jerseyhoya wrote:He can't say crap like "it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families" and tell people who disagree with him (and make up the majority of his party) how they should feel about issues. You can win the nomination with disagreements with most primary voters on big issues. You can't lecture to the base treating them like idiots when you disagree with them.

nice summary, thank you.

since I've many weaknesses and among them is a preference for being a wiseass rather than a wise man I can't resist suggesting that maybe Jeb can treat the base like idiots because they are idiots, and that if someone of stature inside the party simply points that out, they may go up in a puff of smoke (I'm fine if turns out to be gunsmoke)

a variation on the emperor has no clothes; the crazies have no truths

but sincerely, how is "it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families" crap?

You can't tell people who you want to vote for you that their opinions and the reasons they hold them are shitty

I mean, you can, it's just not a very good way of getting them to vote for you

I'm pretty liberal, and I think moral relativism, indeed, relativism of any kind is something that only sloppy thinkers can really believe. That may be a little strong, but among philosophers and political theorists, a majority reject relativism. Isaiah Berlin spent a great deal of time explaining why he didn't not think pluralism was relativism, and his defenders are still at it today.

Also, historically, relativism is associated with conservatives--David Hume, Edmund Burke, and everyone's favorite social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner. I think that case is strenghtened when you get right wing arguments that science isn't truth, and therefore we should teach creation science alongside evolution.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm pretty liberal, and I think moral relativism, indeed, relativism of any kind is something that only sloppy thinkers can really believe. That may be a little strong, but among philosophers and political theorists, a majority reject relativism. Isaiah Berlin spent a great deal of time explaining why he didn't not think pluralism was relativism, and his defenders are still at it today.

Also, historically, relativism is associated with conservatives--David Hume, Edmund Burke, and everyone's favorite social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner. I think that case is strenghtened when you get right wing arguments that science isn't truth, and therefore we should teach creation science alongside evolution.

could i get some links or maybe book recommendations for this? i'm obviously not an expert on political theory, but i would like to read some counterpoints to the relativism line of thought. or maybe you can give me a shorthand version of the counterpoint here.

jerseyhoya wrote:You can't tell people who you want to vote for you that their opinions and the reasons they hold them are shitty

I mean, you can, it's just not a very good way of getting them to vote for you

to be clear, you don't believe "it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families" is actually crap, but merely that telling idiots to their faces that this is probably true when they don't want to believe it is not a good way to win their vote

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You can't tell people who you want to vote for you that their opinions and the reasons they hold them are shitty

I mean, you can, it's just not a very good way of getting them to vote for you

to be clear, you don't believe "it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families" is actually crap, but merely that telling idiots to their faces that this is probably true when they don't want to believe it is not a good way to win their vote

I agree with Jeb on the issue, generally.

I think if I was a landscaper or someone who worked in an industry that has seen wages hurt by illegal immigration, I'd be pretty riled up that people were coming here and breaking the law in doing so and wouldn't take kindly to a guy whose dad and brother were both President of the United States telling me not to be upset that people are breaking the law entering the country and hurting my earning potential because they just want to provide for their families.

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm pretty liberal, and I think moral relativism, indeed, relativism of any kind is something that only sloppy thinkers can really believe. That may be a little strong, but among philosophers and political theorists, a majority reject relativism. Isaiah Berlin spent a great deal of time explaining why he didn't not think pluralism was relativism, and his defenders are still at it today.

Also, historically, relativism is associated with conservatives--David Hume, Edmund Burke, and everyone's favorite social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner. I think that case is strenghtened when you get right wing arguments that science isn't truth, and therefore we should teach creation science alongside evolution.

could i get some links or maybe book recommendations for this? i'm obviously not an expert on political theory, but i would like to read some counterpoints to the relativism line of thought. or maybe you can give me a shorthand version of the counterpoint here.

What are you looking for specifically? Isaiah Berlin? Probably other than reading Berlin himself the new book by Joshua Cherniss (A Mind in its Time) is a pretty good.

The article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems pretty solid, though it doesn't really deal much with political theory. Within political theory, generally, democracy and some version of liberalism are considered by most desirable. You do get the occasional arguments that other political values like liberty matter more than democracy, and the self-serving arguments from Chinese and Russian apologists for authoritarianism who claim that liberal democracy is a western value and thus inappropriate for those nations, but Amartya Sen among others has pretty effectively dismantled that position.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral ... pBetRelObj

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think if I was a landscaper or someone who worked in an industry that has seen wages hurt by illegal immigration, I'd be pretty riled up that people were coming here and breaking the law in doing so and wouldn't take kindly to a guy whose dad and brother were both President of the United States telling me not to be upset that people are breaking the law entering the country and hurting my earning potential because they just want to provide for their families.

but in fact that's not what he said, that's what you - if you were one of this potent, motivated, numerous voting cadre that I'm unfamiliar with - heard him say. Because what I heard him saying is you can't fault their motive. I'm not sure he said you shouldn't be upset they're cutting into your earning potential.

As someone who is broadly sympathetic to what he is saying, I thought it sounded like he was chastising anyone upset about illegal immigration because the people coming to this country are doing so for good reasons.

There are clearly a lot of people out there who get riled up about illegal immigration due to shitty motives, but I don't think that's close to being universally true. And even if it was it'd be a dumb thing to say if you're running for the nomination.

ya know, i think the 'ol "it's the worst, except for all the other economic systems" applies, but I'm beginning to despise capitalism. wish i was smart enough to think of a solution.

I don't think we have real capitalism. Competition hardly exists any more. If someone comes up with a good idea, they sell their company to some huge corporation and retire or start something new. Rules are bent based on who can give the most money to the political process, which also happens to be the biggest corporations. We need to get the money out of the political process and then break up these huge corporations that are stifling competition. Easier said than done, of course. JMO.

Competition exists at the grass roots and lower levels, but as you correctly stated, corporations own the world. Once you get to a certain size and stature, usually still pretty small, the corporations will look to buy you out. If you are smart, you leverage the corporations against each other and start a bidding war, which is a competition in its own right.

As I pointed out above, I think one problem with Jeb's speech is how it's being reported rather than what he actually said. The whole "act of love" handle is misleading. Jeb's position may not be universal among Republicans, but it's not unusual, particularly among Republicans from states with lots of Latinos.

Competition can still exist. I think we've seen quite a few from scratch companies make their way to be corporate giants, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc

now they're the ones buying the upstart tech companies, but ultimately something new will come along and it will start all over again

that's an entirely new market being created

jerseyhoya wrote:As someone who is broadly sympathetic to what he is saying, I thought it sounded like he was chastising anyone upset about illegal immigration because the people coming to this country are doing so for good reasons.

There are clearly a lot of people out there who get riled up about illegal immigration due to shitty motives, but I don't think that's close to being universally true. And even if it was it'd be a dumb thing to say if you're running for the nomination.

so as a guy a lot smarter than his ex president brother, who would know what you know, by saying it is he closing the door on a run? Because it seems like what you're saying is that what he said butthurts far too many valuable base voters for him to maneuver into position to win the nom.

Monkeyboy wrote:I don't think we have real capitalism. Competition hardly exists any more. If someone comes up with a good idea, they sell their company to some huge corporation and retire or start something new. Rules are bent based on who can give the most money to the political process, which also happens to be the biggest corporations. We need to get the money out of the political process and then break up these huge corporations that are stifling competition. Easier said than done, of course. JMO.

Yup, we have a system whereby corporations attempt to use government for their own ends, subverting capitalism, with varying degrees of success.

We have some version of corporatism, and both Democrats and Republicans are complicit.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:As someone who is broadly sympathetic to what he is saying, I thought it sounded like he was chastising anyone upset about illegal immigration because the people coming to this country are doing so for good reasons.

There are clearly a lot of people out there who get riled up about illegal immigration due to shitty motives, but I don't think that's close to being universally true. And even if it was it'd be a dumb thing to say if you're running for the nomination.

so as a guy a lot smarter than his ex president brother, who would know what you know, by saying it is he closing the door on a run? Because it seems like what you're saying is that what he said butthurts far too many valuable base voters for him to maneuver into position to win the nom.

Not unless it becomes a regular part of his stump speech/debate answers. It's an issue where someone can hold the position he does and still do fine. He just needs to talk about it in a less confrontational way.

jerseyhoya wrote:Not unless it becomes a regular part of his stump speech/debate answers. It's an issue where someone can hold the position he does and still do fine. He just needs to talk about it in a less confrontational way.

I think I see what you're saying. Will be interesting to see if he evolves it

The criticisms of capitalism/pseudo-capitalism here, all of which I share, are why I still lament Eliot Spitzer's inability to keep his goddamn pants on. In all my years of watching this stuff, I never observed anyone who had as deep and nuanced an understanding both of capitalism's value and its vulnerabilities, and was as willing to use the power of the public sector to draw up and implement fair and consistent rules for the game. Spitzer also understood that the public legitimacy of capitalism is not permanently guaranteed, and depends in part on both its perceived fairness and its efficacy in spreading its benefits.

Alas, though, whores.

I do think this is an excellent opportunity for a reform-minded Republican, though it's unfortunately near certain that such a unicorn would be strangled at the outset by their donor class.