Before a single primary has been held we have lots of prognosticators talking about the potential Democratic candidate.
Based on his efforts to date, the current President seems to think that Joe Biden is the likely candidate, or at least the one he is most nervous about.
He may become the candidate, but then again he may not.
If we knew who we were going to support before the process plays out, we wouldn't need the process.
Some of the candidates are starting to become better known, and others are fading.
If you were to look back to 2008, at this time the front runner wasn't the eventual nominee.
We have to do the process and hopefully select the best man or woman for the job.
We have hardly started yet.
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Fresh Blood
One of the things that is as certain as death and taxes is that people age.
This is a natural event and it can't be stopped.
Of course we live in an age where people live longer than ever and we like to imagine that age is something we can control, but of course we can't.
Watching the debate last night I simply couldn't get past one fact, the leading candidates are older than they really should be.
It is both a physical issue and mental one potentially but its more of a cultural one.
They may or may not experience significant deterioration in four to eight years, but certainly they are high risk. However listening to their answers they tend to reflect things not as relevant as they once were.
Take Joe Biden's attitude toward Marijuana, which he tried to correct last night but considering how most of his life he was in a world where it was considered bad he has deep cultural embedding to overcome.
Similarly, Elizabeth Warren thinks fondly of how her brothers served, and remembers inaccurately I think her mother checking the mail each day. A letter made her day and assured her the son was still alive. Her fond memories of military or alternative service was one step short of reinstituting the draft and her response seemed to assume only men would be asked to serve.
I generally think Bernie Sanders simply reflects the radicalism of his youth and while it plays fairly well, it just seems dated to me.
We are what we were and the world these folks grew up in is not the world of the future. There has to be a time when we pass the baton on to a new generation, and it just seems like its time.
This is a natural event and it can't be stopped.
Of course we live in an age where people live longer than ever and we like to imagine that age is something we can control, but of course we can't.
Watching the debate last night I simply couldn't get past one fact, the leading candidates are older than they really should be.
It is both a physical issue and mental one potentially but its more of a cultural one.
They may or may not experience significant deterioration in four to eight years, but certainly they are high risk. However listening to their answers they tend to reflect things not as relevant as they once were.
Take Joe Biden's attitude toward Marijuana, which he tried to correct last night but considering how most of his life he was in a world where it was considered bad he has deep cultural embedding to overcome.
Similarly, Elizabeth Warren thinks fondly of how her brothers served, and remembers inaccurately I think her mother checking the mail each day. A letter made her day and assured her the son was still alive. Her fond memories of military or alternative service was one step short of reinstituting the draft and her response seemed to assume only men would be asked to serve.
I generally think Bernie Sanders simply reflects the radicalism of his youth and while it plays fairly well, it just seems dated to me.
We are what we were and the world these folks grew up in is not the world of the future. There has to be a time when we pass the baton on to a new generation, and it just seems like its time.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Social Democracy
We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric about how the Democrats are pushing a socialist agenda.
The reason for that is that the word Socialism has negative connotations in this country. We have associated it with both Communism and to some extent with National Socialism (NAZIs). Certainly it is not well explained, at least in undergraduate classes, as a system.
Socialism simply means looking at the welfare of the many as opposed to letting a few accumulate all the wealth and property. There are examples of socialist societies where this concept taken to an extreme led to reduced economic opportunity for all. That is not either a universal or foregone conclusion of implementing social policies.
If you consider Western Europe you see many examples of socialist type policies that have not led to the disintegration of the economies. Providing things like education, health care, job opportunities and pensions has not destroyed their economies. Generally what you see is a trade off between higher taxes and higher benefits but because of these policies pretty much everyone is guaranteed a certain standard of living.
The question really is are we a society which cares for its members or just a collection of individuals where only the fittest survive?
If you favor the second option, what do you think the poor and disenfranchised are going to do?
We are the richest nation that ever existed and yet we have significant groups that get inadequate education, inadequate health care and insecure old age benefits.
Shouldn't we do better as a society?
Is that socialism? Does it matter?
The reason for that is that the word Socialism has negative connotations in this country. We have associated it with both Communism and to some extent with National Socialism (NAZIs). Certainly it is not well explained, at least in undergraduate classes, as a system.
Socialism simply means looking at the welfare of the many as opposed to letting a few accumulate all the wealth and property. There are examples of socialist societies where this concept taken to an extreme led to reduced economic opportunity for all. That is not either a universal or foregone conclusion of implementing social policies.
If you consider Western Europe you see many examples of socialist type policies that have not led to the disintegration of the economies. Providing things like education, health care, job opportunities and pensions has not destroyed their economies. Generally what you see is a trade off between higher taxes and higher benefits but because of these policies pretty much everyone is guaranteed a certain standard of living.
The question really is are we a society which cares for its members or just a collection of individuals where only the fittest survive?
If you favor the second option, what do you think the poor and disenfranchised are going to do?
We are the richest nation that ever existed and yet we have significant groups that get inadequate education, inadequate health care and insecure old age benefits.
Shouldn't we do better as a society?
Is that socialism? Does it matter?
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Infighting
It always seems that success leads to distractions in politics. The Democrats have taken control of the House but the big story concerns the revolt against Nancy Pelosi.
She has significant baggage since she was the speaker of the house the last time the Democrats were in charge.
She has a big role in passing the affordable care act but at the time she took a lot of criticism.
Any politician in a position of power is going to get criticised but th criticisms of Pelosi have taken on a life of their own.
She has been a staunch supporter of Democratic policies and equal opportunity, but she has had to make compromises over the years.
Compromise is not acceptable to some of our newly elected Progressives but they should realize compromise is the oil that gets things done.
Moving the party further left is fine but taking extreme positions isnt. It's also important to choose the right battles and fighting over the leadership after an electoral victory probably isnt.
She has significant baggage since she was the speaker of the house the last time the Democrats were in charge.
She has a big role in passing the affordable care act but at the time she took a lot of criticism.
Any politician in a position of power is going to get criticised but th criticisms of Pelosi have taken on a life of their own.
She has been a staunch supporter of Democratic policies and equal opportunity, but she has had to make compromises over the years.
Compromise is not acceptable to some of our newly elected Progressives but they should realize compromise is the oil that gets things done.
Moving the party further left is fine but taking extreme positions isnt. It's also important to choose the right battles and fighting over the leadership after an electoral victory probably isnt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)