Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (92639)	10/31/2008 9:59:16 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

An article from CQ you may like on divided government, and why it seems popular only with the opposition at any time... Too long to post in full, unfortunately. My favourite snip: when you say something is good when it benefits you or your party, yet something virtually equivalent is bad when it works against you, it makes a persuasive case to the public that you really have no fixed principles. There has been a lot of discussion as we close in on Election Day about the pluses and minuses of “divided government.” On one side, there are people — let’s call them Democrats, this year at least — who insist that the nation would be better off with one party having complete control of the federal government’s policy-making machinery and breaking through the partisan gridlock that has stalled action on major issues of public concern. On the other side are people, most of whom just happen to be Republicans this year, who counter that we need a president of one party acting as a brake on a Congress controlled by the other. This debate has been prompted largely by Republican presidential nominee John McCain , in his pursuit of the magic words that will make Democratic opponent Barack Obama ’s lead in polls go poof. McCain argues that the Democrats — who are clearly poised to significantly expand the Senate and House majorities they won in the 2006 elections — would pursue a Halloween horror story of liberalism gone wild unless he is in the White House, holding them at bay with his presidential veto pen. ... The problem with the current debate over divided government is this: McCain is the wrong messenger. Surely you remember the day in early September 2004 when McCain, recognizing that the Republican Party was virtually certain to maintain its majorities in Congress, went on national television to warn that the re-election of President Bush would concentrate too much power in the hands of conservative ideologues. No, you don’t, because it never happened. And if you think it did, get help. Now. Instead, McCain — who many Americans did view as an independent-minded maverick in the wake of his bitter battle with Bush for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination — instead donned the mantle of party loyalist and gave a ringing, nationally televised endorsement of Bush’s re-election at the Republican National Convention in September 2004. Nowhere in his speech is there any discussion of the merits of divided government. You can look it up. Now, before you hit that comment button to ask why the editor of nonpartisan CQ Politics is hating on John McCain , let me clarify that the Democrats’ views of unitary vs. divided party control of government also are highly adaptable to the circumstances. It was only two years ago when the Democrats pleaded, and quite successfully, that voters should put them in control of Congress to stop Bush and his Republican allies from imposing their conservative agenda on the American people. With the Democrats now appealing for the election of Obama as president and for greatly expanded majorities in both the Senate and the House, it is clear that they strongly believe in divided government — unless they are the ones who get to run everything. So what we have here is a classic case of situational ethics in politics. It is the infinite capacity of politicians to adamantly express one view when a situation works to their party’s benefit, and then speak out just as fervently in favor of the directly opposite position when the shoe is on the other foot. We see this all the time. If Republicans are running the Senate, they will insist they are pursuing the people’s business and that efforts by the Democratic majority to use the filibuster to block legislation are pure obstructionism. Reverse the roles, with the Democrats in charge, and reverse the rhetoric: now the Democrats are the clarions of the people being foiled by the Republicans’ legislative guerrilla warfare. ... I have long had a bug about situational ethics, because I believe they are at least as corrosive to the public’s trust in government as outright distortions. If you are a conservative who twists an opponent’s record to make it look more liberal than it is (and vice versa, of course), that raises questions about your truthfulness, but it doesn’t mean you don’t stick to your own ideological principles. People may not trust you, but they know where you stand. But when you say something is good when it benefits you or your party, yet something virtually equivalent is bad when it works against you, it makes a persuasive case to the public that you really have no fixed principles. So here’s my recommendation on how to resolve the divided government issue when you cast your vote. If you personally think that handing all the keys to the Democrats is the way to break political gridlock and achieve some momentum toward resolving the nation’s deep and sticky problems, then vote for Obama to make that happen. If you think the Democrats would go on a legislative binge that would put wrong policies into law, vote for McCain to create a White House firewall. But when it comes to political candidates arguing that they represent the divided government you need — whether it’s this year or in the future when the Republican Party may be back on top — it is always wise to ask whose interests they are looking out for. cqpolitics.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (92639)	10/31/2008 10:07:17 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

Did Aristotle offer a road map to achieving "moderate and sufficient property for everyone? You love to ask unanswerable questions. Books 7 and 8 of the Politics are devoted to how to make a good state (although we are missing chunks of each book). But it clearly wouldn't offer a roadmap for today--conditions were far far too different. And as David Hume later said with the obvious benefit of hindsight, no one person could ever do that anyway, not even Aristotle. What Aristotle offered, though (and still offers), are some general guidelines and goals that decent governments can aim for. And perhaps the most important goal that he articulated was the one that Wonk mentioned--a strong middle class, that is, a society consisting largely of people with "enough" and not "too much" (Buffett is an Aristotelian in that way). That is what the official laws and unofficial rules of society ought to be aiming for. Not something like "maximizing freedom," as some people like to say. Aristotle said somewhere in the Politics that is an absurd goal--what we really want is the "good," not maximum freedom. Too much freedom can be bad for people as well as for communities. But, as he also said, "hitting the mark" is not easy, for individuals or for communities.