It doesn’t HAVE to. Your scenario is optimistic. Mine’s a little more…skeptical? of politicians not being self serving power hungry leeches given their perceived lack of civic virtue. Although, in that power struggle, if politicians are necessary, I’d much rather have the boat rocked being rocked in the middle rather than at the extremes - a low amplitude wave.
Why not both? If you’re a Dem in Congress you can, to this day, go agree to vote yes on ANY piece of GOP legislation on the grounds that some GOP schmuck who negotiated for a perk in exchange for his “Yes” lose it. GOP takes that deal 100 times out of 100.
I said it before the other day, but if a Dem isn’t intentionally not walking up to the door on legislation you know will be passed and start negotiating for your Yes vote then he/she is a moron.
Shit you can even be taking pot shots at your opponents WHILE pretending to be bipartisan. If a bill’s going to pass anyway they’re all just wasting political points.
Absolutely. I just don’t think MORE laws are the answer to a lot of what the issues are - however moderate they may be.
I don’t think “more” in a numbers thing are the answer, but the govt could CERTAINLY use a mass cleanup of all these micro shit laws that sneak their way into larger bills. 100 years of pols sucking corp dick for donation money racks up a really hefty number of laws, especially in the last 25.
There are two types of “moderates” for me.
-
Cold-blooded, poll-watching, un-principled Machiavelli types who will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. They’ll reach across the isle if it furthers their goals.
-
The principled pragmatist. They want a unicorn, but will settle for a quarter horse if it’s the best they can do to help their constituents.
2 Likes
I think we agree for the most part.
1 Like
I think you guys pretty much hit this already but getting things done doesn’t have to be more laws or at least not more things that make no sense. Like you said if you have to have politicians why would we want the nutso people both sides have? And yet both sides have moved towards these purity tests where we keep getting lunatic candidates. Shit Roy Moore should have lost because he’s a lunatic. It took him being a pervert to get beat.
(What’s even more disturbing, H, is that the guy still almost won. This was not a landslide/ “mandate” election at all…)…
I just wanted to emphasize a point you made:
“…Both sides have moved towards these purity tests where we keep getting lunatic candidates…”
This is troubling…but I’m not quite sure what the answer is.
More than two viable parties.
2 Likes
Been saying this on the forum for years. We know the system is beyond broken but people still vote straight ticket and for sides.
2 Likes
Um, not really.
Obama was a Columbia and Harvard-educated law school graduate that taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. He first ran for public office at the age of 36.
He certainly may have been angling for a career in politics, but he did plenty with his life before formally entering public office.
Trump, we all know, has done plenty with his life before (officially) entering politics.
It’s bizarre to rail about the problem being “career politicians” when neither of the last two Presidents really meets that definition. Regardless of how you feel about either, it’s not like these guys went into politics because they had nothing else to do with their lives.
At least 4 of the last 6 really and arguably all 6. Clinton and Bush I might fit the description, but Bush 2.0, Reagan, Trump, and Obama don’t really imo.
1 Like
3 really … GWB owned the Texas Rangers and started an oil exploration company in the 70’s before becoming Texas Governor
2 Likes
Yeah, I thought about going further back and outlining everyone’s CV, but didn’t feel like going all the way. I agree with you guys though.
First, I don’t think being a “career politician” would be a complete disqualifier; and second, as you guys have pointed out, most of the guys that have made it to the highest office in the land did something before getting there.
1 Like
Obama did not do plenty. He taught. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not impressive when measured against others.
Meanwhile George Washington only won the War for Independence.
There aren’t a whole of opportunities to lead a revolution…
3 Likes
I would say it’s lack of conviction more than opportunities.
mmmmkay…