thekaje
Godless killing machine
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 474
Doesn't it only make sense to say one thing and do another?
Let's analyze this collection of Obama's comments on health care reform over the past decade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related
In the primaries and as a liberal darling, he was for a single-payer system and the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to be elected and popular in that arena.
In supporting the new legislation, he was against a single-payer system and against the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to maintain support for the new legislation.
People accused him of using this bill to "let that little bit of socialism in," starting a process that would undercut private health insurance and ultimately outlaw it. He admits to as much in one of the clips in the collection above.
Is it possible to have an honest, consistent American politician? Does it make sense to expect one? Doesn't every president have to play the mushy middle, in which he tweaks the status quo, largely putting a varnish on the same old thing, while he pretends that something is changing?
Can anyone name a politician who is able to do what he believes in? Who is never inconsistent?
Is the problem that most people are simply wrong about almost all complex issues, and so it becomes politically necessary to lie or bribe them while you work towards what is really necessary? For example, stimulus packages are unpopular---but the alternative is unemployment, deep recession, and more unpopularity. Taxes are necessary to fix the deficit while maintaining programs---but people don't want taxes and they don't want fewer programs (some claim to, but in reality?). Bailouts are also necessary in a dangerous recession to prevent unemployment, deeper recession, and more unpopularity---but people hate the idea of using tax dollars to save "worthless companies".
And the most relevant point: you cannot say, as a candidate, that you are going to spend like f-ing crazy and bail out failing companies and raise taxes. But that is nonetheless what you need to do. Hence, you have to lie.
Does anyone know if it matters?
Let's analyze this collection of Obama's comments on health care reform over the past decade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related
In the primaries and as a liberal darling, he was for a single-payer system and the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to be elected and popular in that arena.
In supporting the new legislation, he was against a single-payer system and against the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to maintain support for the new legislation.
People accused him of using this bill to "let that little bit of socialism in," starting a process that would undercut private health insurance and ultimately outlaw it. He admits to as much in one of the clips in the collection above.
Is it possible to have an honest, consistent American politician? Does it make sense to expect one? Doesn't every president have to play the mushy middle, in which he tweaks the status quo, largely putting a varnish on the same old thing, while he pretends that something is changing?
Can anyone name a politician who is able to do what he believes in? Who is never inconsistent?
Is the problem that most people are simply wrong about almost all complex issues, and so it becomes politically necessary to lie or bribe them while you work towards what is really necessary? For example, stimulus packages are unpopular---but the alternative is unemployment, deep recession, and more unpopularity. Taxes are necessary to fix the deficit while maintaining programs---but people don't want taxes and they don't want fewer programs (some claim to, but in reality?). Bailouts are also necessary in a dangerous recession to prevent unemployment, deeper recession, and more unpopularity---but people hate the idea of using tax dollars to save "worthless companies".
And the most relevant point: you cannot say, as a candidate, that you are going to spend like f-ing crazy and bail out failing companies and raise taxes. But that is nonetheless what you need to do. Hence, you have to lie.
Does anyone know if it matters?