Progressives (Liberals)

@Olivier5,

How do you feel about the situation of the current government in France?

@georgeob1,

I think the government should go. The French system has this safety valve where a president can fire his prime minister and nominate a new one with a different policy or approach, so when one government stumbles the president can just chose another... In effect, the prime minister acts as a "fuse" in the 5th republic. Very convenient. This current government is composed of civil society folks, i.e. non-politicians, and most of them are below 50 (if not below 40). So they are inexperienced and have accumulated a lot of mistakes and rancor. It's time for Edouard Philippe and his team to go.

Otherwise, if Macron cannot redress the situation, your favorite Le Pen will get elected in 2022...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

This dem primaries thing started nice, but it's now descending into total chaos...

Great example of "human nature" at work.

Quote:

A bunch of mealy-mouthed, divided, change-adverse incrementalists will never beat Trump.

But a single one might. Trump won't be facing all of them.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I generally agree with what you wrote. I didn't mean to infer that ALL the misery and suffering in the modern era were the result of failed efforts to impose ill-conceived utopian schemes on generally unwilling population - only that the largest and most prominent and well-known examples of human misery in this era resulted from it.

I agree that incremental progress has indeed been achieved, mostly in the area of preserving human welfare and freedom in a still changing world with continuing advances in technology, industry and agriculture. However I reject "progressive" initiatives based on the presumption that the political processes of governance can simultaneously reform the human character and still ensure individual freedom.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I believe Le Pen is merely the French manifestation of a populist wave that is affecting politics throughout (most of ) the Western World. There are real issues behind it, probably well-known by both of us. How these matters are resolved will, of course, vary from country to country - and properly so.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In contrast My strong impression is that Hillary had an enduring "likeability" problem throughout the Clinton era, one that continues today. She projects needless abrasiveness, self promotion and contempt for those who don't support her.

I wish she'd just retire and quit being put in the spotlight or seeking it. She actually was an effective senator and she should have stayed there. She blew her chance to work effectively for her constituents and serve the country by running for president. Human nature at work: I must have more power...only I can do it...everyone likes me...

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However I reject "progressive" initiatives based on the presumption that the political processes of governance can simultaneously reform the human character and still ensure individual freedom.

Can the church (or Jesus) reform human character? Can education? Parenting? Codification of laws with courts and policing? Torture? Political oppression?

Why would you choose the term "reform" when other relevant and more realistic terms might be used here. Can we not alter how humans, en masse, think and behave? Is the US Constitution totally ineffective?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I believe Le Pen is merely the French manifestation of a populist wave that is affecting politics throughout (most of ) the Western World.

Yes but at the same time, her party has roots in the Vichy regime. This global wave of populism you are talking about is NOT disconnected from the history of fascist regimes; in fact it could be seen as a backslash against the "liberal consensus" that dominated western political philosophy since WW2. It's telling to look at their favorite villains: the UN, NATO, the EU are all institutions built after the war to try and prevent another war, and it is not a coincidence that the populist mafia wants to get rid of them.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Persuading or influencing individual free humans, whether through education, religion, or even government action is one thing. Requiring behavior that conforms to government policy in areas beyond the constitutional or cultural bounds of a country is quite another.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

But a single one might.

Not if his/her camp is divided and full of hate for itself.

That is why it was important to maintain a certain decorum during the primaries, which are bruising enough when well-mannered. Clinton stating: "everybody hates Sanders" is not simply her lying -- plenty of folks like Sanders, including in Washington, although I grant you that the lobbyist and political insiders Clinton tends to mingle with may not like him too much; it's also her bringing her modest contribution to Trump's second term.

To say: "I won't vote for him if he's nominated", after Sanders voted for her in 2016, is beyond mean: it is just plain stupid.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Persuading or influencing individual free humans, whether through education, religion, or even government action is one thing. Requiring behavior that conforms to government policy in areas beyond the constitutional or cultural bounds of a country is quite another.

So, we aren't talking about "reforming human character" or "changing human nature" at all then. We're talking about modes of persuasion or coercion and debating which are acceptable - acceptable to some participant(s). Correct?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

There is no reason to believe that no matter how many ardent followers he has, Sanders will be effective as President. His history suggests otherwise. Regardless of your thoughts on Clinton, her comments are on point.

0 Replies

Quote:

Philip Bump
@pbump
I've said before and I'll say again that one of the most significant failings of the American educational system is the lack of any formalized training in logic or rhetoric.

Yes! Before I concluded that I wouldn't likely find a happy home as a teacher within our educational system, I had begun working on plans to develop ed Grade 5 and up through high school curricula to address this critical omission.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

So, we aren't talking about "reforming human character" or "changing human nature" at all then. We're talking about modes of persuasion or coercion and debating which are acceptable - acceptable to some participant(s). Correct?

Note my reference to constitutional limits. We have explicit limits on the powers of government and a specification of the inviolable (by government) freedoms of individuals. Even there we see near endless debate regarding the interpretation and boundaries of these issues. In such matters I tend to be on the side of individual freedom. Government established subsidies, enforceable requirements or laws do not constitute either influence or persuasion.

1 Reply

Quote:

Rebecca Ballhaus
@rebeccaballhaus
White House officials would block any attempt to include testimony from Lev Parnas in the Senate trial, sources tell @MichaelCBender. ⁦WSJ

Of course they'll try and of course McConnell will play his cover-up role. Evidence is unwelcome in this "trial".

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Note my reference to constitutional limits.

I did note that. It's a completely valid area of discussion, of course. But you're jumping off the point. You made a claim or insinuation that "progressive" (or "liberal", I suppose) policy ideas seek to "change human nature". That's a straw man argument serving no explanatory function. Francis, for example, is not trying to change human nature any more than his predecessor. Sanders is not trying to reform "human character" any more than Trump is.

So let's drop that unthoughtful cliche and straw man claim.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Given the centrality to the charges raised in the Impeachment, of former VP Biden's actions, regarding his forced termination of earlier Ukrainians anti corruption investigations, together with the (as a minimum) stark appearance of a serious conflict of interest on his part regarding (1) his role as manager of our relations with Ukraine, and (2) his son's employment as a director on the board of a Ukrainian company, subject to that investigation, and operating in an industry in which he had no experience, do you believe either Biden or his son should be called as witnesses?

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Evidence is unwelcome in this "trial".

That should work out well then, the Democrats have no evidence.

0 Replies

@blatham,

No straw man at all. I would limit government's actions to compel human behaviors in many areas still open to persuasion or influence from other non governmental civic or social organizations. The limits called for in our Constitution apply to potential efforts by government to govern behavior, and not those involving individual choice or influenced by non governmental organizations to which they voluntarily adhere.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

To say: "I won't vote for him if he's nominated", after Sanders voted for her in 2016, is beyond mean: it is just plain stupid.

Let me correct meself. To be precise, and according to CNN, she only “declined in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter to say whether she would endorse and campaign for [Sanders] if he's the Democratic 2020 nominee.” She can still decide to support him IF he turns out to be the nominee, I guess...

Still a very sloppy stance. She should say: I will support any nominee, as we all said here at some point or another. (?)

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary/index.html

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know