Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FearfulJesuit]

But I still can't ignore that she's only reversing her position now that the TPP has suffered major leaks and popular opposition to it has intensified, at the same time as positioning for the presidential election is beginning in earnest.  It's really really really hard for me to believe that she's doing this for sincere reasons.

Who cares about the sincerity of reasons? It's practically a given that the Soviets didn't crush Nazi Germany because they were horrified at the concentration camps, and neither did the US - but I'm still thankful that they did and consider it the right choice. As long as it's not just a campaign stunt - and I thinkk it isn't, anti-TTIP sentiment is too wide-spread for that - her motives don't matter, her actions do.

Who would you rather have: A very moral, kind, considerate politician who is horribly ineffective, or a nasty sonofabitch who gets the job done?

Yep. If you look at the American presidents of the 20th century, two names stand out as upright, moral, compassionate men- Hoover and Carter. Hoover saved twenty million lives after World War One by organizing European famine relief; Carter was the only Cold War president who really, truly preferred peace to war.

Both of them are widely regarded as ineffective failures whose inability to solve the country's problems paved way for their successors (FDR and Reagan) to rewrite the rules by which American politics operates. Unfortunately, this isn't a coincidence.

[SalmonGod]

And yeah, I do agree with others that promoting TPP as Sec. of State was kind of her job. Just like all the Army generals who turned into vociferous Iraq War critics upon retirement. You suck it up and tow the official line while they're paying your paycheck.

Yeah, like I said, I hadn't thought of that when I originally posted... but like with your example of retired army generals, there has to be a line where you realize that the consequences of your work are bigger than your career.  Howard Zinn had some things to say about this, which I agree with.  Obedience is a serious problem.

Who would you rather have: A very moral, kind, considerate politician who is horribly ineffective, or a nasty sonofabitch who gets the job done?

This is a false dichotomy, though.  I would rather have moral in every case.  If the ideal is for people who are both moral and competent to occupy positions of authority, then holding to universal standards of integrity seems only common sense.

The nasty sonofabitch who lacks sincerely good intentions will only accomplish good things incidentally, and poses a far greater threat of accomplishing bad things.  You invoked WW2, so I can easily counter that Hitler was a competent nasty sonofabitch.  An incompetent good guy would very likely have been better.

Both of them are widely regarded as ineffective failures whose inability to solve the country's problems paved way for their successors (FDR and Reagan) to rewrite the rules by which American politics operates. Unfortunately, this isn't a coincidence.

In my opinion, this is not a problem with the logic behind electing people based on their integrity, but a severe cultural flaw with the belief that accomplishing the wrong thing is better than accomplishing nothing.  And this is definitely not misframed, as I have had some very heated discussions with people using these exact terminologies - people who honestly believed that a leader who accomplishes negative things is better than a leader who accomplishes nothing and stated it exactly as such.  Blows my fucking mind.

[Helgoland]

Who would you rather have: A very moral, kind, considerate politician who is horribly ineffective, or a nasty sonofabitch who gets the job done?

This is a false dichotomy, though.  I would rather have moral in every case.  If the ideal is for people who are both moral and competent to occupy positions of authority, then holding to universal standards of integrity seems only common sense.

The nasty sonofabitch who lacks sincerely good intentions will only accomplish good things incidentally, and poses a far greater threat of accomplishing bad things.  You invoked WW2, so I can easily counter that Hitler was a competent nasty sonofabitch.  An incompetent good guy would very likely have been better.

Heh, Hitler was very far from competent. There's even the story about the Allies deciding not to assassinate him because it would aid their war effort more.

And it's not a false dichotomy, we're just talking about different things: By 'nasty' I meant the person's behaviour, not the person's goals. Imagine two people who align with you to the iota ideologically, one of them being that kind, considerate person and the other that nasty sonofabitch. Whose campaign would you more likely back?

[Frumple]

... probably the former. All things actually being equal, they're a lot less likely to effectively self-suicide their campaign by burning bridges.

[nenjin]

Isolate and demonize them until their speech is considered on the same level as violent jihadis.

(I'm not saying they should be socially tolerated- they definitely shouldn't be. But ostracism can only get you so far.)

It's what gets you put on the terrorism watch list, is what it does. Like I said, violence against blacks goes a long way back and up to today, where many in power may vocally oppose violence against minorities but they don't do squat to legislate against it, because "free speech." Define those groups as terrorists, give their activities the full attention the Federal government and terrorism task forces and see how fast you start catching "last sane men" who are basically broadcasting their desire to kill someone publicly months before it happens, probably in a Facebook photo displaying some unlicensed, illegal weapons. Put some of that domestic intelligence gathering to use against a threat that's older than Muslim Extremism, for once.

[mainiac]

Or you could just direct law enforcement resources to that problem and arrest them for those illegal weapons without creating a terrorist martyr cause.  The fewer people labeled terrorists the better, imho.

[SalmonGod]

Heh, Hitler was very far from competent. There's even the story about the Allies deciding not to assassinate him because it would aid their war effort more.

He was competent enough at just the right things (and granted just the right set of circumstances, yes) to accomplish horrible things of a magnitude not many hateful motherfuckers can boast.  Seriously, if he was incompetent, then how come more raging bigots don't rack up body counts in the millions?  If nothing else, I've always heard him credited as a brilliant orator.  He knew how to get people fired up.

And it's not a false dichotomy, we're just talking about different things: By 'nasty' I meant the person's behaviour, not the person's goals.

Ok, this is a misunderstanding due to you specifically identifying one option as 'moral', thus I interpreted the other as being not moral.

Imagine two people who align with you to the iota ideologically, one of them being that kind, considerate person and the other that nasty sonofabitch. Whose campaign would you more likely back?

Depends on the circumstances.  In most cases, I'd likely stick with the former.  But I acknowledge that circumstances can call for the latter.

But this isn't relevant, because the original question was "Who cares about the sincerity of reasons?"  If I know and trust the ideological alignment of these two people, then what you're saying is that in this hypothetical the sincerity of reasons isn't being called into question... so I don't understand what you're getting at.

[mainiac]

Seriously, if he was incompetent, then how come more raging bigots don't rack up body counts in the millions?

Freakishly long odds.  Starting the war in 1939 was a fools errand and then after amazing luck he invades the Soviets where the real body count shows up.

[SalmonGod]

Seriously, if he was incompetent, then how come more raging bigots don't rack up body counts in the millions?

Freakishly long odds.  Starting the war in 1939 was a fools errand and then after amazing luck he invades the Soviets where the real body count shows up.

Turning an entire country into a cult of personality that will follow your stupidity beyond the horizon of all hope and morality, without the advantage of being born into privilege, takes some talent.

[mainiac]

Well yeah but a lot of dictators do that.  Stalin and Mao showed much more talent.

[Angle]

Hitler was very competent - at politics. Dude went from being a washed up soldier to being the leader of nations. Then he went and fucked it up by screwing with the war effort like an idiot, but eh.

[RedKing]

Isolate and demonize them until their speech is considered on the same level as violent jihadis.

(I'm not saying they should be socially tolerated- they definitely shouldn't be. But ostracism can only get you so far.)

It's what gets you put on the terrorism watch list, is what it does. Like I said, violence against blacks goes a long way back and up to today, where many in power may vocally oppose violence against minorities but they don't do squat to legislate against it, because "free speech." Define those groups as terrorists, give their activities the full attention the Federal government and terrorism task forces and see how fast you start catching "last sane men" who are basically broadcasting their desire to kill someone publicly months before it happens, probably in a Facebook photo displaying some unlicensed, illegal weapons. Put some of that domestic intelligence gathering to use against a threat that's older than Muslim Extremism, for once.

Not gonna happen, nor should it happen. Because what constitutes "terrorist speech" can be very much in the eye of the beholder, or rather the government in power.

What happens when a sentiment like "eat the rich" or "kill all the lawyers first" starts getting treated as threats of terrorism? Hell, some on the Right tried to get the Occupy movement labelled as a terrorist group, and indeed the FBI treated it as a potential terrorist group. Some people tried to link the anti-war movement to terrorism (such as when someone set off a pipe bomb near the Armed Forces recruiting station in Times Square in 2008. Or when they tried to get Cindy Sheehan labelled as a terrorist for camping out in front of Bush's ranch.

[Bohandas]

Hitler was very competent - at politics. Dude went from being a washed up soldier to being the leader of nations.

He was also a washed up artist. Don't forget that.

[nenjin]

What happens when a sentiment like "eat the rich" or "kill all the lawyers first" starts getting treated as threats of terrorism? Hell, some on the Right tried to get the Occupy movement labelled as a terrorist group, and indeed the FBI treated it as a potential terrorist group.

Funny how the KKK and the like, which was been committing acts of terror and talking about acts of terror against a very specific group for decades still isn't considered a terrorist group, but a movement that sprang up and died down in a year managed to get there with nothing more than a huge demonstration. Further to my point I think that some hate groups get at least indirect protection from the government from the logical extension of the war on terror mentality, because their views have been American views for over a hundred years now.

I do think the shoe fits sometimes, but we never seem to put it on the foot that's been begging for it for years. I'm not eager to put free speech in the crosshairs of law enforcement, but when it come to some American groups, law enforcement has turned a blind eye for decades, after decades, after decades. I advocate a strict reading of what people say to establish a link between what gets said and what happens. You talk about killing or fighting or intimidating a group and it happens, you get watched just the same as someone who is brown and hates America and say Allah a bunch.

[Aqizzar]

As long as nobody minds something a little more concrete being poured into the discussion, one good thing to come out of this tragedy was reminding a bunch of Republican state governments that they're still flying the Confederate battle flag in some places, and y'know, that's kinda offensive to a lot of people.

In a stunning show of sensibility, the South Carolina government including Governor Nikki Haley and the (Republican) majority leaders of both chambers have said it's definitely coming up for a vote, and Haley at least is adamant on the flag being removed from the state capitol.  Better late than never anyway:

The General Assembly's session ended on June 4, but lawmakers are meeting Tuesday to pass a budget compromise, at which point they can vote on extending the session to debate the removal of the Confederate flag. A decision to continue the session would take two-thirds of the vote, as would passing legislation to take down the flag.

If they don't, Haley said she would use her authority to call them back into session to debate on the flag.

"The murderer, now locked up in Charleston, said he hoped his actions would start a race war. We have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening," Haley said. "My hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move our state forward in harmony, and we can honor the nine blessed souls who are now in heaven."

The call for action is a departure from Haley's original stance on the flag. "Outside groups are free to voice their concerns and problems with it, but revisiting this issue is not part of the governor's agenda," her spokesman, Doug Mayer, told the Post and Courier in 2013. And when Haley ran for re-election last year, she said the flag wasn't an issue.

If you're wondering about the procedural notes, this same debate happened in 2000 and the state legislature struck a compromise vote, the the Confederate flag would replaced with a less famous but virtually identical version, moved across the lawn to a Confederate Soldier memorial (instead of over the capitol itself), but in exchange the flag's placement could not be moved again without a two-thirds majority vote by both chambers.  That includes even lowering the flag to half-mast.  Which it was not, on the day the governor went outside to talk about it.

Both of South Carolina's federal senators also called for the flag to be permanently removed.  They're both interesting characters, for senators.  One is Tim Scott, South Carolina's first black Senator and the first from anywhere in the old Confederacy elected since 1881; Scott was appointed by Governor Haley after Jim DeMint left to be a lobbyist, but was reelected by an off-year ballot.  The other is Lindsey Graham, one of the twenty-odd people running for President and a hardcore conservative on every imaginable issue; Graham was also originally appointed to his seat when Strom Thurmond finally died after about a century in office, who once ran for President on his own Segregation Party ticket (I shit you not).

Meanwhile, Republican candidates across the country have been auditing their campaign donations for money sent by white-supremacist group leaders who Dylann Roof namechecked.  Most of the removed money is being donated to the victims' fund set up by Charleston's mayor Joseph Riley, a weirdly likeable Mayor-For-Life character you'd expect from the Andy Griffith show but without the subtly-racist background of the real 1960s.  Likewise, several retail outlets include Walmart are pulling Confederate-flag-themed merchandise from sale, at least as fast as they ever pull anything from sale.

That's all well and good.  But the fact that a strong market exists for such things, or that South Carolina wrote into law a supermajority test for even talking about removing the Confederate flag from display, or that the Sons of Confederate Veterans insists there is no connection between the Confederate flag and people who would commit murder in its name, should tell you that distinctly southern nationalism is not going to quietly vacate American politics any time soon.

Republican politicians across the country are rightfully and thankfully and laudably finally getting on the right side of history and calling for symbols of the Confederacy to be removed from the public.  But there's a gulf of difference between denouncing a symbol and denouncing the problem it represents, and there's a lot of people out there who certainly aren't violent but don't kindly to anything they culturally identify with being criticized.  For reference, see Governor Haley's terminally rising disapproval ratings even prior to last week.  And we're still more than a year away from a very big election, and no story lasts very long.  I'm wondering if next summer, anybody in the Presidential debates is going to have the guts to follow Jon Stewart's lead and ask, "Do you believe domestic hate groups are as dangerous to America as foreign terrorists?"  I'll be surprised if it happens, but at this point, I'm optimistic that there's at least a chance of it happening.