I read an interesting article arguing that Republicans should run a strong conservative instead of a moderate, and their reasoning was interesting. Every time Republicans pick a moderate, he tries to shore up the conservative base by pandering to them, and not being conservative, they don't really understand them and end up saying all sorts of wacky things. See Romney, McCain, etc. If instead they go with a tried and true conservative, the candidate will pander toward the middle, which doesn't involve saying anything very controversial.
Yep, just double down, double down, double down. Just keep doubling down. Too conservative? Too conservative isn't conservative enough! Just keep doubling down!
Oh man, talk about not getting it! I agree that being President is the right choice for giving your kid a leg up on being President.
Of course there's still meritocracy involved in becoming, of all things, President of the United States, no matter who you are. But the same could be said about Roman emperors during the Principate, and it's hard to think of a better example of a privileged usherance into political power than Dubya.
You avoided addressing ANYTHING I said. You said I was for monarchy because I was for inherited wealth. We have inherited wealth, so I asked you to name the monarch. And I pointed out the hypocrisy of conferring all the advantages of YOUR wealth on YOUR children while resenting the EXACT SAME THING done by others. The only real reason you condemn them is because they have more than you. Wouldn't you agree that there are apt to be others who will resent your children for having advantages--advantages YOU gave them--that they didn't have? Would these people be justified in their resentment? No one disputes that being the son of a President is an advantage in pursuing a political career. What I'm disputing is the idea that having that advantage is tantamount to inheriting the job. It isn't. After all, having the Bush last name didn't keep Bush 41 in office.
Bush wouldn't have stood a chance if he hadn't become governor of Texas, and baseball probably had more to do with that than his father. I knew he had the makings of a President when he refused to commute the death sentence of Karla Faye Tucker despite pleas from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope, and tens of thousands of born again Christians begging him for mercy in a very high profile case.
No, we've agreed that a person who becomes President has many advantages that allows that to happen. Just like the person who becomes an acclaimed movie star, an important scientist, or a supreme athlete. Barring extreme luck, success and advantage can't be separated. No one can be successful at any significant thing without having the attributes that make attainment of that position possible. Possession of those attributes is the definition of advantage.
So enabling a powerful man to exploit, harass and use women earns you a political career? Or is it about ethics in game journalism?
Paladin, there's a huge difference between advantages that make a kid better at something and so lead to them prevailing at something, and nepotism that makes them successful at something even though they're no good at it. Along those lines, hereditary wealth only becomes monarchical when it determines the highest political power.
Well, monarchy did have a lot to recommend it when skills were mostly passed down father to son. The baker's son learned how to bake, the cobbler's son learned how to make shoes, the king's son learned how to lead armies in battle. The only other viable candidates for king were nobles who also knew how to lead armies in battle, because that was the essential skill required to maintain and protect the kingdom. Once kings removed themselves from direct combat, and even quit directing battles (relegating that task to professionals), a monarchy started making less and less sense - except as the embodiment of state power. But as John Locke wrote, the system was just daft because some royal sons were either tyrannical or dumb as a box of rocks.
Well, when you're drawing from a gene pool which the fine folks of Deliverance, GA. would consider "a mite shaller," your "best and brightest" aren't going to be either, but they'll be well armed, and have a vast army with which to dispatch anyone who dares question them.
The guys who won a 2010 Ig Nobel Prize for proving that companies would be better off if they randomly promoted people, have published a paper on randomly selecting politicians. Just as I've suspected for quite some time, now. Random works best.
GWB won the Texas governorship and the White House twice. He had to campaign and do the job well enough that voters returned him to office. You may not have liked his policies, but to most voters, he did do a good job. I don't see nepotism in that. A monarchy is rule by a single person. Who is that single person?
First of all, even 99% of his supporters wouldn't agree with the bolded part. It doesn't relate to our topic, but I couldn't let that go. Secondly, none of what you just said really relates to our topic: GWB had support that completely by-passed the question of his competence. You can't point to his success as proof of his competence if you're trying to show that his competence and not nepotism won him his success. Whoever is richest, obviously, as was the case in almost all monarchies -- which is also why most dynasty don't last more than a couple generations, even if the monarchy lasts centuries. But you're losing track of the argument. I'm not saying that we live in a monarchy, but that your values as expressed in this thread would argue for a monarchy. Luckily, we don't live in one, because luckily, present political reality in your country and mine doesn't conform to those values.
GW was very competent, he just had a language pathology from childhood deafness. Nepotism won't get you through Yale, Harvard, and Air Force flight instruction. As governor, he was decisive and willing to buck his own base to see that the law of the land was served. Most importantly, he made his views and beliefs very clear to both the country and his staff, instead of leaving everyone to guess at the meaning of a nebulous word salad, and he was not afraid to make momentous decisions. He perhaps wasn't as competent at everything as Dean Paul Martin (who starred in Misfits of Science), but he wasn't bad. Surely you're talking about Obama. Actually no. Even JK Rowling is worth more than Queen Elizabeth. The monarch only gets as much income as the Parliament approves - while everyone else is free to get rich as Midas. The monarchy is not a seat on a board of trustees, it's a throne.
I already pointed out this applies to both of them, though I'd still say the Bushes pre-GWB's Presidency had more power than the Obamas pre-Barack. Yeah. That's just technically a monarchy, of course; if it weren't, everything Rowling owned would be the monarch's to do with as they please, and Liz very likely wouldn't get to be monarch.
Supersonic aerodynamics does not respect class or wealth, nor does the bitter earth when you bore in (which is how Captain Dean Paul Martin died when his F-4C hit the San Bernardino mountains in a blizzard). so QED. Yale and Harvard are up to the gills in the children of rich, powerful people. They don't really care if one fails out, or at least didn't before grade inflation started. The SAT and other tests were started to weed out stupid sons of rich and powerful people, and Bush had to pass those. His name might help open the door, but it certainly wouldn't get him in. He had brains. His great grandfather was an industrialist who started at the bottom in the 1890's and worked his way up from apprentice, to master mechanic, to this and to that and then to being put in charge of US ordnance manufacturing in the Great War. His son became a Senator, and his son became the youngest Navy aviator of WW-II, then head of the CIA and President of the United States. But none of that could get George W Bush admitted to Yale if his test scores sucked. It's a monarchy, and more powerful than most because their position is secure from overthrow by any violent person who can field a small private army. The Monarchs of old had to frequently defend their title and position in battle, and defend it against a host of rival claimants and plotters. If they fell, the big chair didn't stay empty for very long. Not only were many not rich, many were in debt up to their eyeballs.
Ok. Bush soared in the air force because he was just naturally more aerodynamic than any competitors. You got me. I'm pretty sure that's all that's being claimed. I do not disagree with any of this, but I would still defend the idea that Elizabeth II does not actually rule a monarchy. I realize this is controversial, but I would argue there are some clear signs of democracy in Great Britain. For instance, the publishers of the Daily Mail have yet to be hanged in a public square.
Packard, you are losing focus. Paladin isn't arguing that Bush lacked a special support structure. He is arguing that everybody else has parents who denied such support to their children.
Once again, gturned pulls more shit outta his ass with Yale and Harvard. A good forty percent of kids admitted to either of these schools has at least one alumnus of said school in the family tree. If you don't think that's advantage and that then coke fiend, C student Bush wasn't given a leg up because one of his grandpappies attended, you're even more deluded than Dayton. Stick with hand wringing over ebola.
He's posting from his phone. He can only fit so many words on that tiny little screen. 'flow would have liked to see Hillary file a big, loud, ugly divorce so that Ross Perot won in '96. And only because Ron Paul wasn't running that year.
I could channel Ross Perot addressing the dangers of Ebola, but it would take time. I'm sure the older ones among us can just hear it in their heads, with charts and graphs!
