Ronald Reagan doesn't count because it had been so long between his movie career and his political career (as far as I'm concerned, that is. I only knew him as President.), but with Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota, and pressure on Warren Beatty, Arnold Schwarznegger, and Oprah Winfrey to run for office, what the heck are we thinking? I've heard that Beatty has some political experience besides acting in political movies, maybe not as much as Clint Eastwood or Sonny Bono, but certainly more than Oprah, but I've never heard how much. Judging from this lineup, are we to elect our officials based on their celebrity status? I'd say this is a frightening turn of affairs. My god! Back in the 80s we might have elected Spuds MacKenzie! (Anybody remember him, or am I too crusty?)
I have a radical proposition. Why don't we stop electing our leaders based on their monetary clout, or based on their celebrity status. Why not just elect them based on their platform, goals, and philosophy? After all, the president is not the one who ultimately forges policy; that's why presidents have their massive apparatus of clerical, executive, and advisory support. All a president has to do is set an agenda, define a direction of progress, and push the country in that direction. In that respect, I can't see why an actor, or even a rock star, couldn't do just as well as a professional politician. In fact, I would stipulate that the less of a professional politician a leader is -- the better. That way, perhaps we would hear less lies and evasions. Perhaps, the leader wouldn't be indebted to his former industrial and political bedfellows for his/her success, and forced to speak with a forked tongue. In fact, the more outspoken and controversial the leader -- the better. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Wow! Electing our leaders based on their ability to lead! What a concept! Unfortunately, the idea might be TOO radical for some people to accept. A good number of people that I know who wote do so based on party affiliation only. I think it's a stupid way to vote. For my own reasons, I chose to go Republican. Still, I vote Democrat, Reform, or whoever has the best platform for my opinion. Sometimes I'm wrong (I was with Lungren, and I'm glad he lost). Sometimes I'm not wrong, but the guy who beat my candidate still does a good job. Unfortunately for educated voters such as myself (educated voter! now that's a nightmare for a politician!), a movement was stuck in to put only members of the pary you registered with on the polls you received. Thus, I would only see the Republican point of view and my friends would only see the Reform or Democrat point of view. Happily, this measure was batted down and hasn't come up again.
The problem with electing leaders based on their ability to lead is ... well, OK .... * Presently, in the United States of America, you have to be one of two major parties to receive the funding necessary to mount a presidential media campaign. In those parties, you are obliged to commit to the platform, else you lose funding. * Since the citizens of the United States seem to hold with capitalism/social darwinism, they have nothing to complain about. The leaders Americans elect have no concern for other people--this is bad in a capitalist system. It leads to softening of resolve and inappropriate sentiments of human value. Of course these elected leaders are out for their pocketbooks and their clout; the present regard for money and authority marks anyone concerned with the larger good unfit to lead. * Since jobs, money, and credit are so important, people are unwilling to address the problems of their society en masse. Rather, while it would be nice to educate better or retool law enforcement, it costs too much money. Can't disrupt the economy, you know. * Among the United States, at least, the citizens work for their economy. This seems strange to me, since economy exists in nature. Unfortunately, the "economy" argued about in politics has nothing to do with natural economy. It is a managed economy, and not a natural force in the United States. People are slaves to their own vision of prosperity. I think Ronald Regan was a wise choice for Republicans. By placing a senile old man with sentimental prejudices into the White House, they left the image makers to spin a policy together. The GOP needed a salesman, and Regan was it. The idea that constantly borrowing, borrowing to pay off, and borrowing some more generates money has worked. The American economy is almost self-sustaining. However, the price is ridiculous. It means dividing the society based on petty differences, maintaining a permanent lower class of laborers in order to "keep prices low". (What does it matter if prices are low if the laborer has no money?) There is nothing going on among the United States that its people did not directly will into being. Thus, instead of blaming a system that taxes people's abilities beyond performance, we lay our stresses at sin's door. It isn't that we're overworked and underpaid. It's that someone else is smoking pot or having sex with someone else's wife, or red meat or religion that's wrong with the country. Thus, we ensure that nothing ever changes. I think this all makes some kind of sense. Let me know if not. Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Perhaps we need to outlaw special interest groups and create a citizen's bureau to keep an eye on the presidency. Besides the "senile old man" we currently are saddled with a horny old pervert. Unfortunately, where I am there live a lot of Democrats who seem to dismiss "good ol' Billy" and his indiscretions while villifying any Republican who does the same or less. This sort of "Old Boy" network has to go. But how do we go about it? With a new party?
How do we go about it, Oxygen? Well, whether it's a new party or a resurrection of an old party, one thing is certain... The support of the media will be required for success. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 11, 1999).]
Oxygen, I will not deny that Clinton is a dirty-minded, mysogynistic, egomaniac, I would argue that his crimes were civil and not criminal in nature. Republicans have done worse and gotten away with it. I mean, lets remember Iran-Contra please. Tiassa, your point about maintaining the status quo is quite sound. Politics such as in the States are based on the Process theory. That is that if the process by nature is sound, than the outcome must be. However, as we all are aware, no major changes ever happens. There are some very convincing arguments that the most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. any takers? ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
Regarding "Dirty Ol' Bill". Two quick points. * Which Democrats and which Republicans (dismissal/vilification)? What comes to mind for me is a Republican senator from Minnesota who dodged prison in '89-90 after having sex with a sixteen-year-old girl in a hot tub in front of his 15 y/o daughter. Also there's a Democrat from (I think) Illinois who went up the river for having sex with an underage prostitute. Mind you, I'm sure there's more, but the scandals are too many to care about, which might be another reason Clinton came through this one virtually unscathed. * I think the notion of Clinton committing perjury collapses under two burdens: A) I expect Clinton to lie about a hummer; especially when his private conduct is brought to light through felony acts. B) Perjury by public officials is nothing new. I would venture a guess that we, as a nation, must let Clinton get away with perjury at the price of protecting other nastiness. After all, how many police officers perjure themselves in court every day? Check the War Against Drugs--it's every cop, every day. If we nail Clinton for his "perjury", we have to reopen every drug conviction in which officer testimony was key. From this, we then have to settle any number of civil and criminal complaints against said officers; "Just following orders" will not suffice here. So Republicans especially, who support the WAD, can't hang Clinton for it, else other favorite parts of the status quo hang with him. Wow. A few more words than I thought. But I think the ripple effect is huge. What the Clinton persecution will demonstrate in the long run is in the hands of the American people. But one of the grand results of the Clinton administration in general is a favorite sound-bite of mine: "The only truly presidential people are smart enough to not run." After all, being president gets you sued, slandered, and broke. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Okay, a little more on topic. I promise. I like the topic title, so "Color me frightened, but ...." * In 1994, Oregon voters passed campaign reform law capping donations and closing loopholes that allow corporations to donate large sums by pooling money on behalf of their employees. The result? That politicians would have to press the flesh and stick around the home district to foster election funding. Thus, the voters' will now passed to the Legislature, the state policy-makers threw out the election mandate on the grounds that "The voters didn't really know what they were voting for." * In 1997, the State of Washington faced an "Any-Willing-Provider" election, which would have included chiropractors and naturopaths in health plans and eventually busted HMO theory. The people rejected it. Their number one reason? Rates would go up. The source for this conclusion? The boards of directors of three large insurance firms: Premera/Blue Cross, Aetna, and SAFECO. The reason they would have to raise rates? None given. * In the same 1997 election, King County, Washinton voters faced a simple question: Whether or not to maintain the current level of funding for county-level Emergency Medical Services. This ballot is required by law on a regular period. Voters rejected it: end of EMS in King County. The result? Scrambling by state and county-level politicians to organize a special election by which the people could disclaim themselves and reinstall EMS. We know that voters are this dumb in the United States, but what's it like elsewhere? Election results like I've seen in the nineties reminds me of A. Whitney Brown, of Saturday Night Live fame. He once said, of illiterate people: "We cannot forget our unlettered friends and neighbors, for they will appear on the barstools next to you, stealing your peanuts and telling you the Aliens wrote the Rosetta Stone. Some of them may even vote." (That's paraphrased, actually, as I can't find my source to copy it w/f/w from.) Color me scared, indeed. Before we can address the problems of the representatives the people elect, should we at least give some consideration to the state of the voters themselves? It's disgraceful. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
You are quite right, Tiassa. I remember that a dead person once got elected to local office. (Do you think the voters knew and were trying to send a message?) Tee-hee!
Late addendum ... not so much dumb voters as, "I'm sorry you had to vote in this one...." How about David Duke versus Buddy Roemer (spelling?) for Governor? Between a racist and a felon, Louisiana chose the felon. ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
tiassa-Ever wonder what happened to some of Clinton's closer associates that have come up missing or dead?
One of the sketchiest things I ever heard of from the Clinton administration happened about the summer of '95. A guy working in the IS department showed me his morning AP Wire capsules over our morning break. It seems that, during the Vincent Foster suicide controversy, one of VP Gore's men took a mysterious tumble off the Golden Gate. Regardless of the implications of foul play, it seems we would have heard about it in the major papers. But not a peep. I still wonder what the administration was afraid of to quell a story like that. But in the end this administration is no more crooked than the last. Consider ... if Regan, then Bush, then Clinton let the Chinese steal nuclear technology, it keeps a large threat out there. Threat equals military complex equals jobs equals economy equals votes. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
The only differene between Clinton and so many others is that Clinton got caught. I still feel that he should have been impeached though.
Vanja-- The only two problems I had with Clinton's impeachment are: * The investigation opened as the result of a felony committed against one of the parties consenting to the act--Tripp's recordings are felonious. * The release of such detailed information as our perversity was entitled actually violated Clinton's civil rights. He may be President, but he's also a citizen of the United States, and therefore entitled to the same protections as you and I. But in the end, Ken Starr and every member of Congress who voted to release such material violated Clinton's due process. While it is unfortunate that none of them will ever go to prison, I think it's worth noting that nothing in the Constitution either protects Congress, or empowers them to protect Starr under these circumstances. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Very good points. ------------------ "I have to go. I have to...I have to go now."-from Mrs. Doubtfire
*raises the dead* FEAR MY NECROMANTIC POWER!!!!!!! and discuss the issue after 7 years of time have passed.
jesus, i wasnt even at high school when this thread finished, i was 9 years old. is the oldest revival thread ever?
clinton's sexcapades were highly overrated. i would bet that every single president since garfield has had some sort of sexual indiscretion while in office. why is it that so many times more money was spent investigating clinton than was spent investigating the september 11 incidents? is it because the answers are known by those that hold the reciepts for the bombs used?
As a Californian I think Arnold is doing a pretty good job considering what he has to work with. A state strangled by 1930s-style limousine liberals and government employee unions like the NEA. He seems to be bright enough to choose his battles and know when to give up on one. And I'm sorry, I really appreciate a politician who doesn't take himself too seriously. I just recently saw him do a cameo in a 2004 remake of "Around the World in 80 Days" with Jackie Chan and he was just wonderful as the Sultan of Turkey. Every state elects the prominent figures from its leading industries to office and film is ours. Reagan was not regarded as a joke, neither during his governorship nor his Presidency, regardless of how our tiny intellectual demographic here may view him. Many Republicans still look back on him fondly, although I don't see how they can feel that way about the man who added the extra zero to the national debt. I suppose maybe in comparison to the Republican Presidents who came after him he was a great leader. One thing you can say about entertainers, most of them have extremely good "people sklls," it comes with the territory. Their job is to make people happy. That doesn't sound like too bad a mandate for a politician. Spuds McKenzie, Pee-Wee Herman, Q, Stimpy, can anyone name a figure from 80's TV who would have made a worse President than the one we've got? Who has a lifelong career in politics and backing from all the usual sources.
