|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 2:29 am Post subject: Senate Compromise |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
But of greater import, the deal on the rights of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominees avoids a showdown that could have shaken the traditions of the Senate, weakened the powers of the minority and threatened the comity the Senate needs to function.
And there were other political implications, as well, including the shape of the Supreme Court, the midterm election in 2006, Bush's legislative agenda and the next presidential race, especially the prospects for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and potential GOP rival Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona.
"We tried to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said McCain, who led the compromise effort with Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb.
|
It looks to me like the same deal that was rejected late last week. I can't find any differences. But anyway...
Like all compromises, it doesn't satisfy the true believers in the group but is something I can live with.
The most disturbing thing, IMO, is the apparant willingness of the GOP to change rules for short-term political gain. We saw it in the Shiavo thing and then again in this nuke option thing. (I refuse to call it the constitutional option, which is what Frist wants people to call it--the filibuster is based on 200 years of tradition, not the Constitution).
It will be interesting to watch the political fallout. Of the 7 Dems and 7 GOPs, which ones are going to be punished most by their constituencies? My guess is that McCain just upped his shot at the presidency. And Senator Warner is no longer Mr. Elizabeth Taylor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On this topic:
here
| Quote: |
By Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thu May 26, 1:00 AM ET
As Democrats tell it, this week's compromise on judges was about much more than the federal courts. If President Bush and congressional allies had prevailed, they say, the balance of power would have been forever altered.
Yet, amid the partisan rhetoric, a little-noticed fact about modern politics has been lost: Republicans have already changed how the business of government gets done, in ways both profound and lasting.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record) (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
The transformation started in the House in the 1990s and intensified with Bush's 2000 election. The result has been a stronger president working with a compliant and streamlined Congress to push the country, and the courts, in a more conservative direction, according to historians, government scholars, and current and former federal officials.
Some of the changes, such as a more powerful executive branch, less powerful rank-and-file members of Congress and more pro-Republican courts, are likely to outlast the current president and GOP majority, they say. The Republican bid to ban the filibustering of judges made it easier for Bush to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and holds open the threat of future attempts to erode the most powerful tool available to the minority party in Congress.
"Every president grabs for more power. What's different it seems to me is the acquiescence of Congress," said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), a government scholar at the Aspen Institute.
When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, conservatives turned an institution run by Democrats and veteran chairmen into a top-down organization that looked in some ways like the flow chart of a Fortune 500 business. The idea was to put power in the hands of a few leaders and place conservative loyalists in the most important lower-level jobs to move legislation as quickly as possible through Congress, according to current and former lawmakers.
Those who cross party leaders often pay a price, usually by losing positions of influence. Most recently, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.J.) lost the chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee after clashing with party leaders over spending and other issues. At the same time, loyalists are rewarded. The result, writes American University's James A. Thurber in a forthcoming book on Congress and the presidency, is less powerful representatives facing increased pressure to carry out their leadership's wishes.
The GOP unity has led to speedy passage this year of legislation to make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy and a budget plan that makes way for more tax cuts and oil drilling in Alaska wilderness.
With control over the House Rules Committee, which determines which bills make it the floor, how they will be debated and whether they can be amended, Republicans have made it much harder for Democrats to offer alternatives -- for example, a smaller tax cut than one Republicans advocate. Democrats also are increasingly shut out of the final negotiations on legislation between the House and the Senate before bills are sent to Bush for his signature.
Also moving in this direction is the Senate, where Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) seized control of selecting committee members after the 2004 elections increased his majority to 55 seats.
"Anybody with a brain knew once Republicans got their hand on the wheels . . . there was going to be punishment" because they felt silenced and slighted when Democrats were in control, said former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.). "It's unfortunate."
Bush created a top-down system in the White House much like the one his colleagues have in Congress. He has constructed what many scholars said amounts to a virtual oligarchy with Cheney, Karl Rove, Andrew H. Card Jr., Joshua Bolton, himself and only a few others setting policy, while he looks to Congress and the agencies mostly to promote and institute his policies.
President Bill Clinton oversaw a transition of government away from strong agencies, which historically provided a greater variety of opinions in policymaking. "On the surface it looks like Bush is doing this better than Clinton, but there is much more going on," said Paul C. Light, an expert on the executive branch.
Light said Bush has essentially turned most of the agencies into political arms of the White House. "It's not just weakening agencies but strengthening political control of the agencies," he said.
Major policies such as Social Security are produced in the White House, while Cabinet heads and their staffs are tethered. After the 2004 election, the White House began requiring Cabinet members to spend as long as four hours a week working in an office near the West Wing.
"The fact they hold close their Cabinet members is a plus -- it makes for less freelancing," said Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Bush has demanded similar loyalty from GOP lawmakers -- and received it. Republicans have voted with the president, on average, about nine out of 10 times. Critics and some scholars charge that the Congress now seldom performs its constitutional duty of providing oversight of the executive branch through tough investigations and hearings.
This has coincided with a dramatic increase in overall government secrecy. In 1995, the government created about 3.6 million secrets. In 2004, there more than 15.5 million, according to the government's Information Security Oversight Office. The White House attributes the rise in information the public cannot see to the security threats in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.
But experts on government secrecy say it goes beyond protecting sensitive security documents, to creating new classes of information kept private and denying researchers access to documents from past presidents.
"We have never had this kind of control over information," said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. "It means policy is being made by a small clique without much public scrutiny."
Now, the Republicans, with the support of the White House, are looking to reshape the courts in their image. The Senate's bipartisan compromise on judges will cost the president a few of his nominees to the appeals court but will require him to secure only 50 votes for future picks for the Supreme Court and other openings. If Democrats filibuster, Bush and Republican senators can move again to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" and, if successful, prevent the minority party from ever again using the filibuster on judges. "I will not hesitate to use it if necessary," Frist said this week.
Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) has been assigned by GOP leaders to look for new ways to provide oversight of the federal courts and tougher discipline for judges. In a recent interview he said some judges have "deliberately decided to be in the face of the president and Congress." Senate Republicans are weighing legislation to limit court authority, as well.
"I think they are looking for an influence quotient," Bond said.
But Washington traditionalists -- veteran Republicans among them -- warn that the new breed of GOP leaders is trampling time-honored procedures designed to ensure that multiple voices have influence on the most important matters in government.
"I would remind my friends that you may one day be in the minority and you won't want to be [run] roughshod over," said former minority leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.), who served in the House for 38 years, 14 as leader. |
The GOP may well pay dearly for this later, and I believe that will mean that we all will suffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The GOP may well pay dearly for this later, and I believe that will mean that we all will suffer. |
Could you expand on your thoughts, please? I'm not quite sure I know what you mean.
As for the article...
It was interesting to see so many quotes critical of current trends coming from Republicans. There are clearly some Republicans who are very nervous about what has been happening. A split in the party seems to be in the wind.
More later. It's 1:30 am and I'm too sleepy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All I mean is that after the GOP has its way, the American people may not suffer to allow the Republican party to be the majority. At that point, the Democrats may 'run roughshod,' to use Robert Michel's words, over the Republicans. But even as someone who favors the Democrats, I wouldn't want this happening. Was it you, Ya-Ta, who was stressing the importance of compromise in the American legislature? That's all I'm saying. If the GOP goes too far, eventually they'll have to pay. And then, Americans might get another period without compromise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I see what you are saying.
Yes, it was me who stressed the idea of compromise in democratic systems. Do you know Alasair Cooke? He made a multi-part TV series on US history a long time ago. In one of the parts he said that the genius of the American system could be summed up in 3 words. "Compromise. Compromise. Compromise." I liked how he put it and used it when I was teaching history.
Congress is not set up in a TV-friendly way. All the work is done in committee, not on the floor. All that happens on the floor is the final vote, the outcome of which is almost always known beforehand. It's in the committees that the compromises are worked out. By changing all these committee rules, the GOP is overturning 200 years of custom as well as rules. It's frightening.
It is not my observation but several commentators have said that the last time Congress was so divided and so hostile was the decade before the Civil War...the only time when compromises could not be reached. I sometimes wonder if that is the direction we are going now. In fact, the announcement that many northern and eastern military bases are going to be closed and the military concentrated in the south and west gave me the willies.
I've only been back here for 4 months, so I've only been exposed to the full brunt of American media for a short time, but it's my impression that things are already starting to change. I think I have seen in the last 2 months more use of the word 'radical' and 'out of the mainstream' in reference to the conservative wing of the GOP. But as I said, I've only been back a short time. But I think parts of the media are starting to highlight the extremists.
One example. There was a long piece on CNN the other night about religion at the Air Force Academy. One of the chaplains is complaining that evangelical Christians are proselytizing at the Academy. Some of them are threatening Jewish cadets. Others are pressuring underclassmen to convert to their brand of Christianity. The chaplain says she is being transferred to shut her up. It's the second report on this incident in the last couple of weeks.
The point I'm trying to make in the last two paragraphs is that the reaction to GOP extremism seems to be setting in. (The Terri Shiavo case may have been the turning point.) This Senate Compromise is a great example. For the first time, moderates in the GOP stood up to the leadership and blocked the nuclear option, even though there will likely be fallout from it come re-election time next year.
I'm not sure you are right that the Democrats will ride roughshod over the Republicans if they become the majority again. The traditional manner, when either party was the majority, was to seek some level of compromise. I'm hoping for a return to that. But you never know. Maybe the Dems will hold a grudge and get even. I suspect they have learned an important lesson, but maybe not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to add to your points, which I largely agree with, it seems that the elections in 2004 radicalized the House and to a lesser extent the Senate. My understanding was that the Democrats are more liberal and the Republicans are more conservative. Rove banked his election strategy on energizing the Right rather than courting the middle. It seems as if American politics is becoming more divided. As a moderate who leans left on domestic affairs and right on foreign policy and who has more sympathy with Democrats than Republicans (although more respect for Senator McCain than Senator Kennedy), I am not personally happy about any of the recent developments.
Concerning Democrats behaving badly. I conjure up an image of Democratic dominance in the 30s and 40s under FDR's aegis. They were up to all the things I revile Republican Inc. for doing now, including court-packing (FDR actually had the gall to pack the Supreme Court!) and strategic redistricting of representative districts, aka jerrymandering. And as you are a history teacher, I am sure I don't have to remind you of the Republican response to FDR. Surely, the 22nd amendment stopped short Republican executive dominance as much as it has Democratic power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that when Dems controlled all branches of the government they were able to go too far. I like the check and balance system with the branches of government separated and the legislative branch divided. Most of the time one party controls at least one of the branches and that forces at least a minimum of compromise. It's healthy. But even when the Dems controlled everything, the far left didn't control the party. They didn't try to drive the moderates out of their party. It appears to me that the GOP is trying to drive the moderates out.
About FDR's court packing attempt. Remember that he wanted to add justices to the Court but his own party rose up and stopped him. In the end he did get to appoint a lot of justices, but it was as they retired in the normal way. And there was no policy of appointing only extremist judges like there is now. Ironically, the most famous 'liberal' justice was Earl Warren and he was appointed by Eisenhower.
What especially bothers me is that Republicans have held the White House for all but 12 of the last 35 years and they still claim the Judicial branch is controlled by the liberals. I just can't accept their claim. More than that, it is the threats to 'punish' judges that really disturbs me.
I don't know what I am. I know I'm a conservative when it comes to tinkering with the Constitution. I didn't support the ERA and I don't support this move to add a ban on gay marriages. The Constitution is not for short-term political goals. It's meant to be a blueprint for how we govern ourselves. (I find that 800 page EU thing hilarious. What on earth were thinking when they wrote that?) I know I'm a fiscal conservative and get outraged when either party passes a bill without attaching funding to it. It's just wrong! If a conservative is someone who is cautious about making changes, then I am a conservative on Social Security. Seventy years is plenty long enough to establish a program as 'custom'. It's neither liberal nor conservative to say that when you make a promise you have to do everything in your power to keep that promise. I don't take "Oops" as an acceptable excuse. The traditional conservative mistrust of big government was always healthy, but lately it has gone too far. I think Reagan was as wrong as he could be when he said government is the problem, not the solution. That is too extreme. It looks to me that when in power the GOP likes big government just as much as the Dems used to, but just in different programs. That is not 'mistrust of big government'. That's hypocrisy.
These days, I can't tell if I'm liberal or conservative on foreign affairs. I used to know, but I'm convinced that the parties have flipped positions on foreign affairs. The Dems used to be the internationalist party. It is clear under this administration that the US has an extremely active, interventionist foreign policy. Too active and too interventionist for my taste.
I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid the US was admired and respected. No one can say that now and that makes me truly sad. And disgusted. Not long ago I watched Band of Brothers. In the episode about the liberation of Holland I was really moved when the Dutch came out in the streets, waved flags and kissed the soldiers. It made me feel really patriotic and proud of what my Dad's generation did for the world. Shortly after that I read a piece somewhere about an old Dutch woman that is afraid of the US. What's happened to us?
Like you, I admire McCain. I was impressed with him and the others in that Gang of 14 moderates. The ironic thing is that some of the talking heads on TV say McCain is the most unpopular man in the GOP. Last summer there was talk for a few days of McCain running as Kerry's VP on a kind of national unity ticket. That kind of thing would be the best thing that could happen to this country right now.
You said that you tend to favor the right on foreign policy. I'd like to hear more about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| You said that you tend to favor the right on foreign policy. I'd like to hear more about that. |
'
It's just that the Right seems to have an activist foreign policy while the Left seems oddly conservative and isolationist. I don't support the overdose of ideology in Bush's foreign policy but nonetheless one does need ideology at the very least as a cover. Crass pragmatism doesn't win hearts and minds. Remember Kerry's all too logical statement that (paraphrasing) "We need to get the targets off our soldier's backs," in reference to recruiting European support? Sharp logic. Dumb thing to say.
At any rate, our interventionism hasn't alienated everyone in the Muslim world. I just wish Iraq hadn't been done so sloppily.
Meanwhile, Kerry's cries for protectionism turned me off. More tariffs would just start a trade war, and anyway, in not just my opinion but also Peter Stephens', spokesman for Asia at the World Bank,"Trying to deal with the emergence of China and the rise of India through antiquated measures like tariff protection is like trying to hold back the tide with a little wall of sand."
But anyway, you posted this from an article on another thread and I would love the see the Democrats adopt it. It's about time they came to a consensus on a foreign policy initiative.
| Quote: |
| Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's just that the Right seems to have an activist foreign policy while the Left seems oddly conservative and isolationist. |
I think we have seen an historic change in party philosophy that we haven't seen since 1917. Before WWI the Dems were anti-imperialist, the form of international relations in those days. Teddy R was the big internationalist, what with his big stick, Rough Riders and White Ships and everything.
By the end of the war Wilson proposed the League and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge squelched it. That has pretty much been the alignment ever since. The Dems kept getting accused of starting all the wars.
From my perspective, this has suddenly changed. The GOP is now the one advocating sending out the Marines to fix the world. A lot like they did in the 1890's. I don't think the Dems are going to become isolationists, but they are going to have a hard sell taking the internationalist approach--getting 'permission' from foreign countries to use the military.
Globalization is here to stay and the Dems are having a hard time with it. They are traditionally the blue collar party and these Free Trade deals don't protect the interests of the working class. It's one thing to transform the economy from an industrial base to an information base, someone has to create education/training programs to help workers transition from one to the other...and make plans for the people who can't become computer engineers. The GOP doesn't care a whit about doing that. It appears to me they want to cancel the 20th Century and recreate the Gilded Age.
| Quote: |
| nonetheless one does need ideology at the very least as a cover. Crass pragmatism doesn't win hearts and minds |
Personally, I'm for crass pragmatism.  I think you get yourself into trouble when ideology gets mixed in. I've never yet seen an ideology that is 100% right, so it distorts the world view.
| Quote: |
But anyway, you posted this from an article on another thread and I would love the see the Democrats adopt it. It's about time they came to a consensus on a foreign policy initiative.
|
Yes, it is. The biggest trouble with the Democrats is the lack of real leadership. Kerry was unable to offer a vision of what to vote for; he was just a vehicle to vote against Bush. Not an effective strategy. I don't know why they are having such a hard time. One of the reasons is that they focus too much on the Senate. Senators very rarely get elected president. Governors do. The trouble with that is governors from small Northeastern states are not going to have any traction in the South and you can't win without splitting the South.
There was an interesting episode on The Daily Show earlier this week. Joe Biden (Del.) was on. Stewart asked him about running for pres. He mentioned that he supported McCain running with Kerry. I thought bringing that up again now was odd. Maybe it's just my fantasy, but I think there is talk going on among factions in the circles of the governing class about a party shuffle. Good news if true. The moderate wing of the GOP reasserted itself in that Gang of 14. I think they're deeply disturbed by this right wing cabal running the government now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| have to wait and see what happens in 2006. If the GOP loses quite a bit, then the moderates will definitly be empowered. If the GOP loses hardly any seats or, heaven forbid, gains seats, then I'd say the right-wing ideologues will remain in control of the GOP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| have to wait and see what happens in 2006. |
Good points. Biden says the GOP can't lose control of Congress in '06. I'm sure he's refering to the gerrymandered congressional districts that prevent seats from being competitive. It's one of the unsung scandals in US government. Of course, this doesn't affect the Senate.
Even so, they can lose some. From what I hear, Santorum is in trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| Globalization is here to stay and the Dems are having a hard time with it. They are traditionally the blue collar party and these Free Trade deals don't protect the interests of the working class. It's one thing to transform the economy from an industrial base to an information base, someone has to create education/training programs to help workers transition from one to the other...and make plans for the people who can't become computer engineers. The GOP doesn't care a whit about doing that. It appears to me they want to cancel the 20th Century and recreate the Gilded Age. |
I don't think it's the government's job in America to provide job training, and frankly it's not necessary. I really think many Americans are adept enough at seeking out education opportunities and availing themselves of mid-career shifts and late age technical training via night classes. That being said, I think that there is plenty of policy the Democrats should enact. The problem is they don't have a majority, so they don't sit in the pilot seat. All they can do is obstruct or agree. If they obstruct important legislation they can look petty, but if they agree reluctantly they look weak and spineless (which appears to me to be BB's common characterization of the Dems).
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| Personally, I'm for crass pragmatism. I think you get yourself into trouble when ideology gets mixed in. I've never yet seen an ideology that is 100% right, so it distorts the world view. |
Well, I am not so much against that, although certainly you must agree that you must cushion the message with ideology. I am not talking about shoving full-scale propaganda down peoples' throats, but I am saying more often than not that policymakers should appeal to the final ends that their policy drives towards.
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| Maybe it's just my fantasy, but I think there is talk going on among factions in the circles of the governing class about a party shuffle. Good news if true. The moderate wing of the GOP reasserted itself in that Gang of 14. I think they're deeply disturbed by this right wing cabal running the government now. |
I think it is largely fantasy. Given that the game is bent in the GOP's favor, I don't see why the Gang of 14 would jump ship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think it's the government's job in America to provide job training, and frankly it's not necessary. I really think many Americans are adept enough at seeking out education opportunities and availing themselves of mid-career shifts and late age technical training via night classes |
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. The purpose of public education is (mainly) to prepare kids to take their place in the workforce. Since colonial times education has been seen as a social responsibility. I see adult education for jobs as a natural extension of this. Especially when whole industries close down. (I don't think the gov't should provide the training, but it should provide grants for education and support for training programs.)
I see it in the same light as tax incentives for corporations to build new plants, construction of highways and other infrastructure to service new industries. Helping train new workers is helping business and society. It also helps prevent poverty and the results of poverty--divorce, crime, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse.
In short its good social policy to invest in an educated work force and it shouldn't stop when we turn 18.
There was a report last night that unemployment figures for June are 5%. I remember being shocked when I was in high school because the policy at the time was that 5% is 'normal' and desirable. Business needs a flexible and moble work force. OK. But why should workers suffer poverty because business wants workers who can uproot their families and move anywhere in the country? And why should it always be the same 5%? It shouldn't.
[/quote]I think that there is plenty of policy the Democrats should enact. The problem is they don't have a majority, so they don't sit in the pilot seat. All they can do is obstruct or agree
| Quote: |
I agree. It's important to remember that while nationally the Democrats are weak, they do regularly elect state governors. The national parties are, after all, just a coalition of state parties. The Democrats need to be more creative in progressive policies at the state level.
|
Well, I am not so much against that
| Quote: |
We may be pretty close in outlook on this one. The kind of ideology I was talking about was the silliness of some of the posters here at Dave's who complain the US supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran back in the 80's and then turned against him in the 90's. That makes perfect sense to me.
However, I'm not a fan of crusades. I think Wilson's 'make the world safe for democracy' and a 'war to end all wars' were inspiring and motivating, but ultimately disillusioning when he was unable to deliver.
A little more on the 'crass pragmatism'. I used to teach an AP course in high school. We always read Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. It was so much fun to debate the idea of morality in politics. Machiavelli said it was important for the prince seem moral, but suicide to actually be moral. The kids would get all riled up arguing with each other. Highly entertaining.
|
I think it is largely fantasy. Given that the game is bent in the GOP's favor, I don't see why the Gang of 14 would jump ship.
| Quote: |
You could well be right. I've been known to engage in wishful thinking before. But I do keep hearing comments that the 'country club' Republicans are very disgruntled at the rise of the evangelical Right and their loss of control in the party.
There is an opportunity there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't think it's the government's job in America to provide job training, and frankly it's not necessary. I really think many Americans are adept enough at seeking out education opportunities and availing themselves of mid-career shifts and late age technical training via night classes |
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. The purpose of public education is (mainly) to prepare kids to take their place in the workforce. Since colonial times education has been seen as a social responsibility. I see adult education for jobs as a natural extension of this. Especially when whole industries close down. (I don't think the gov't should provide the training, but it should provide grants for education and support for training programs.)
I see it in the same light as tax incentives for corporations to build new plants, construction of highways and other infrastructure to service new industries. Helping train new workers is helping business and society. It also helps prevent poverty and the results of poverty--divorce, crime, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse.
In short its good social policy to invest in an educated work force and it shouldn't stop when we turn 18.
There was a report last night that unemployment figures for June are 5%. I remember being shocked when I was in high school because the policy at the time was that 5% is 'normal' and desirable. Business needs a flexible and moble work force. OK. But why should workers suffer poverty because business wants workers who can uproot their families and move anywhere in the country? And why should it always be the same 5%? It shouldn't.
| Quote: |
| I think that there is plenty of policy the Democrats should enact. The problem is they don't have a majority, so they don't sit in the pilot seat. All they can do is obstruct or agree |
I agree. It's important to remember that while nationally the Democrats are weak, they do regularly elect state governors. The national parties are, after all, just a coalition of state parties. The Democrats need to be more creative in progressive policies at the state level.
| Quote: |
| Well, I am not so much against that |
We may be pretty close in outlook on this one. The kind of ideology I was talking about was the silliness of some of the posters here at Dave's who complain the US supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran back in the 80's and then turned against him in the 90's. That makes perfect sense to me.
However, I'm not a fan of crusades. I think Wilson's 'make the world safe for democracy' and a 'war to end all wars' were inspiring and motivating, but ultimately disillusioning when he was unable to deliver.
A little more on the 'crass pragmatism'. I used to teach an AP course in high school. We always read Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. It was so much fun to debate the idea of morality in politics. Machiavelli said it was important for the prince seem moral, but suicide to actually be moral. The kids would get all riled up arguing with each other. Highly entertaining.
|
If you're talking about the government providing grants for education, particularly for secondary education which is quickly becoming far too expensive, then perhaps I do agree with you. In terms of jobs training and what not, however, I think there are plenty of private institutions that are affordable and do good work. I'm not at all trying to downplay the role of education. It's half the battle. Sometimes more.
I agree with you about unemployment. Back in the 30s, people were paid to not farm. What's wrong with paying 5% of the population money not to work to keep a healthy economy, provided people do not stay chronically unemployed?
Wilson was certainly too ideological and not my favorite President. I have more fondness for T. Roosevelt's style of foreign policy.
As for Machiavelli, I highly recommend Discourses on Livy, which is even better than the Prince and puts Machiavelli's ends in a clearer light. But the Prince would be a fun one to throw at the youngsters. Enough to get them thinking without warping their minds (like too much early exposure too Nieztsche does).
[Edited to fix quote bracketing] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
