Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 15:17:32

Again, there's not problem in teaching the kids facts, or celebrating the office of the Pres or any other public servant. The lyrics of this particular song create the problem. I voted for Obama, I just don't think it's right for kids to be learning things that aren't facts in areas like politics.

Also, things like race have a more "right/wrong" side to it. There are laws protecting against racism and hate crimes and things like that. This is politics, where half the country disagrees with what the kids were singing

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 15:19:55

The Dude wrote:Again, there's not problem in teaching the kids facts, or celebrating the office of the Pres or any other public servant. The lyrics of this particular song create the problem. I voted for Obama, I just don't think it's right for kids to be learning things that aren't facts in areas like politics

I disagree. First, of course, the issue is which facts. The selection of some facts and not others are a reflection of underlying values. Second, there are values that schools ought to promote. Among those values I think are appropriate are respect not just for the office, but for the person of the President.

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 15:23:19

Saying that Obama is best to get the country out of this economic crisis is different than saying "Obama should be respected b/c he's President".

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 18:07:55

I see TV Paul's point of view. Encouraging school kids to respect and honor the Presidency and the person holding the office isn't a bad thing. But upon reading the lyrics, those songs have sorta crossed the line of honor/respect. But, IMO, not in a "indoctrination" way, but a "promotional" way. What I found borderline uncomfortable was some of the lyrics were more like "campaign" slogans, that they appear to be more about promoting an agenda, not as much as the kids are being "indoctrinated" but like the kids are being used to promote an agenda. Albeit not the case, they have that "flavor" of something staffers would write.

I'm a Catholic, go to church every Sunday, etc. (but not a super-Christey right wing uber Catholic). And while I'd have no problem with public school kids singing a song about tolerance of all religions (I'd view that as great), I'd get an uncomfortable feeling if they sang a "Jesus is da man" song. I'm not trying to introduce religion into the conversation or make a politics/religion comparision, so please don't take the discourse in that direction. I'm just trying to illustrate the kind of "uncomfortableness" some folks may have.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 22:13:40

Really, 80% of the song is basic boiler plate "hooray for Barack Hussein Obama, he's our 44th President." There's maybe a little agenda pushing, but it's really not the focus of the song. Indeed, the way they keep going Barack Hussein Obama you might think they were at Palin rally or something.

By the way, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with kids in a public school singing Christmas songs, or Dradle, dradle, dradle, or "Kumbaya". I don't get upset if they have nachos for lunch in the cafeteria, if kids check out Judy Blume books from the library, or if kids play dodge ball.

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 01:07:24

jerseyhoya wrote:[
Oh man, the people charged with educating America's youth.

....are pretty much like the rest of the country, a hodge-podge collection of the intelligent, the stupid, and the naive. They're people, most of them good, and all of them human, which means they will make mistakes. If we're going to bash an entire profession for the actions of a few, then we'll all be damned (starting with the politicians and lawyers, of course. Just kidding).

For the record, I think the song was a stupid move, and one worthy of a reprimand from the school board, or whoever it is that handles such things.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 01:19:08

TenuredVulture wrote:Indeed, the way they keep going Barack Hussein Obama you might think they were at Palin rally or something.

Maybe it was the composer's way of putting a burr up the butt of the far righties. Although I would have gotten a little more creative with it... "Hussein? Barack's sayin'".

TenuredVulture wrote:By the way, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with kids in a public school singing Christmas songs, or Dradle, dradle, dradle, or "Kumbaya". I don't get upset if they have nachos for lunch in the cafeteria, if kids check out Judy Blume books from the library, or if kids play dodge ball.

Oh, nachos and dodgeball should be mandatory.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 08:57:25

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Oh, nachos and dodgeball should be mandatory.

simultaneous even - crunchy dodgeball!

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 09:53:53

Interesting election results in Germany where the two main parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, who had been jointly running the country in a Grand Alliance for the past four years, did quite poorly. The free market FDP did a lot better, and now will have enough seats to make a majority with the CDU/CSU. The Left Party, which combines remnants of the old East German communist party with some trade unionists elements from West Germany that don't think the social democrats are radical enough, did very well also, which helped lead to the SPD's worst showing since WW2. The Greens also pulled in just over 10%, so Germany had five parties in double digits. Proportional representation would add a good bit of theater to following elections in these United States, that's for sure. Overall the center-right outpolled the left leaning parties 48.4%-45.6%.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:15:03

jerseyhoya wrote:Interesting election results in Germany where the two main parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, who had been jointly running the country in a Grand Alliance for the past four years, did quite poorly. The free market FDP did a lot better, and now will have enough seats to make a majority with the CDU/CSU. The Left Party, which combines remnants of the old East German communist party with some trade unionists elements from West Germany that don't think the social democrats are radical enough, did very well also, which helped lead to the SPD's worst showing since WW2. The Greens also pulled in just over 10%, so Germany had five parties in double digits. Proportional representation would add a good bit of theater to following elections in these United States, that's for sure. Overall the center-right outpolled the left leaning parties 48.4%-45.6%.

I try to keep my biases from creeping into my teaching (unless I make it explicit, in which case I'll say, "this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree...) but I sometimes have a hard time when students start agitating for a system that would be more hospitable to 3rd parties. I do like having two parties, however, which is one more than we have in Arkansas.

by **traderdave** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:38:35

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Interesting election results in Germany where the two main parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, who had been jointly running the country in a Grand Alliance for the past four years, did quite poorly. The free market FDP did a lot better, and now will have enough seats to make a majority with the CDU/CSU. The Left Party, which combines remnants of the old East German communist party with some trade unionists elements from West Germany that don't think the social democrats are radical enough, did very well also, which helped lead to the SPD's worst showing since WW2. The Greens also pulled in just over 10%, so Germany had five parties in double digits. Proportional representation would add a good bit of theater to following elections in these United States, that's for sure. Overall the center-right outpolled the left leaning parties 48.4%-45.6%.

I try to keep my biases from creeping into my teaching (unless I make it explicit, in which case I'll say, "this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree...) but I sometimes have a hard time when students start agitating for a system that would be more hospitable to 3rd parties. I do like having two parties, however, which is one more than we have in Arkansas.

I might be in the minority but I really wish that there was a viable third party in the US. I think elections are too often the choice between getting shot in the chest or shot in the head. The current NJ governor's race is a good example of just such a "choice", IMHO.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:58:25

traderdave wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Interesting election results in Germany where the two main parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, who had been jointly running the country in a Grand Alliance for the past four years, did quite poorly. The free market FDP did a lot better, and now will have enough seats to make a majority with the CDU/CSU. The Left Party, which combines remnants of the old East German communist party with some trade unionists elements from West Germany that don't think the social democrats are radical enough, did very well also, which helped lead to the SPD's worst showing since WW2. The Greens also pulled in just over 10%, so Germany had five parties in double digits. Proportional representation would add a good bit of theater to following elections in these United States, that's for sure. Overall the center-right outpolled the left leaning parties 48.4%-45.6%.

I try to keep my biases from creeping into my teaching (unless I make it explicit, in which case I'll say, "this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree...) but I sometimes have a hard time when students start agitating for a system that would be more hospitable to 3rd parties. I do like having two parties, however, which is one more than we have in Arkansas.

I might be in the minority but I really wish that there was a viable third party in the US. I think elections are too often the choice between getting shot in the chest or shot in the head. The current NJ governor's race is a good example of just such a "choice", IMHO.

But would a viable third party make a difference? However, that's not my argument--my argument is against making it easier for third party candidates to win elections by changing the rules to something like a proportional system.

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 13:27:56

Generally whenever a third party movement has cropped up, its most popular features or proposals have been co-opted by one or both of the big parties. The progressives of the 1890s informed both TR and Wilson; the Perot movement of the 1990s shaped both Clinton's budget strategy and the resentment of the Gingrich-led Republicans.

(I've always thought of this as the Blob Theory of American Politics, mostly because when there's a plausible opportunity to refer to The Blob, you really should take advantage of it.)

Given how our system is set up, it's actually kind of difficult to imagine a truly popular third party movement that couldn't or wouldn't be absorbed by one or both of the big two. If, say, fervent environmentalism and anti-market orientation of the Nader stripe became strong enough to win elections, the Democrats would shift that way. If super-nativism and comprehensive anti-government paranoia looked like an electoral winner, the Republicans would wholeheartedly jump in that direction. (They're moving that way now, but I think there's a strong remnant within that party holding out for economic libertarianism.)

by **ashton** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 13:31:16

In any system no single political group is a majority. Several groups end up banding together to form a majority coalition. In other countries the coalition is formed after the election. In our country the groups form coalitions before the election. Southern rednecks used to be part of the left-of-center coalition (the Democrats) now they're part of the right of center coalition (the Republicans). Libertarians used to be part of the right-of-center coalition now they've moved to the left-of-center coalition. The advantage of our system is you know which coalition you're voting for. In countries that do it the other way you could voter for a party that ends up joining a coalition whose ideas you oppose.

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 13:50:15

ashton wrote:In our country the groups form coalitions before the election. Southern rednecks used to be part of the left-of-center coalition (the Democrats) now they're part of the right of center coalition (the Republicans).

Sort of. The Dixiecrats voted with the Democrats to organize Congress, but by the early '60s (a good thirty years before they switched en masse) they were voting with the Rs pretty regularly.

ashton wrote:The advantage of our system is you know which coalition you're voting for. In countries that do it the other way you could voter for a party that ends up joining a coalition whose ideas you oppose.

This is a great point, and one I can't really say I've thought of before. It has to drive, say, the furthest-left Israeli Labor voters crazy to see their guys in coalition with Netanyahu.

by **traderdave** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 13:56:50

TenuredVulture wrote:
traderdave wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Interesting election results in Germany where the two main parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, who had been jointly running the country in a Grand Alliance for the past four years, did quite poorly. The free market FDP did a lot better, and now will have enough seats to make a majority with the CDU/CSU. The Left Party, which combines remnants of the old East German communist party with some trade unionists elements from West Germany that don't think the social democrats are radical enough, did very well also, which helped lead to the SPD's worst showing since WW2. The Greens also pulled in just over 10%, so Germany had five parties in double digits. Proportional representation would add a good bit of theater to following elections in these United States, that's for sure. Overall the center-right outpolled the left leaning parties 48.4%-45.6%.

I try to keep my biases from creeping into my teaching (unless I make it explicit, in which case I'll say, "this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree...) but I sometimes have a hard time when students start agitating for a system that would be more hospitable to 3rd parties. I do like having two parties, however, which is one more than we have in Arkansas.

I might be in the minority but I really wish that there was a viable third party in the US. I think elections are too often the choice between getting shot in the chest or shot in the head. The current NJ governor's race is a good example of just such a "choice", IMHO.

But would a viable third party make a difference? However, that's not my argument--my argument is against making it easier for third party candidates to win elections by changing the rules to something like a proportional system.

This is going to sound elitist or may just ignorant but a viable third party probably would make no difference at all because American voters are primarily sheep. Every year dopes cast their votes for guys like Corzine and Christie simply because they have a D or an R at the end of the name. It makes no difference where these guys stand on various issues or how they have performed in the past.

It reminds me of the movie The Distinguished Gentleman when Eddie Murphy's character is elected to Congress just because of his name. As for the rest, I completely agree that the rules should not be changed simply to make it easier for third party candidates to win elections. I do, however, think some changes could be made to widen the candidate pool for all parties.

by **allentown** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 18:44:04

I think you're too hard on the typical voter. Yes, there is a certain percentage of totally unknowledgeable voters; that is why ballot position can be worth 5 - 10% in a primary. But the big conceit of the 3rd party afficionados, that there isn't an ounce of difference between the two major parties is demonstrably false. For many voters, they can pretty well align their interests on major issues with one party or the other. Each party certainly has philosophical outliers, but in truth the party's elected officials in Congress and the Presidency are far more homogeneous than in years past. Less so locally and there certainly is a geographical pull that will make both northeastern and much of CA Republicans and Dems more liberal than the party as a whole and most southern politicians of both parties more conservative.

Republicans do tend to be more pro-business, anti-labor, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-income tax and tax on capital, more pro-spending on military, more pro-death penalty and mandatory minimum sentence, more loud talk and demonization of opponents internationally, than Dems.

Dems tend to be more favorable to unions, minorities of all sorts, social programs, progressive income tax and tax on capital, and cooperative international institutions; more concerned with growing income inequality, environmental woes, government spying on citizens or regulating their sex and personal lives, and free wheeling unregulated capitalism.

Neither party is especially noted for small government, controlling spending, lack of corruption, avoidance of military adventuring, or bipartisanship.

Since individual Congressmen and even Presidents are limited in how far beyond the conventional or party lines they can stray, the average voter can do pretty well voting by party in the general election.

Yes, this will retain corrupt incumbents, but this is often a conscious choice, in which the long-term incumbent may have a lot of baggage, especially relating to issues with lobbyists, but also has a proven record of bringing home the bacon, that a newcomer elected in a throw the bums out move can't come close to matching.

There is a long history of the earnest reformers transforming into the corrupt old-timers over time.

by **traderdave** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:37:16

Perhaps I was being a bit too rough. The funny thing is that I saw myself as one of those sheep just a few of years ago and that is when I really became interested in politics. I see and understand all of your points. My frustration is not really entirely with the average voter as much as it is with the system overall.

I have worked with and know a lot of good, smart people. I have never met anybody from this board in person but I can tell that there are plenty of those kinds of people here; people that could really make a difference in folks' lives. But the way the system works makes it impossible for somebody like me or you (assuming you are not a billionaire) to work much above a local level.

Even trying to get elected at a county level (for example, Freeholder in Camden County) requires substantial money and the Camden County Democratic Party's blessing. I guess I am still a bit naive at 41 y/o but I believe in that old idea of government for the people, by the people.

by **dajafi** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:29:29

David Brooks articulates a values crusade I can believe in.

Over the past few years, however, there clearly has been an erosion in the country’s financial values. This erosion has happened at a time when the country’s cultural monitors were busy with other things. They were off fighting a culture war about prayer in schools, “Piss Christ” and the theory of evolution. They were arguing about sex and the separation of church and state, oblivious to the large erosion of economic values happening under their feet.

Evidence of this shift in values is all around. Some of the signs are seemingly innocuous. States around the country began sponsoring lotteries: government-approved gambling that extracts its largest toll from the poor. Executives and hedge fund managers began bragging about compensation packages that would have been considered shameful a few decades before. Chain restaurants went into supersize mode, offering gigantic portions that would have been considered socially unacceptable to an earlier generation.

Other signs are bigger. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, in the three decades between 1950 and 1980, personal consumption was remarkably stable, amounting to about 62 percent of G.D.P. In the next three decades, it shot upward, reaching 70 percent of G.D.P. in 2008.

During this period, debt exploded. In 1960, Americans’ personal debt amounted to about 55 percent of national income. By 2007, Americans’ personal debt had surged to 133 percent of national income.
...
Our current cultural politics are organized by the obsolete culture war, which has put secular liberals on one side and religious conservatives on the other. But the slide in economic morality afflicted Red and Blue America equally.

If there is to be a movement to restore economic values, it will have to cut across the current taxonomies. Its goal will be to make the U.S. again a producer economy, not a consumer economy. It will champion a return to financial self-restraint, large and small.

It will have to take on what you might call the lobbyist ethos — the righteous conviction held by everybody from AARP to the agribusinesses that their groups are entitled to every possible appropriation, regardless of the larger public cost. It will have to take on the self-indulgent popular demand for low taxes and high spending.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:40:39

traderdave wrote:
I have worked with and know a lot of good, smart people. I have never met anybody from this board in person but I can tell that there are plenty of those kinds of people here; people that could really make a difference in folks' lives. But the way the system works makes it impossible for somebody like me or you (assuming you are not a billionaire) to work much above a local level.

However, even without getting into local politics, there is a great deal of good that can be done at the local level. If you really want to make a difference, that is where you should focus your energies.

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD