Comments on: A politics that works in the 21st Century http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/ Think. It ain't illegal yet... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:16:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-64397 Andy Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:33:39 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8137#comment-64397 I love that people are starting to think about how people think when it comes to politics. The approach mentioned in the article is fantastic. I've often argued with monday morning quarterback types that common sense is often not the best solution and that matters that affect the federal level of our country always have unintended consequences. Governing for sound bites and short term polling points doesn't help us in the long run, but we also can't ignore public perception. Many people I've talked to have been critical of Obama's media blitz since taking office, but I for one think the role of the president needs to include educator in cheif to raise the public's awareness of the game plan. Often times when you just get an unfiltered explantation of what you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish, you'll get 80% of the public behind you. Most voters don't watch the Sunday morning talk shows or cspan on a regular basis, to say nothing of non-voters. And regarding johndoraemi's comment, strong idealism isn't a bad thing, but being blinded by it isn't productive either. I'd like to not be doing things of questionable morality as much as the next guy, but unless you can get 51% of the public behind it in a strong way, the argument doesn't do anything. Unfortunately, you invalidate your entire argument when you start calling people names like "gangsters". Remove the condescending tone and present your argument in a positive manner, and you may get some support outside of those that agree with you. The question should always be "who am I trying to convince, and will this help me convince them?" If the answer is no it wont, then you aren't helping your cause. I love that people are starting to think about how people think when it comes to politics. The approach mentioned in the article is fantastic. I’ve often argued with monday morning quarterback types that common sense is often not the best solution and that matters that affect the federal level of our country always have unintended consequences. Governing for sound bites and short term polling points doesn’t help us in the long run, but we also can’t ignore public perception. Many people I’ve talked to have been critical of Obama’s media blitz since taking office, but I for one think the role of the president needs to include educator in cheif to raise the public’s awareness of the game plan. Often times when you just get an unfiltered explantation of what you’re doing and what you’re trying to accomplish, you’ll get 80% of the public behind you. Most voters don’t watch the Sunday morning talk shows or cspan on a regular basis, to say nothing of non-voters.

And regarding johndoraemi’s comment, strong idealism isn’t a bad thing, but being blinded by it isn’t productive either. I’d like to not be doing things of questionable morality as much as the next guy, but unless you can get 51% of the public behind it in a strong way, the argument doesn’t do anything. Unfortunately, you invalidate your entire argument when you start calling people names like “gangsters”. Remove the condescending tone and present your argument in a positive manner, and you may get some support outside of those that agree with you. The question should always be
“who am I trying to convince, and will this help me convince them?” If the answer is no it wont, then you aren’t helping your cause.

]]> By: Lex http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-64378 Lex Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:23:38 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8137#comment-64378 I have relationships very much like the one which John describes. We all want the same thing, though we may disagree on how to achieve it. But disagreeing on the how is too often taken as disagreement over the what. We cannot begin to realize that we have more in common with our neighbor (who votes differently than we do) than we have differences if we never talk to the neighbor because he votes differently. Demonizing "the other" is the classic tool of authoritarian government. Usually it is directed outward, eg. Hitler demonizing Jews. It does get directed inward sometimes, but generally to minorities, eg. Stalin demonizing "wreckers" and "counter-revolutionaries". America puts a new twist on it. We've divided ourselves roughly in half and demonize the other half. Terribly dangerous. Mr. Brewer hints (maybe) that our politicians...meh, not one of them is a "leader"...are a big part of the problem. They are, in fact, the biggest part of the problem. They foster and benefit from the split. Chances are that if the split is ever healed, most of them will get chased out of their positions of power and privilege with pitchforks and torches. And they certainly wouldn't want that... In a nation of, for and by the people, our dysfunction will be well represented. We must, in my opinion, begin by taking responsibility for the state and future of our nation rather than discharging our civic responsibility by merely voting. The first step is to talk to your neighbors, especially the ones who don't vote the same as you do. I have relationships very much like the one which John describes. We all want the same thing, though we may disagree on how to achieve it. But disagreeing on the how is too often taken as disagreement over the what. We cannot begin to realize that we have more in common with our neighbor (who votes differently than we do) than we have differences if we never talk to the neighbor because he votes differently.

Demonizing “the other” is the classic tool of authoritarian government. Usually it is directed outward, eg. Hitler demonizing Jews. It does get directed inward sometimes, but generally to minorities, eg. Stalin demonizing “wreckers” and “counter-revolutionaries”. America puts a new twist on it. We’ve divided ourselves roughly in half and demonize the other half. Terribly dangerous.

Mr. Brewer hints (maybe) that our politicians…meh, not one of them is a “leader”…are a big part of the problem. They are, in fact, the biggest part of the problem. They foster and benefit from the split. Chances are that if the split is ever healed, most of them will get chased out of their positions of power and privilege with pitchforks and torches. And they certainly wouldn’t want that…

In a nation of, for and by the people, our dysfunction will be well represented. We must, in my opinion, begin by taking responsibility for the state and future of our nation rather than discharging our civic responsibility by merely voting.

The first step is to talk to your neighbors, especially the ones who don’t vote the same as you do.

]]> By: John Statler http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-64373 John Statler Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:43:00 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8137#comment-64373 The first commenter to this article demonstrates my biggest concern with the new politics, but also my biggest hope. If johndoraemi is right, then there is no hope in any political movement. His style of discourse leads to that age old problem he is addressing himself...when you try to overthrow a government it will almost always lead to the same group of people running things, just different people in the lead. As I am beginning to see the new politics, it is about changing the base assumptions of what is possible. These are deeply rooted, but by using the words like "patriots" to encompass everyone in the community we take big steps. I don't like George Bush Jr, or even his entire family though I don't know any of them. I think many of them have committed crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice. But, the truck driver down the street who voted for both Bush's, who voted against Obama, who is stock piling ammunition (just because there's a shortage of 9mm shells)...he has been following his leaders. His leaders have led him wrong, and he is just beginning to accept that fact (though he's known it for many years now). He is just beginning to listen to other leaders and is just beginning to hope. Reminding him that we are all patriots is a good thing.Telling him that there are people seeking to hang him because his vote helped bring this country to it's knees is not helpful at all, it just creates resistance to his path of change to new leaders. He's ready, he's hopeful, he should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (but that's another issue). Sorry for the twist there, but I couldn't help myself. There should be trials, but they need to come at a time when my truck driving friend can see he won't be accused along with his former leaders. When that time comes he'll be leading the cheer section for maximum sentences...he's just like that. The truck driver friend is not fictitious. He and I have a common bond beyond politics, religion and cultural upbringing that is very precious. We talk politics or religion or cultural values for 5 minutes max, then one or the other of us says, "It's time to change the subject." We do change the subject and we get along just fine. I learn about his views and he learns about mine...albeit slowly. Thanks for the article Joe. John in Medford Oregon The first commenter to this article demonstrates my biggest concern with the new politics, but also my biggest hope.

If johndoraemi is right, then there is no hope in any political movement. His style of discourse leads to that age old problem he is addressing himself…when you try to overthrow a government it will almost always lead to the same group of people running things, just different people in the lead.

As I am beginning to see the new politics, it is about changing the base assumptions of what is possible. These are deeply rooted, but by using the words like “patriots” to encompass everyone in the community we take big steps.

I don’t like George Bush Jr, or even his entire family though I don’t know any of them. I think many of them have committed crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice.

But, the truck driver down the street who voted for both Bush’s, who voted against Obama, who is stock piling ammunition (just because there’s a shortage of 9mm shells)…he has been following his leaders. His leaders have led him wrong, and he is just beginning to accept that fact (though he’s known it for many years now). He is just beginning to listen to other leaders and is just beginning to hope.

Reminding him that we are all patriots is a good thing.Telling him that there are people seeking to hang him because his vote helped bring this country to it’s knees is not helpful at all, it just creates resistance to his path of change to new leaders. He’s ready, he’s hopeful, he should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (but that’s another issue). Sorry for the twist there, but I couldn’t help myself.

There should be trials, but they need to come at a time when my truck driving friend can see he won’t be accused along with his former leaders. When that time comes he’ll be leading the cheer section for maximum sentences…he’s just like that.

The truck driver friend is not fictitious. He and I have a common bond beyond politics, religion and cultural upbringing that is very precious. We talk politics or religion or cultural values for 5 minutes max, then one or the other of us says, “It’s time to change the subject.” We do change the subject and we get along just fine. I learn about his views and he learns about mine…albeit slowly.

Thanks for the article Joe.

John in Medford Oregon

]]> By: Joe Brewer http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-64363 Joe Brewer Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:17:50 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8137#comment-64363 Hi John, Thank you for nit-picking about one of narrowest points in the entire article. What we really need is a broadening of the discourse to address the big issues. Isn't it finally time to step outside the smallness of old politics and get over such frivolities? We have much bigger (and real) issues to deal with than this nonsense. Best, Joe Hi John,

Thank you for nit-picking about one of narrowest points in the entire article. What we really need is a broadening of the discourse to address the big issues.

Isn’t it finally time to step outside the smallness of old politics and get over such frivolities? We have much bigger (and real) issues to deal with than this nonsense.

Best,

Joe

]]> By: johndoraemi http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/18/a-politics-that-works-in-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-64359 johndoraemi Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:59:13 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8137#comment-64359 Oh Blah. You can learn about who Obama actually works for here: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7718996325782443244&ei=Upe5SbScI6L-qAOJnOG1AQ&q=obama+deception&hl=en" rel="nofollow">The Obama Deception</a> " * Disagreeing without being disagreeable (based on civility and mutual respect)" If he doesn't actually disagree with them, then there's nothing to be "disagreeable" about. Both sets of gangsters agree that America is one big cash cow to be bled dry to appease their masters. Both sets of gangsters agree that "justice" is a quaint little concept that has no bearing on their plans and actions. Both sets of gangsters agree that military domination of the world is a great unifying goal. "* Treating members of both parties as patriots (emphasizing collaboration toward common goals) That's lovely, even when they commit <a href="http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2009/01/911-bush-treason-contact-justice.html" rel="nofollow">treason</a>. Again, the justice deficit. " * Opening up the process to the public with virtual town hall meetings and weekly briefings to the public (promoting an expectation of transparency and openness among the citizenry) The public, how cute. As if that has any bearing whatsoever on policy. " * Following the constitution as a moral guide for good behavior (taking oaths seriously and believing in the importance of laws for social order) " They are blatantly protecting the Bush regime from criminal prosecutions for, among other things, subverting the constitution in numerous ways. This is a PR press release from team Obama, disguised as some kind of research. Not buying it for a second. Obama's alleged outlawing of torture (it was already outlawed, but those laws were not enforced, and still aren't) leaves giant gaping holes for the CIA to kidnap and send suspects ILLEGALLY to foreign client states to be tortured. This is popularly known as "rendition," and is retained by team Obama as a "tool." Will it take 4 or 8 years to actually "get" that the words and the deeds don't sync? Or will some people just never get it? http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ Oh Blah. You can learn about who Obama actually works for here: The Obama Deception

” * Disagreeing without being disagreeable (based on civility and mutual respect)”

If he doesn’t actually disagree with them, then there’s nothing to be “disagreeable” about. Both sets of gangsters agree that America is one big cash cow to be bled dry to appease their masters. Both sets of gangsters agree that “justice” is a quaint little concept that has no bearing on their plans and actions. Both sets of gangsters agree that military domination of the world is a great unifying goal.

“* Treating members of both parties as patriots (emphasizing collaboration toward common goals)

That’s lovely, even when they commit treason. Again, the justice deficit.

” * Opening up the process to the public with virtual town hall meetings and weekly briefings to the public (promoting an expectation of transparency and openness among the citizenry)

The public, how cute. As if that has any bearing whatsoever on policy.

” * Following the constitution as a moral guide for good behavior (taking oaths seriously and believing in the importance of laws for social order)
”

They are blatantly protecting the Bush regime from criminal prosecutions for, among other things, subverting the constitution in numerous ways. This is a PR press release from team Obama, disguised as some kind of research.

Not buying it for a second.

Obama’s alleged outlawing of torture (it was already outlawed, but those laws were not enforced, and still aren’t) leaves giant gaping holes for the CIA to kidnap and send suspects ILLEGALLY to foreign client states to be tortured. This is popularly known as “rendition,” and is retained by team Obama as a “tool.”

Will it take 4 or 8 years to actually “get” that the words and the deeds don’t sync? Or will some people just never get it?

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

]]>