internal battle of independent-minded-guy vs. partisan hack that has illuminated David Brooks's career at the Times.

I think the 1994 comparison is flawed for all kinds of reasons, though, from the deeper hole of credibility that the Republicans now find themselves in, to the more ideologically unified Democratic congressional caucus, to the (I think) faster learning curve of the Obama WH compared to Clinton's.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's a loose grab bag of nuts, all of whom reflect the continuing influence of Rousseau and the idea that feeling is more authentic than thinking....It owes more I think to Gramsci and Paul DeMan....

I'm intrigued, TV, because I find feeling has decidedly triumphed over thinking in the decisionmaking processes of practically every organization I'm engaged with. Their 'leaders' are beset by a peculiar melange of the behaviors wickedly rendered in The Office (US version - too much actual calculation in Ricky Gervais's Office), Being There, Something Happened, and Action Will Be Taken.

Stark firsthand examples of the failure of these methods (if they can be called methods), of the damage they do, seems to have almost no impact at all. A decision ludicrously made is implemented, fails predictably, and results in - no change whatsoever in the decisionmaking processes. Where once facts would at least influence feelings, now facts are manufactured to comfort feelings - particularly the feelings of incumbent 'leaders'. This is true even in purportedly 'rational' environments where, say, Six Sigma processes have been introduced - because those processes quickly become fetishized, reduced to cult ritual.

My concern about that sort of leadership by feeling in the political realm is that it produces a sort of queasy, directionless authoritarianism, as how incumbent 'leadership' 'feels' about any particular matter is all that informs decisions.