Grumpy Middle-Class American
This one is in part a response to Susan’s post Now Talk, but I can’t blame it all on her. In any event, here’s the connection.
I read the excerpt from Gore’s book that was printed in time magazine, and was impressed. OK, I’m a Democrat, and completely under-whelmed by my current choice of Presidential candidates, but that’s my bias, not my point. Here it is: As I read the Time piece on Gore, I had two almost simultaneous thoughts: 1) This seems like a smart and capable guy who could get things done for the country and maybe the world.
So far you’re thinking standard Dem blah blah. OK, fine. Replace Gore with a name and face that YOU think has some guts and ideas and let’s go on to my next thought. 2) I don’t want him/her/whoever to run for President because I think he will be more effective as a private citizen.
Let me run that past you again because it’s the core of this post. I read about a public figure whose ideas and intellect seemed powerful and interesting to me and my next thought was that I don’t want him to waste his time being President of the United States.
Now, if this sounds perfectly reasonable to you, then my apologies for wasting your time. But it was an absolutely new, and very frightening thought for me. The really scary part was that it ambushed me over my coffee and English muffin. Up until this point in my life I has sincerely believed that the U.S. government was fundamentally sound and that all we needed to do is put our best people in elected office, and as a country we could solve any problem that came our way. Not without a great number of screw-ups, but in the end we’d end up better than we started. Honest. Call me Pollyanna or just plain stupid, but I thought it would work. I guess not any more.
At some real level I guess I now see our government as generally an obstacle to positive change. I think we have now become one of those sad countries where the government is simply a cross to be born and paid for, but generally ignored when real work needs to be done.
You go choose who you want. I’m going to read Gore’s book. I may even see if I can do some work for him, as long as he doesn’t seek high U.S. political office. I don’t have that kind of time and effort to waste.
Be Human. I’m going on vacation. I’ll work on the brave part.
June 11th, 2007 10:38
Hi Grant-
A little cynical today, are we? : )
Ok, I’m scared, because I see you point. It goes along with Gillian’s point on “Now Talk Among Yoursellves,” suggesting that the US is on its way to becoming marginalized and irrelevant. I hadn’t thought of that, but now I see it as a real possibility, in part, due to the administration. So when I look at it like that, I see that Gore could do better outside the White House.
Still… what if we DID have someone (not necessarily Gore, but SOMEONE) who was actually intelligent, motivated, open-minded, hard-working, non-partisan who became president? (OK, that person may not exist, but SUPPOSE). Maybe we coudl work our way back from where we’ve fallen. I don’t like being a subject of international derision. We can’t please everyone, but when there are so many against you, a reasonable person would think…is something wrong?
I still have a little hope left. That may not last long, but it’s there. We’ll see if there’s anything left by Nov. 2008.
Susan
June 12th, 2007 01:54
I agree, our government has become a hinderance as far as change goes. It saddens me everytime I think about it. I still have hope though, hope that our voices will be heard and change will come about.
June 13th, 2007 16:14
When debating about the type of person to be in high office you might all like to read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. He is very astute as being a PR man, as to what goes on, how presidential candidates for example are selected by a very few people. It’s no conspiracy theory book, he wrote it to try and put the word of the title back into a good light. Propaganda after the US had been lead into the first world war got a bad name.
With regard to the US drift downward on the world stage. I read a statistic about the Chinese having around fifty percent of their students graduating with a science or technology degree. I don’t recal the figures for the USA but they were significantly lower.
This may sound daft but high energy costs, excuse me while I drift a little, may actually help. In the UK salmon is shipped to China, boned and shipped back, and this is cheaper than getting local people to do the job!
It depends how adapatable people and countries are, this depends upon eduction. Germany for example is very into renewable energy, such technology may not be very economic now, but they will be in a great position in decades to come. Countries reflect their population, many seem scared of change and plod along ‘the way it’s always been done’.
Well Grant have a good vacation and enjoy the book.
David
June 14th, 2007 05:10
While we have seen some bad years for progress over the last few, I wouldn’t want to give up on the idea of politics and diplomacy that separated a functional working government from the private free enterprise sector. In the end if you want an issue such as say, global warming, to be effected, your private industry will have to persuade politicians. If we give up and say, “we don’t want to bother putting intelligent, qualified individuals in office.” then who are you going to put there that will need convinced. Dumb, unresponsive, unqualified, power hungry politicians. I know that is the current state anyway. But leaving the qualified out of the government is like promoting the black jack dealer of a cruise ship to captain’s position because the navigator does a great job of reading the charts.
June 17th, 2007 07:21
Grant,
I hope you enjoy your vacation.
All,
I’m confused as to why you think progress has only stopped over the last several years? That sounds like a partisan statement. I guess it depends on your definition of “progress”. If it’s pacifism, then you’re correct; if it’s protection/defense, then you’re wrong…well, maybe not (see the goofy immigration bill).
It looks to me like our political parties work hand in hand, with both refusing to bite the hand that feeds them (lobbies, business, 527s and unions). This has caused us to have an inverted government; it doesn’t do the things it is called by the Constitution to do, but does the things the Constitution does not call it to do. (Remember, the Constitution explicitly indicates what government is to do; whatever it not explicitly granted to the government is implicitly denied.)
I agree with Grant’s assessment, and I have thought that way for some time. Who would want their greatest thinkers and doers to be subjected to the campaign circus every year when they could get actual work done instead? And, since were a federalist union, why would we want a centralized location where government makes all our decisions for us, anyway?
Rick
June 18th, 2007 13:42
Hello all. Vacation was nice.
When I got back, sitting in the mailbox was the current issue if Time. The cover story was entitled “Who Needs Washington” and was focused on the actions of state and city governments in the US in response to the gridlock and dysfunction at the Federal level. Check it out if you so choose.
Thanks all for the comments, and welcome to the new players on the site (Leigh, Lord of Logic and David).
Susan & Leigh: I’m going to both follow the election and vote with (some) hope in my heart, but I fear that this problem is much deeper than any simple change in administration. We can metaphorically hold hands and hope for the best together.
L of L: You hit the logical flaw in my clearly emotional post. Regardless of the crappy state of the federal government, having smart dedicated people in the institution is STILL a good idea. But I have to agree with Rick as far as this NOT being a problem restricted to the last several years.
David: I agree that we need to be flexible to meet the challenges of a changing world. My worry is that the government (especially at the federal level) has become essentially non-functional. Forget flexibility, how about movement of ANY kind?
Rick: Here’s my problem. I agree with you to a great extent (hence the post), but in more sober moments I still come back to the (at least theoretical) importance or power of a central government in at least a few basic areas. These come down to issues where the lack of a consistent and sane national policy causes us a great deal of problems. We’re going to disagree about this, but do you have an alternative answer? It scares me silly to think of the current federal government (all three branches) having significantly greater control of these areas, but the state and locals don’t seem able to do it. I am NOT a constitutional scholar in any sense, so I am unable to look at these issues from that standpoint. I’d love it if you could.
-Schooling: The state and local governments control the public schools. One look at Mississippi vs, Massachusetts will let you know how well that’s working out.
-National defense: The feds seem to be the only logical choice, almost by definition
-Healthcare: I’ve talked about before on BH. It’s at least as broken as the school system and would also seem to need some sort of consistency across state lines.
-Others?
-Grant
June 20th, 2007 06:43
Grant,
I would say that defining and executing national defense, loosely governing interstate commerce (minus the pork, subsidies and bailing out of corporations), and national infrastructure (i.e. highways, etc.) fall under that centralized category. When it comes to schools and health care, we do have disagreement. Even if it could be done, I believe the politicians are too tainted, self-serving and party serving to perform this function. In these areas, government becomes “mom” to the people, which I don’t believe is its function.
Back in the 90s, I started commenting that politicians and special interest groups were politicizing a lot of concerns that were apolitical. Now, practically nothing is apolitical…and “W” wasn’t even President yet! (Gee, I thought our current President caused all our country’s problems? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.)
I’m nowhere close to being a Constitutional scholar, either. One site that has helped me learn more is The Tenth Amendment Center.
Rick
July 28th, 2007 20:20
The issue of central control and universal outcomes versus local control and widely divergent outcomes is fundamentally a political and social question related to the role of government.
If you want similar outcomes you must advocate for a central plan and the use of force to mandate it. You do forfeit quite a bit of freedom in the exchange.
If you want local control and the possibility of widely different outcomes, then local and state control is your best choice. You forfeit quite a bit of uniformity in this exchange.
The Framers original intent was to leave the States to each seek their individual choices allowing for a variety of answers to social and business questions. It was assumed that there was a difference in the desires, needs, and wishes of each state. I recall a quotation about the states being laboratories of democracy. It was never intended they have similar rules and laws.
We have huge variances in local rules and laws, and we tolerate those with only minor difficulty. Can we not allow states to have variances according to the will of those governed ?
It has been said that ” The government that governs best, governs least “.
I believe the problem of loss of freedom in a central authority and the belief that a central planner knows what is best for me is more injurious than the disparity of outcomes among different populaces according to their preferences and the pursuit of happiness as they see it.
Sincerely,
Denis Hogan