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: Lane3 who wrote (10581)	10/20/2009 1:58:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

In tough times where people are already scared they are more willing to embrace radicals. For example the Nazi party did receive a plurality in an election, and the communists also had a fair amount of support in Germany at the time. The severe depression in Germany at the time, and also groups supporting the nazis or communists as a bulwark against the other side increased their support. The fact that they had support doesn't make them other then radical. That isn't much of an argument from Obama, he's not a nazi or communist. But its an argument that radicals can get support. To look at a less extreme example look at FDR. True he didn't campaign (at least in his first election) as radical as he governed, but he had a lot of support as president and got elected again and again. And his policies where a decisive change from the previous trend line. They received support because of his personal charisma and leadership and also because of the tough and scary times. Those pushing radical policies now, try to portray the situation today as near (or in some cases even worse than) the depression, to justify radical change. As I pointed out before Obama may back away from radical proposals when they get little support, but some radicals are willing to work slowly. So that's not definitive. The main argument against the idea that he is a radical is the size of the departure from the previous policies and trends in policies. They are mostly following trends that had previously existed, but an important acceleration in the trend can still be considered radical. OTOH while the departure is significant its certainly not enough to qualify for a very narrow definition of radical. It probably is enough for a very broad definition. Neither view is really unreasonably IMO. I might not reach for radical as my main way of describing him, not that its a horrible fit, but its a questionable fit. It needs the broad definition to fit. Measured among the group of modern US presidents he could be considered a radical (if not so much as FDR), measured across a wider group, and not using a broad definition of the term, then he isn't. I'd certainly say he has some radical ideas, but perhaps "a radical" isn't the best term. 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. I'm not sure I'd agree with the last part, but like the case with Obama its borderline, making "radical" questionable, if not IMO outright false. I'd consider a federal court decisions that there is a constitutional right to have the government recognize and provide benefits to same sex or plural marriage to be radical, but just arguing in general in favor of the idea, perhaps not so much. More general radical is a relatively fluid word, not only capable of very broad or narrow definitions, and of being based on either current popularity or long term trends in opinion, or traditions and historical norms that are still relevant (whether or not they are near universally accepted, or even just are supported by strong majorities). Which is why I say its not unreasonable to consider Obama as radical, or not (or even very unradical). That fluidity and broadness might mean its not the best term (OTOH many political terms are broad and/or fluid)