|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jan 9, 2018 20:02:03 GMT
Michelle Obama would be a better candidate, surely. Having a former First Lady run for President hasn't worked out so well lately... Though to be fair, insofar as any of us can tell, she doesn't appear to have any of kind of baggage Hillary had. Still, in one of the few things I can say I'd agree with beastofbedfordshire on, no political dynasties, please. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 10, 2018 0:14:39 GMT
The thing is that Oprah isn't just a celebrity. She's a very astute and successful businesswoman who didn't inherit her wealth.
Also the liberal wing of the Democrats are likely to back her because she's a liberal. And I don't somehow think she's forget about those in poverty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 1:50:29 GMT
I don’t think experience is necessary. Look at the mess that career politicians have got us into. ‘The doctor bodged my operation so next time I want someone who’s never even been in a hospital’ The two aren’t the same, which you already knew. The idea that you must have political experience to run for office is not democracy, it’s a technocratic despotism. I want ordinary people in public office, people who understand ordinary lives, people who have lived normal lives. People who know the value of money for example. This may offend some in this forum, but those who are obsessed with politics, those who spend their entire careers in it have fucked up the country. They are authoritarian, entitled and corrupt. It’s time for change and I don’t think that having normal people in public office will be the disaster you clearly think it will. Again, we are a democracy not a technocratic despotism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 9:46:53 GMT
The two aren’t the same, which you already knew. The idea that you must have political experience to run for office is not democracy, it’s a technocratic despotism. I want ordinary people in public office, people who understand ordinary lives, people who have lived normal lives. People who know the value of money for example. This may offend some in this forum, but those who are obsessed with politics, those who spend their entire careers in it have fucked up the country. They are authoritarian, entitled and corrupt. It’s time for change and I don’t think that having normal people in public office will be the disaster you clearly think it will. Again, we are a democracy not a technocratic despotism. I’m not opposed to ‘ordinary people’, ie people who have worked in the real world, running for president. But run for some kind of other national office first. One of the great advantages of our parliamentary system is that all PMs must do the hard time on the back benches and most of the time some other cabinet/shadow cabinet job as well. You say technocratic despotism, I say limited democracy. If the people want something they shouldn’t always get it. No. I think the ordinary man in the street should be able to run for office, even the highest in the land, anything else and we aren’t free, we’re slaves. Furthermore, “limited democracy” is just a nice way of saying to ordinary people “know your place”. As we’ve seen on Brexit there are clearly a lot of anti-Democrats on the left and it is yet another show of why Socialism is dangerous and has almost always led to despotism where it has taken proper power. Whereas I profoundly believe in democracy, freedom and personal liberty, hence my Conservatism. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 10, 2018 10:42:44 GMT
I’m not opposed to ‘ordinary people’, ie people who have worked in the real world, running for president. But run for some kind of other national office first. One of the great advantages of our parliamentary system is that all PMs must do the hard time on the back benches and most of the time some other cabinet/shadow cabinet job as well. You say technocratic despotism, I say limited democracy. If the people want something they shouldn’t always get it. No. I think the ordinary man in the street should be able to run for office, even the highest in the land, anything else and we aren’t free, we’re slaves. Furthermore, “limited democracy” is just a nice way of saying to ordinary people “know your place”. As we’ve seen on Brexit there are clearly a lot of anti-Democrats on the left and it is yet another show of why Socialism is dangerous and has almost always led to despotism where it has taken proper power. Whereas I profoundly believe in democracy, freedom and personal liberty, hence my Conservatism. I don't think @benjl is saying that the ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to run for office, just that you can't jump to the top of the tree. Show you can do it in the House, or Senate, or as a governor, or even VP first. In the UK you simply cannot become Prime Minister without at the very least getting elected as an MP (assuming it is now a convention that a Peer cannot be PM) I wouldn't make it a rule - I think Eisenhower was a good example of someone who had no experience as an elected politician who did a pretty decent job; but of course he had the experience of high command (and, unusually for a general, had to do so in a very political manner due to need to accommodate allies; the Brits were unduly sceptical of his lack of combat experience compared to e.g. Montgomery but even the most jaundiced Brit accepted that Eisenhower could keep his assorted prima donnas onside in a way that Monty would have utterly failed.) The interesting thing about Trump is that the case for him is as a sort of Eisenhower - a guy with extensive business experience, a dealmaker, who can bring that expertise without the baggage of having to toady to rich donors; but in fact he is proving to be inefficient and poor at political or other deals, and whose main political achievements so far are based on doing exactly what the super-wealthy want. (No surprise to those of us who saw his wealth as the result of inheritance and TV showmanship rather than genuine business expertise, of course.) I don't think he disproves the "Eisenhower exception" per se but it shows that just as professional politicians can be astoundingly bad at politics, successful non-politicians don't necessarily have great skills either; if he'd done just one term as a state governor the issue wouldn't arise IMO. (But of course that would involve him in doing work and would not have got him the new TV contract that all this was surely about.) |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 10, 2018 11:10:19 GMT
The thing is that Oprah isn't just a celebrity. She's a very astute and successful businesswoman who didn't inherit her wealth. Also the liberal wing of the Democrats are likely to back her because she's a liberal. And I don't somehow think she's forget about those in poverty. Well, I do hope she gets it, as it might be the only means whereby the GOP has a chance of holding on. I would see her as being entirely toxic to a very large number of American males in much the same way as Hilary was but for different reasons. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 10, 2018 11:23:01 GMT
Whilst I'm not advocating an Oprah candidacy, far from it, I doubt she would be as toxic as HRC to the critical groups in the electorate who ultimately gave Trump his "shock" win. As was remarked on at the time, quite a few of these people (especially in the "rust belt") had no problem in voting for Obama twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 10, 2018 11:40:14 GMT
Whilst I'm not advocating an Oprah candidacy, far from it, I doubt she would be as toxic as HRC to the critical groups in the electorate who ultimately gave Trump his "shock" win. As was remarked on at the time, quite a few of these people (especially in the "rust belt") had no problem in voting for Obama twice. She was brought up in the rust belt. She lived in Milwaukee |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 11:46:45 GMT
No. I think the ordinary man in the street should be able to run for office, even the highest in the land, anything else and we aren’t free, we’re slaves. Furthermore, “limited democracy” is just a nice way of saying to ordinary people “know your place”. As we’ve seen on Brexit there are clearly a lot of anti-Democrats on the left and it is yet another show of why Socialism is dangerous and has almost always led to despotism where it has taken proper power. Whereas I profoundly believe in democracy, freedom and personal liberty, hence my Conservatism. I don't think @benjl is saying that the ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to run for office, just that you can't jump to the top of the tree. Show you can do it in the House, or Senate, or as a governor, or even VP first. In the UK you simply cannot become Prime Minister without at the very least getting elected as an MP (assuming it is now a convention that a Peer cannot be PM) I wouldn't make it a rule - I think Eisenhower was a good example of someone who had no experience as an elected politician who did a pretty decent job; but of course he had the experience of high command (and, unusually for a general, had to do so in a very political manner due to need to accommodate allies; the Brits were unduly sceptical of his lack of combat experience compared to e.g. Montgomery but even the most jaundiced Brit accepted that Eisenhower could keep his assorted prima donnas onside in a way that Monty would have utterly failed.) The interesting thing about Trump is that the case for him is as a sort of Eisenhower - a guy with extensive business experience, a dealmaker, who can bring that expertise without the baggage of having to toady to rich donors; but in fact he is proving to be inefficient and poor at political or other deals, and whose main political achievements so far are based on doing exactly what the super-wealthy want. (No surprise to those of us who saw his wealth as the result of inheritance and TV showmanship rather than genuine business expertise, of course.) I don't think he disproves the "Eisenhower exception" per se but it shows that just as professional politicians can be astoundingly bad at politics, successful non-politicians don't necessarily have great skills either; if he'd done just one term as a state governor the issue wouldn't arise IMO. (But of course that would involve him in doing work and would not have got him the new TV contract that all this was surely about.) The ability of anyone to become President is, in my opinion, a strength of the American system. I find the idea that someone has to go through Parliament, or in America the HOR or whatever an attack on the very spirit of democracy. I’m not being deliberately provocative, argumentative or facetious. The idea that people should have to climb the greasy and often corrupted pole is genuinely anathema to me. For example, in Israel they elected the PM separately from the Knesset for a few elections. I think we should try it here, I think it could work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 11:51:44 GMT
No. I think the ordinary man in the street should be able to run for office, even the highest in the land, anything else and we aren’t free, we’re slaves. Furthermore, “limited democracy” is just a nice way of saying to ordinary people “know your place”. As we’ve seen on Brexit there are clearly a lot of anti-Democrats on the left and it is yet another show of why Socialism is dangerous and has almost always led to despotism where it has taken proper power. Whereas I profoundly believe in democracy, freedom and personal liberty, hence my Conservatism. Well that was a meyandering post from my position that oprah is totally unqualified. Oprah can run if she wants! She can even win! Won’t change my opinion that in the kind of democracy I envisage a celeb with no experience should be laughed out of town. BTW a conservative in the ideological sense would agree with me, like most of the Tory Party you’re probably a liberal. I was trying, clearly unsuccessfully🙄 to make a wider point about experience being somehow necessary. As for being a liberal, I doubt it. On economics I’m wetter than Sichuan during the monsoon, on law and order, immigration, culture and the military I’m very Conservative and on social issues I’m liberal. I would say I’m a One Nation Conservative personally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 13:12:13 GMT
Michelle Obama would be a better candidate, surely. It's interesting to note that most of the most prominent examples of celebrities-turned-politicians in the United States are Republicans. Aside from Trump, you have Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shirley Temple, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono and so on. Because in the words of Donald Trump in 1998: “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They love anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.” Not saying I agree with him, the democratic base did just choose Clinton, but it’s certainly interesting. He didn’t say that. www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/ |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2018 13:59:43 GMT
I don't think @benjl is saying that the ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to run for office, just that you can't jump to the top of the tree. Show you can do it in the House, or Senate, or as a governor, or even VP first. In the UK you simply cannot become Prime Minister without at the very least getting elected as an MP (assuming it is now a convention that a Peer cannot be PM) I wouldn't make it a rule - I think Eisenhower was a good example of someone who had no experience as an elected politician who did a pretty decent job; but of course he had the experience of high command (and, unusually for a general, had to do so in a very political manner due to need to accommodate allies; the Brits were unduly sceptical of his lack of combat experience compared to e.g. Montgomery but even the most jaundiced Brit accepted that Eisenhower could keep his assorted prima donnas onside in a way that Monty would have utterly failed.) The interesting thing about Trump is that the case for him is as a sort of Eisenhower - a guy with extensive business experience, a dealmaker, who can bring that expertise without the baggage of having to toady to rich donors; but in fact he is proving to be inefficient and poor at political or other deals, and whose main political achievements so far are based on doing exactly what the super-wealthy want. (No surprise to those of us who saw his wealth as the result of inheritance and TV showmanship rather than genuine business expertise, of course.) I don't think he disproves the "Eisenhower exception" per se but it shows that just as professional politicians can be astoundingly bad at politics, successful non-politicians don't necessarily have great skills either; if he'd done just one term as a state governor the issue wouldn't arise IMO. (But of course that would involve him in doing work and would not have got him the new TV contract that all this was surely about.) The ability of anyone to become President is, in my opinion, a strength of the American system. I find the idea that someone has to go through Parliament, or in America the HOR or whatever an attack on the very spirit of democracy. I’m not being deliberately provocative, argumentative or facetious. The idea that people should have to climb the greasy and often corrupted pole is genuinely anathema to me. For example, in Israel they elected the PM separately from the Knesset for a few elections. I think we should try it here, I think it could work. But democracy is not just about elections, it is about the whole system. For the system to function healthily, people have to be able to carry out the requirements of the role. In the case of the US President, that's international diplomacy, negotiating with Congress and the ability to oversee a large organisation (and to select subordinates who can do the same.) There's nothing to say that somebody can't learn those things on the job, but there's a strong argument to be made that it is better to pick somebody who will face a less steep learning curve, because they're more likely to do a competent job and to maintain the basic health of the system. It is of course legitimate to say that you personally think this is less important. But it's not anti-democratic for other people to say that they would not vote for a candidate who they don't feel has sufficient experience. FWIW, Oprah does look like one of the more plausible celebrity candidates, but when your opposition is Mark Zuckerberg then that is a low bar to clear. Fundamentally I'm just not interested in the candidate as symbol, it's much more important what their candidacy is intended to achieve. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 14:09:14 GMT
The ability of anyone to become President is, in my opinion, a strength of the American system. I find the idea that someone has to go through Parliament, or in America the HOR or whatever an attack on the very spirit of democracy. I’m not being deliberately provocative, argumentative or facetious. The idea that people should have to climb the greasy and often corrupted pole is genuinely anathema to me. For example, in Israel they elected the PM separately from the Knesset for a few elections. I think we should try it here, I think it could work. But democracy is not just about elections, it is about the whole system. For the system to function healthily, people have to be able to carry out the requirements of the role. In the case of the US President, that's international diplomacy, negotiating with Congress and the ability to oversee a large organisation (and to select subordinates who can do the same.) There's nothing to say that somebody can't learn those things on the job, but there's a strong argument to be made that it is better to pick somebody who will face a less steep learning curve, because they're more likely to do a competent job and to maintain the basic health of the system. It is of course legitimate to say that you personally think this is less important. But it's not anti-democratic for other people to say that they would not vote for a candidate who they don't feel has sufficient experience. FWIW, Oprah does look like one of the more plausible celebrity candidates, but when your opposition is Mark Zuckerberg then that is a low bar to clear. Fundamentally I'm just not interested in the candidate as symbol, it's much more important what their candidacy is intended to achieve. I accept that it would be preferable in ordinary circumstances but I believe that given the state that career politicians have left the West in, a radical change is needed. As an observation, I don’t think we’re that far apart tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 10, 2018 18:23:39 GMT
I don't think @benjl is saying that the ordinary citizen shouldn't be allowed to run for office, just that you can't jump to the top of the tree. Show you can do it in the House, or Senate, or as a governor, or even VP first. In the UK you simply cannot become Prime Minister without at the very least getting elected as an MP (assuming it is now a convention that a Peer cannot be PM) I wouldn't make it a rule - I think Eisenhower was a good example of someone who had no experience as an elected politician who did a pretty decent job; but of course he had the experience of high command (and, unusually for a general, had to do so in a very political manner due to need to accommodate allies; the Brits were unduly sceptical of his lack of combat experience compared to e.g. Montgomery but even the most jaundiced Brit accepted that Eisenhower could keep his assorted prima donnas onside in a way that Monty would have utterly failed.) The interesting thing about Trump is that the case for him is as a sort of Eisenhower - a guy with extensive business experience, a dealmaker, who can bring that expertise without the baggage of having to toady to rich donors; but in fact he is proving to be inefficient and poor at political or other deals, and whose main political achievements so far are based on doing exactly what the super-wealthy want. (No surprise to those of us who saw his wealth as the result of inheritance and TV showmanship rather than genuine business expertise, of course.) I don't think he disproves the "Eisenhower exception" per se but it shows that just as professional politicians can be astoundingly bad at politics, successful non-politicians don't necessarily have great skills either; if he'd done just one term as a state governor the issue wouldn't arise IMO. (But of course that would involve him in doing work and would not have got him the new TV contract that all this was surely about.) The ability of anyone to become President is, in my opinion, a strength of the American system. I find the idea that someone has to go through Parliament, or in America the HOR or whatever an attack on the very spirit of democracy. I’m not being deliberately provocative, argumentative or facetious. The idea that people should have to climb the greasy and often corrupted pole is genuinely anathema to me. For example, in Israel they elected the PM separately from the Knesset for a few elections. I think we should try it here, I think it could work. I see your argument but the problem for me is that "climbing the greasy pole" implies an element of collusion and compromise with unsavoury characters, or of promoting populist cause which you don't believe in but are popular, or of pork barrel politics. Now there's far more of that in the two year process of getting elected President than in doing a few years as a backbench MP, which generally involves winning over your local party (to get selected) and then winning over the local voters - neither of which should come into the category of unsavoury characters. (A process devalued of course in the big two parties by central office pushing candidates into safe seats, but that's the problem with safe seats and a duopoly.) I don't think anyone can become President, you need huge amounts of money and important friends. Hillary epitomised the Super-PAC and corporate interests approach but Trump with his personal fortune and backing of Fox News (wholly owned by that ordinary Joe Rupert Murdoch) is not exactly Cincinnatus leaving his plough either. I'd say that Margaret Thatcher was a far more meritocratic figure who made it to the top without compromising her core beliefs but did so by proving her competence along the way. On the whole, if a constitutional arrangement has anything in common with what the Israelis do, then I wouldn't. Candidate for most dysfunctional democracy in the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 3:14:38 GMT
The ability of anyone to become President is, in my opinion, a strength of the American system. I find the idea that someone has to go through Parliament, or in America the HOR or whatever an attack on the very spirit of democracy. I’m not being deliberately provocative, argumentative or facetious. The idea that people should have to climb the greasy and often corrupted pole is genuinely anathema to me. For example, in Israel they elected the PM separately from the Knesset for a few elections. I think we should try it here, I think it could work. I see your argument but the problem for me is that "climbing the greasy pole" implies an element of collusion and compromise with unsavoury characters, or of promoting populist cause which you don't believe in but are popular, or of pork barrel politics. Now there's far more of that in the two year process of getting elected President than in doing a few years as a backbench MP, which generally involves winning over your local party (to get selected) and then winning over the local voters - neither of which should come into the category of unsavoury characters. (A process devalued of course in the big two parties by central office pushing candidates into safe seats, but that's the problem with safe seats and a duopoly.) I don't think anyone can become President, you need huge amounts of money and important friends. Hillary epitomised the Super-PAC and corporate interests approach but Trump with his personal fortune and backing of Fox News (wholly owned by that ordinary Joe Rupert Murdoch) is not exactly Cincinnatus leaving his plough either. I'd say that Margaret Thatcher was a far more meritocratic figure who made it to the top without compromising her core beliefs but did so by proving her competence along the way. On the whole, if a constitutional arrangement has anything in common with what the Israelis do, then I wouldn't. Candidate for most dysfunctional democracy in the world. I accept that climbing the greasy and corrupt pole is a feature of all political systems but I think we should not accept that it should. Getting back to Oprah I think that she needn’t do that. I also accept that Trump, he didn’t spend a lot of money himself, had Fox News blasting out blatantly false propaganda on his behalf. www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ I in no way carry a candle for Trump I assure you. On Maragaret Thatcher I accept she was revolutionary in my party and the country but she did have to play along with the Heath consensus first. Some think that kind of, let’s call it compromise is healthy. I don’t. My point is more idealistic I think, don’t blame me I’m young😂. As for Israel they may have a dysfunctional democracy but unlike all their neighbours they do have one. They have feminist and LGBT rights movements, they have secular movements, they have Meretz and the Arab Parties. They’re a diverse democracy and have kept it that way despite being under the constant threat of annihilation by anti-Semitic terrorists and anti-Semites around the world trying to isolate Israel. They must be doing something right. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
|
Post by maxque on Jan 11, 2018 3:17:20 GMT
But democracy is not just about elections, it is about the whole system. For the system to function healthily, people have to be able to carry out the requirements of the role. In the case of the US President, that's international diplomacy, negotiating with Congress and the ability to oversee a large organisation (and to select subordinates who can do the same.) There's nothing to say that somebody can't learn those things on the job, but there's a strong argument to be made that it is better to pick somebody who will face a less steep learning curve, because they're more likely to do a competent job and to maintain the basic health of the system. It is of course legitimate to say that you personally think this is less important. But it's not anti-democratic for other people to say that they would not vote for a candidate who they don't feel has sufficient experience. FWIW, Oprah does look like one of the more plausible celebrity candidates, but when your opposition is Mark Zuckerberg then that is a low bar to clear. Fundamentally I'm just not interested in the candidate as symbol, it's much more important what their candidacy is intended to achieve. I accept that it would be preferable in ordinary circumstances but I believe that given the state that career politicians have left the West in, a radical change is needed. As an observation, I don’t think we’re that far apart tbh. Well, even with Trump, there is no radical change, except in words. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 3:38:35 GMT
I accept that it would be preferable in ordinary circumstances but I believe that given the state that career politicians have left the West in, a radical change is needed. As an observation, I don’t think we’re that far apart tbh. Well, even with Trump, there is no radical change, except in words. I agree I never liked Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 11, 2018 9:07:11 GMT
I see your argument but the problem for me is that "climbing the greasy pole" implies an element of collusion and compromise with unsavoury characters, or of promoting populist cause which you don't believe in but are popular, or of pork barrel politics. Now there's far more of that in the two year process of getting elected President than in doing a few years as a backbench MP, which generally involves winning over your local party (to get selected) and then winning over the local voters - neither of which should come into the category of unsavoury characters. (A process devalued of course in the big two parties by central office pushing candidates into safe seats, but that's the problem with safe seats and a duopoly.) I don't think anyone can become President, you need huge amounts of money and important friends. Hillary epitomised the Super-PAC and corporate interests approach but Trump with his personal fortune and backing of Fox News (wholly owned by that ordinary Joe Rupert Murdoch) is not exactly Cincinnatus leaving his plough either. I'd say that Margaret Thatcher was a far more meritocratic figure who made it to the top without compromising her core beliefs but did so by proving her competence along the way. On the whole, if a constitutional arrangement has anything in common with what the Israelis do, then I wouldn't. Candidate for most dysfunctional democracy in the world. I accept that climbing the greasy and corrupt pole is a feature of all political systems but I think we should not accept that it should. Getting back to Oprah I think that she needn’t do that. I also accept that Trump, he didn’t spend a lot of money himself, had Fox News blasting out blatantly false propaganda on his behalf. www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ I in no way carry a candle for Trump I assure you. On Maragaret Thatcher I accept she was revolutionary in my party and the country but she did have to play along with the Heath consensus first. Some think that kind of, let’s call it compromise is healthy. I don’t. My point is more idealistic I think, don’t blame me I’m young😂. As for Israel they may have a dysfunctional democracy but unlike all their neighbours they do have one. They have feminist and LGBT rights movements, they have secular movements, they have Meretz and the Arab Parties. They’re a diverse democracy and have kept it that way despite being under the constant threat of annihilation by anti-Semitic terrorists and anti-Semites around the world trying to isolate Israel. They must be doing something right. Don't worry, I don't have you down as a Trump fan! Of course it is your job as a young person to be idealistic and it's mine as a jaded old git to be more cautious. Thatcher's a case in point because as a 15 year old when she came not power I was all for shaking up the consensus (which TBF needed doing) and would have voted for her, but I fairly soon came to see her approach as divisive, only focussing on one side of the problems and ultimately of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I really think you have a point wrt professional politicians, there's a problem with groupthink due to all sharing the same background and path, there may be a problem with being overly focussed on their own career rather than the good of the country; there's also a problem with lack of relevant experience outside of politics. Potentially it can give too much power to backroom power brokers in the party, not sure if that's an issue in the UK now but it can be. But I don't think compromise is either a bad thing per se, it is good if it means challenging your own thinking and bringing others onside, it is bad if it means sacrificing important aims and principles. Contrariwise "conviction" is good if it is principled and based on sound thinking, bad if it is blinkered pursuit of dogma in the face off evidence to the contrary or requires the "other" as scapegoats to attack. I'm not sure that bringing in "non-politicians" helps much; lots of them soon become "captured" and many others turn out to simply not know enough about how government works. The Cameroons were rightly criticised for going from Eton to Oxford PPE courses to policy wonk to MP to cabinet; but I don't see that being a celebrity prepares you any better, probably worse in fact. Thatcher was a research scientist, then local MP, then minister for a big department, then leader of the opposition; there's a lot of expertise there before she became PM. In either case the issue is about whether the political process winnows out the rubbish and lets the good rise. I don't think it does very well now, that's one reason why there are so many professional politicians - no-one else will put up with the crap. But the US route seems overly dependent on money to me, I can't see it as a genuine meritocracy open to ordinary citizens at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 9:24:30 GMT
I accept that climbing the greasy and corrupt pole is a feature of all political systems but I think we should not accept that it should. Getting back to Oprah I think that she needn’t do that. I also accept that Trump, he didn’t spend a lot of money himself, had Fox News blasting out blatantly false propaganda on his behalf. www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ I in no way carry a candle for Trump I assure you. On Maragaret Thatcher I accept she was revolutionary in my party and the country but she did have to play along with the Heath consensus first. Some think that kind of, let’s call it compromise is healthy. I don’t. My point is more idealistic I think, don’t blame me I’m young😂. As for Israel they may have a dysfunctional democracy but unlike all their neighbours they do have one. They have feminist and LGBT rights movements, they have secular movements, they have Meretz and the Arab Parties. They’re a diverse democracy and have kept it that way despite being under the constant threat of annihilation by anti-Semitic terrorists and anti-Semites around the world trying to isolate Israel. They must be doing something right. Don't worry, I don't have you down as a Trump fan! Of course it is your job as a young person to be idealistic and it's mine as a jaded old git to be more cautious. Thatcher's a case in point because as a 15 year old when she came not power I was all for shaking up the consensus (which TBF needed doing) and would have voted for her, but I fairly soon came to see her approach as divisive, only focussing on one side of the problems and ultimately of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I really think you have a point wrt professional politicians, there's a problem with groupthink due to all sharing the same background and path, there may be a problem with being overly focussed on their own career rather than the good of the country; there's also a problem with lack of relevant experience outside of politics. Potentially it can give too much power to backroom power brokers in the party, not sure if that's an issue in the UK now but it can be. But I don't think compromise is either a bad thing per se, it is good if it means challenging your own thinking and bringing others onside, it is bad if it means sacrificing important aims and principles. Contrariwise "conviction" is good if it is principled and based on sound thinking, bad if it is blinkered pursuit of dogma in the face off evidence to the contrary or requires the "other" as scapegoats to attack. I'm not sure that bringing in "non-politicians" helps much; lots of them soon become "captured" and many others turn out to simply not know enough about how government works. The Cameroons were rightly criticised for going from Eton to Oxford PPE courses to policy wonk to MP to cabinet; but I don't see that being a celebrity prepares you any better, probably worse in fact. Thatcher was a research scientist, then local MP, then minister for a big department, then leader of the opposition; there's a lot of expertise there before she became PM. In either case the issue is about whether the political process winnows out the rubbish and lets the good rise. I don't think it does very well now, that's one reason why there are so many professional politicians - no-one else will put up with the crap. But the US route seems overly dependent on money to me, I can't see it as a genuine meritocracy open to ordinary citizens at all.There’s clearly a lot of common ground between us, and I do accept that experience can be a good thing, I just don’t think it’s a priority. The last part I agree with. Citizens United destroyed democracy in the US. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,012
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 11, 2018 12:27:46 GMT
In her own way, Oprah is as vacuous and shallow as Trump is with an ego to match. Never been impressed by her as her understanding of a wide range of issues is extremely limited, like most celebrity 'activists'.
|
|
