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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (10569)	10/20/2009 1:32:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You cannot measure "radicalism" by reference to popular support. I wasn't referencing popularity. If he were doing things that were perceived as radical, he wouldn't have a 50% approval rating. Only the radicals and near radicals would approve of him. If moderates approve of him, he can't be radical. "Radical" implies a departure from tradition, NOT a departure from the mainstream. I understand that point. I referenced it in my post as an alternative framework. But there's still a matter of degree, how drastically he's pushing forward. Progressives push forward, too, just not scary fast. Radicals push scary fast. People don't support politicians who scare them. In fact, one of the objectives of radicalism is to cause the views of less radical people to become more radical. That's also true of progressives. You haven't differentiated him from a progressive. I'll give you an example of radical in the context of progressive. I would favor plural marriages, any marriage among two or more consenting adults. Now, that's radical. Supporting gay unions is merely progressive. By this metric having a radical leadership is impossible, since you define anyone with sufficient popular support to be elected as decidedly UN-radical. Exactly. That's why radicals overthrow governments or just make make waves in their frustration. They don't get elected. You've made my point for me. You can't just say, "Oh, he's convinced the mainstream, therefore he IS mainstream." It's not about convincing. Leaders arise when the world is ripe for them. It's about timing. They voice what has been welling up in the population has not yet quite solidified. The population needs to be ready for someone to synthesize where they are, what they're ready for, to speak for them. Politicians who are ahead their time--radicals--don't succeed, they mostly just make noise and maybe move mass attitudes forward a bit. Then when the people are ready, someone else comes along and reaps the rewards, the leadership role. But leaders are really followers with perfect timing. I don't see anything that Obama is doing other than pushing forward an extant trend. He's making no radical departure from trend lines. We're still way behind the Euros on the historical trendline and will still be when Obama leaves office. That you or I may not like the trend line is irrelevant.