Jump to content

Recommended Posts

An idealogue Huge? My only ideology is pragmatism I have long attacked idealism for the enormous poo its followers and doctrines lead us into - see often expressed my views on education AND Europe as examples of this (both the poo idealism creates and my lack of ideology).

Pregamatism, or at least the way you present it in a political context Quids, is an ideology :D


It's like shooting the injured guy on the floor because his moaning was distracting the others. It may well have been 'practical', but it demonstrated a particular ideological approach to social issues.


Your determination to stick with your 'practical' approach to politics through thick or thin in the face of whatever the world throws at you makes you an ideologue.


I should add that since things don't always turn out the way you'd prefer, it's entirely possible that your cause and effect calculation is missing a few key variables ;)

BHO Alex K?


Is that an unsubtle approach to reminding us that his middle name is Hussein? It's a very particular acronym that is predominantly used in certain circles with minority apartheid agendas.


If anything is abundantly clear, an executive branch run by Clinton would be indiscernible from one run by Clinton. So why would you prefer Hilary?

You don't have to go for the jugular quite so often H


I expect Alex is one of many non-republicans dissapointed with Obama's overall performance - the apparent lethargy in the second half especially and views Clinton as a more energised candidate. Wether that would turn out to be true in the real world remains to be seen but you don't have to be a paid up tea party member to express a preference

Bookies called it right - PaddyPower paid out last Sunday/Betfair had it 1/4 on on Monday, which backs the view that Betfair is as valid source of likely election results as opinion polls. wisdom of crowds etc.


I am glad Obama won as I was last time but I'd hoped we'd all got over the starry eyed, almost evangelical slightly disturbing worship thing, looking at the twiiteratti/facebook I see 'we' haven't.


He's just a politician, the fact that he's black was immensley important for all sorts of reasons back in 2008 but can we just get on with it now...he's not the messiah, and, for various reasons, hasn't been that great as a president. I work with a fair few americans (mainly openly democrat) and even they are slightly bemused by western europe's hero worship.

BHO tends to be provocative (particularly when combined with criticism). Bringing up Hilary Clinton is just odd. I support her and would vote for her but she is one of the most polarising figures in American politics. Republicans hate her even more than Obama and the partisan divisions that brought congress to an infuriating standstill would likely have been worse not better under her leadership.


Obama has disappointed a lot of democrats (particulalry young ones) as he way over sold what he could realistically accomplish. He basically suggested he could reshape American politics in 4 years. He also disappointed as a leader as he didn't always have a clear vision or conviction. And who can be happy with the levels of unemployemnt and weak recovery (though clearly not all down to him!)


With that said he did more than I thought he would. Having lived through the Clintons' attempts in the 90s to reform Health Care, I thought that campaign promise was impossible. The political goodwill you need to burn through in America to get that done is impossible for Europeans to imagine. Obamacare is deeply unpopular (among the electorate and Republicans) and put his re-election at risk. That along with officially allowing gays to openly serve in the military will be his legacy in decades to come.


I saw both the concession and victory speach and I am thrilled both men asked for Americans to come together and the stop the political stalemate in congress for the good of the country.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I work with a fair few americans (mainly openly

> democrat) and even they are slightly bemused by

> western europe's hero worship.


Tis true. I recently emailed some online US friends of different political persuasion (Democrat, Republican and Independent) asking them for their thoughts on the US election and who they'd be voting for. Unexpectedly the Republican was the least vociferous of the three...


The Democrat


You know, I am very left wing and have felt betrayed by Obama on a number of important issues. Many broken promises and a failure to act strongly. So for the second time in my life I did not vote for the Democrat. I voted Green for the first time. I could not do the lesser of two evils because sometimes I think the dreamer who violates his promises may actually be the more evil.



The Republican


I've been looking forward to this election for 4 long years now and can't wait to get it over with and hopefully get this country turned around again.



The Independent


I will be glad when our election is over. I am what they call an unaffiliated or independent voter and not particularly fond of Obama. I vote for the person I think will be best for America. I think Obama has been a terrible President overall. He has lied to us, not fulfilled his basic responsibilities nor his promises and is nothing more than a Chicago style political animal. His party has ignored our laws (and Obama has as well plus flouted existing laws) and shirked their/his responsibilities. I know Europeans think he is swell because he has bought into carbon as a source of "global warming" and cozied up to the riffraff in the Middle East and Europeans are entitled to their opinions. As an American I think he has been a terrible President. If he is elected I will honor him as my President but I will never support his policies.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I

> work with a fair few americans (mainly openly

> democrat) and even they are slightly bemused by

> western europe's hero worship.


I think last time a lot of it was a mix of myopic idealism and absolute sweaty-palmed relief that the old guy and the mad, bad witch didn't get in.


Like falling to the ground in teary-eyed gratitude when the good guys arrive at the end of the film and drive the flesh-eating zombies away.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Second term, doesn't need to worry about getting

> reelected, so now he can forget about upsetting

> people and get on with it.

>


xxxxxx


Yep. Thank God (or whatever) Romney didn't get in.


How do people like that get so far? I know we've had some crap prime ministers, but really ..... sometimes Americans just seem to back anyone who vaguely appears to be breathing .....

To be fair RD,I think this

"I know Europeans think he is swell because he has bought into carbon as a source of "global warming" and cozied up to the riffraff in the Middle East and Europeans are entitled to their opinions."

says more about your mate than it does Europeans.


I do find the hero worship a bit odd, but 90% of it can probably be explained by his STILL not being George Bush and his nefarious cronies.


A political animal is exactly what he is, and given the polarisation of the country and the massive inertia of the Washington machine I think he's probably steered a pragmatic course in domestic politics, bringing down spending in real terms and changing the direction of federal emphasis about as quickly as you could a superduperwoopertanker.


I'm ambivalent about his foreign policies. "Buying into carbon..." hilarious. Actually what he's attempting to do is

Limit the USs exposure to energy risk by reducing dependence on carbon sources from the riffraff in the Middle East, and as quids has often been at pains to point out, much of that strategy is increasing the output of more carbon sources in the US.


He has returned to a multilateral approach and has genuinely reclaimed moral leadership for the US in the world, sensibly leading from behind in Libya and cajoling and encouraging the Arab spring (not that such riff riff know what to do with democracy obviously, look at the wonderful gift of democracy they were given in Iraq and how they didn't do what they were told with it), and walked softly whilst being seen to carry a big stick regards China, plays well with the voters and with the powers that be in China, though is stoking the fires of nationalism there, and more dangerous fires there are not in this world.


He's pulled/ing out of deeply unpopular not to mention pointless and expensive wars, more kudos, but on his targeted assassinations I think he's in danger of killing the soul of America the way it has done of Israel.


As Otta said, he now has a mandate to take more risks, but ultimately I don't think he has an idea of how he want s to reshape America except to aim to try heal some of the deep wounds of partisanship in politics.

How you go about that I don't know, religion as a political force is very much that proverbial genie bottle situation, and it'll take more than the good will of a president of any persuasion t solve that.

Don't worry EP, I rebuffed my 'mate' about the carbon and riff raff comments, and gave him a good dose of British cynicism about politics in general to boot ;-)

As for Obama now having a mandate, he still has to work with a Congress that has a strong Republican majority...cue compromised deals in (carbon free) smoke filled rooms.

The election coverage reminded me that Gore Vidal's acerbic wit is no longer with us, in his place Newsnight reeled out Martin Amis..enough already!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...