[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Great post, Push!
Do you have a link?
Mufasa[/quote]
Seconded. That was nice.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By Ryan Young
"To hear President Barack Obama?s supporters tell it, his challenger in this year?s presidential contest, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, is an out-of-touch plutocrat mainly concerned with becoming president. According to Governor Romney?s supporters, the president is an out-of-touch elitist whose main concern is staying in the White House. They?re both right.
After all, what sane person would want a job that destroys your privacy, makes it impossible for you to go out on the street, subjects your family to intrusive media scrutiny, forces you to watch everything you say, and drives some people to want to take a shot at you? Apparently someone who feels that the power that comes with the office is worth the attendant indignities.
?Great men are almost always bad men,? Lord Acton famously said. ?There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.? Indeed, good men rarely run for president. And when they do, they rarely win. An honest man stands no chance against a Lyndon Johnson or a Richard Nixon. Yes, one slips through the cracks now and then. We could use Grover Cleveland?s restraint in handling the economic crisis today. I have a particular fondness for Calvin Coolidge, who conspicuously lacked the pathological need for attention that characterizes most officeholders.
That neediness will be on full display during Wednesday?s presidential debate, which will pit two men against each other who share much passion and skill for campaigning ? for navigating a self-selecting process biased toward the power-hungry. Becoming president requires years of campaigning and fundraising, handshaking, and deal-making ? no one can possibly endure all that unless they thirst for power to their very core. Sane, honest people lack that thirst.
Campaigning for even minor office requires a candidate to prostrate himself before people he?s never met, and make grand promises he may ? or may not ? keep. He must build himself up while tearing down his opponent through vicious attacks. Imagine what that does to a candidate?s mind ? especially one that starts to believe his own hype.
A successful candidate often must hide his true beliefs, assuming he has any, tailoring his message to match his constituents? wishes.
And then there?s the media coverage ? a spotlight so bright it burns. Harried reporters constantly scurrying about, spilling coffee on your shoe, never a moment to yourself on the campaign trail ? those aren?t things that sane, reasonable people put up with. Not even if the reward for doing so is the White House.
Ads by Google
Worse still is the toll campaigning takes on candidates? families ? long weeks of separation, unflattering exposes, and ?gotcha? hit pieces.
More to the point, is it moral to seek power over other human beings in the first place? It might seem moral to Thrasymachus in Plato?s ?Republic,? who proclaimed that, ?justice is the advantage of the stronger,? but no sane parent would teach that to their child. Yet it is precisely the morality that one must follow to become president.
We like to think that a presidential candidate we support will turn out to be a modern-day Cincinnatus ? a person who dutifully serves the republic and then retires to private life. Instead, we are more likely to get a new Thrasymachus, who will presume to control, order, hector, nettle, cajole, and harass the very people he just spent a year or more sucking up to ? while they pay him for the privilege.
No matter the party, the tendency is for presidents to always fight for more control for the office they hold ? over education, health care, safety regulation, the economy, and many more areas of life. The power grabs of one administration are rarely relinquished by its successors. If anything, they grab for more.
May we teach our children to aspire to better things than the presidency. Watching Wednesday?s debate could make a good first lesson.
Ryan Young is Fellow in Regulatory Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
[/quote]
Heh, no offense, but I thought it interesting which two posters gave this a thumbs up first. The last few lines seem obviously right-wing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By Ryan Young
"To hear President Barack Obama?s supporters tell it, his challenger in this year?s presidential contest, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, is an out-of-touch plutocrat mainly concerned with becoming president. According to Governor Romney?s supporters, the president is an out-of-touch elitist whose main concern is staying in the White House. They?re both right.
After all, what sane person would want a job that destroys your privacy, makes it impossible for you to go out on the street, subjects your family to intrusive media scrutiny, forces you to watch everything you say, and drives some people to want to take a shot at you? Apparently someone who feels that the power that comes with the office is worth the attendant indignities.
?Great men are almost always bad men,? Lord Acton famously said. ?There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.? Indeed, good men rarely run for president. And when they do, they rarely win. An honest man stands no chance against a Lyndon Johnson or a Richard Nixon. Yes, one slips through the cracks now and then. We could use Grover Cleveland?s restraint in handling the economic crisis today. I have a particular fondness for Calvin Coolidge, who conspicuously lacked the pathological need for attention that characterizes most officeholders.
That neediness will be on full display during Wednesday?s presidential debate, which will pit two men against each other who share much passion and skill for campaigning ? for navigating a self-selecting process biased toward the power-hungry. Becoming president requires years of campaigning and fundraising, handshaking, and deal-making ? no one can possibly endure all that unless they thirst for power to their very core. Sane, honest people lack that thirst.
Campaigning for even minor office requires a candidate to prostrate himself before people he?s never met, and make grand promises he may ? or may not ? keep. He must build himself up while tearing down his opponent through vicious attacks. Imagine what that does to a candidate?s mind ? especially one that starts to believe his own hype.
A successful candidate often must hide his true beliefs, assuming he has any, tailoring his message to match his constituents? wishes.
And then there?s the media coverage ? a spotlight so bright it burns. Harried reporters constantly scurrying about, spilling coffee on your shoe, never a moment to yourself on the campaign trail ? those aren?t things that sane, reasonable people put up with. Not even if the reward for doing so is the White House.
Ads by Google
Worse still is the toll campaigning takes on candidates? families ? long weeks of separation, unflattering exposes, and ?gotcha? hit pieces.
More to the point, is it moral to seek power over other human beings in the first place? It might seem moral to Thrasymachus in Plato?s ?Republic,? who proclaimed that, ?justice is the advantage of the stronger,? but no sane parent would teach that to their child. Yet it is precisely the morality that one must follow to become president.
We like to think that a presidential candidate we support will turn out to be a modern-day Cincinnatus ? a person who dutifully serves the republic and then retires to private life. Instead, we are more likely to get a new Thrasymachus, who will presume to control, order, hector, nettle, cajole, and harass the very people he just spent a year or more sucking up to ? while they pay him for the privilege.
No matter the party, the tendency is for presidents to always fight for more control for the office they hold ? over education, health care, safety regulation, the economy, and many more areas of life. The power grabs of one administration are rarely relinquished by its successors. If anything, they grab for more.
May we teach our children to aspire to better things than the presidency. Watching Wednesday?s debate could make a good first lesson.
Ryan Young is Fellow in Regulatory Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
[/quote]
Heh, no offense, but I thought it interesting which two posters gave this a thumbs up first. The last few lines seem obviously right-wing. [/quote]
Maybe in a general sense they are, but the thrust of the piece rings true. I appreciate a good argument no matter which side of the isle it comes from. I’m wondering where this actually originated.
Sloth:
I’m not following your point.
Mufasa
Oh wow, just read the article Push put up. It is pretty good.
Well, I didn’t think you appreciated right-wing tea party kind of rhetoric. I was just kind of surprised that you two liked it. Heck, even I thought it was a bit too cynical. If you consider how it wraps up with the last few lines, it’s clearly to the right of mainstream Republicans. It’s the kind of right-wing that thinks Paul Ryan is way too nanny state friendly.
"No matter the party, the tendency is for presidents to always fight for more control for the office they hold over education, health care, safety regulation, the economy, and many more areas of life. The power grabs of one administration are rarely relinquished by its successors. If anything, they grab for more."
Hey, it’s cool if you liked it, I’m not knocking you for it. Was just surprised.
Gotcha’.
No problem.
For the past few year’s, I’ve actually wondered if I have been getting too cynical about Politics…or realistic.
I am a FIRM believer that our problems are systemic; and that whether there is a DEM or a GOP majority (including the White House) makes little difference. Each will make little cosmetic changes around the edges to appease their base; shift around money here and there to do the same…but when the dust clears, its “business as usual”.
Concerning the TeaPublicans; all that I think they have done is made the GOP smaller and more entrenched in ideology. I actually would find it humorous (if it was not so serious) when I hear some TeaPublican Politician accuse the President of “my way or the Highway” politics, when they are the true Masters.
Lastly, I’ve often wondered why ANYONE in their right mind would want to be President.
I guess what Push posted just hit a cord with me.
Mufasa
The government control that Obama said he would let go of, guantanomo (sp?) bay and the patriot act are still there. If I dug, I’m sure I could find more examples.
"That neediness will be on full display during Wednesday?s presidential debate, which will pit two men against each other who share much passion and skill for campaigning ? for navigating a self-selecting process biased toward the power-hungry. Becoming president requires years of campaigning and fundraising, handshaking, and deal-making ? no one can possibly endure all that unless they thirst for power to their very core. Sane, honest people lack that thirst.
Campaigning for even minor office requires a candidate to prostrate himself before people he?s never met, and make grand promises he may ? or may not ? keep. He must build himself up while tearing down his opponent through vicious attacks. Imagine what that does to a candidate?s mind ? especially one that starts to believe his own hype.
A successful candidate often must hide his true beliefs, assuming he has any, tailoring his message to match his constituents? wishes.
And then there?s the media coverage ? a spotlight so bright it burns. Harried reporters constantly scurrying about, spilling coffee on your shoe, never a moment to yourself on the campaign trail ? those aren?t things that sane, reasonable people put up with. Not even if the reward for doing so is the White House."
I was really reacting to this. It is well said and it rings true.
And I think that too many people forget this. They say that Obama wants to destroy the country (that one comes up a lot around here) or to push as man people into poverty as is physically possible. Or Bush wanted to launch a new American empire. Bill Maher suggested last night that Romney wants to get to the White House in order to legitimize Mormonism.
None of the conspiracy theories are anywhere near as compelling as this: (pick your politician) wants to be/remain President of the United States because he is a needy, power-hungry attention whore. He wants nothing more than for little kids in generations to come to be forced to memorize his name in a classroom.
There are ideologues out there, but they are fewer and farther between than most people believe.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
None of the conspiracy theories are anywhere near as compelling as this: (pick your politician) wants to be/remain President of the United States because he is a needy, power-hungry attention whore. He wants nothing more than for little kids in generations to come to be forced to memorize his name in a classroom.
[/quote]
So, you have studied the libertarian outlook?
Good for you.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
None of the conspiracy theories are anywhere near as compelling as this: (pick your politician) wants to be/remain President of the United States because he is a needy, power-hungry attention whore. He wants nothing more than for little kids in generations to come to be forced to memorize his name in a classroom.
[/quote]
So, you have studied the libertarian outlook?
Good for you.[/quote]
This is basically what I was getting at. Even focused on the part you quoted SMH, it’s obviously anti-regulation/pro deregulation, anti-nanny state…
"The gist is, “how the hell could you ever trust power-seeking men with any more power than is absolutely necessary?” The point is to call into question such men having much power/responsibility at all. Deregulate, tear down entitlements, send power back to localities. Where, I suppose the mad men there are at least more humbled by greatly diminished jurisdictions, relative to a President (and a leviathan federal government).
You don’t give mad men the power to tax and redistribute. To regulate who you have to hire. What kind of benefits you have to offer to employees. To force you to obtain insurance. To hold onto ‘your’ retirement and health care dollars. To provide ‘charity.’ See what I’m saying? Orion, our resident Austrian minarchist-libertarian picked up on it, as expected. heh.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Concerning the TeaPublicans; all that I think they have done is made the GOP smaller and more entrenched in ideology.
Mufasa[/quote]
You come off as a more center/left person, and commented on how you liked a piece that is much closer to a tea party piece than anything that would come out of the left, and your conclusion is that the tea party made the GOP smaller?
CB:
I probably come off that way on this Forum because I don’t agree with all the vitriol thrown at the President. I neither think he hates America nor wishes to destroy Her.
I probably am more “Center/Right” with most things.
Mufasa
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The government control that Obama said he would let go of, guantanomo (sp?) bay and the patriot act are still there. If I dug, I’m sure I could find more examples. [/quote]
Oh, you don’t even have to dig. Well, yeah, for power he said he’d let go of, I gotcha. But otherwise, power related…Obamacare. HHS contraception mandate included. But even prior to that, Social Security, Medicare. Financial and safety regulation. Food-stamps. Financial Aid. Employment and labor laws. It’s an appeal that is supposed to lead one to ask "why would I trade liberty for security (supposedly…), with mad-men? If one finds it a seductive argument, the logical conclusion one arrives at is that you don’t.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
CB:
I probably come off that way on this Forum because I don’t agree with all the vitriol thrown at the President. I neither think he hates America nor wishes to destroy Her.
I probably am more “Center/Right” with most things.
Mufasa[/quote]
Fair enough, lol.
As for the tea party making the GOP smaller, I just don’t think you’re looking long term. short term, maybe, but long term… Long term the ideals of smaller government, fiscal responsibility and civil liberty aren’t going anywhere.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The government control that Obama said he would let go of, guantanomo (sp?) bay and the patriot act are still there. If I dug, I’m sure I could find more examples. [/quote]
Oh, you don’t even have to dig. Well, yeah, for power he said he’d let go of, I gotcha. But otherwise, power related…Obamacare. HHS contraception mandate included. But even prior to that, Social Security, Medicare. Financial and safety regulation. Food-stamps. Financial Aid. Employment and labor laws. It’s an appeal that is supposed to lead one to ask "why would I trade liberty for security (supposedly…), with mad-men? If one finds it a seductive argument, the logical conclusion one arrives at is that you don’t. [/quote]
I have no problem with government programs for the people by the people via the structure of the republic, but when those politicians start ignoring the people and do their own things and vies for more power for the sake of power, that’s when I take issue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So, you have studied the libertarian outlook?
Good for you.[/quote]
This is basically what I was getting at. Even focused on the part you quoted SMH, it’s obviously anti-regulation/pro deregulation, anti-nanny state…
[/quote]
I’m about as anti-libertarian as you can possibly get and yet I agree with removing most regulation, shrinking the size of the government, and keeping the state out of peoples private lives. I really enjoyed the article.
There are two dangers facing our republic. One is an ever growing government. The other is the ever increasing corporate reach and power.
The Republicans could win the house and senate for the next few decades if they stopped sucking up to corporations.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
I’m about as anti-libertarian as you can possibly get and yet I agree with removing most regulation, shrinking the size of the government, and keeping the state out of peoples private lives. I really enjoyed the article.[/quote]
You contradict yourself here. You are anti-libertarian yet completely agree with the main tenants of their ideology?
How does that make any sense.
Both of these are allowed to happen because of a distinct lack of individual responsibility on the part of the citizenry and electorate. You have no one to blame but yourself.
[quote]The Republicans could win the house and senate for the next few decades if they stopped sucking up to corporations.
[/quote]
Are you insinuating it is just the republicans that are pandering for big corps?
Nate Silver’s forecast model, which I reference because I’ve heard from people in the business that it’s about the best out there, has begun what may be a sharp swing back toward an even race. And many of the polls figured into it included pre-debate surveys.
It looks like a horserace from here to the finish.