Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Really? Fascinating. I had not heard of this strange system you discuss.
I am indeed worried that influential voices within my party are pushing the nation to adopt policies that I believe would be mistakes -- ranging from bad to disastrous.
For example, some influential Dems have spoken out in support of beginning an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
I wonder about their motives, because it seems to me that no rational, intelligent and informed person could truly believe that this would produce the best results in Iraq and/or for broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the long term. Maybe these people [eta: who include John Edwards, who is running for President] have adopted this (ridiculous) policy position completely independently of any domestic political calculation about their own best interests. Maybe not.
|
I think it's more productive to have a conversation about Iraq policy on its own merits than to start from the presumption that the voters will demand that we do the wrong thing and to suppose that ought not listen to them. John McCain is running for president, and he supports escalation. So is Sam Brownback, and he doesn't. Both are pandering, but it's not clear to me that the pandering (a) is influencing policy much, given the President's insulation from political pressure, and (b) cuts both ways.
Quote:
|
At a minimum, pressure exists to avoid the further damage to the GOP and its 2008 election prospects. You think there is none? That Presidents face no political pressure in their last two years in office?
|
I would expect any such President to face some pressure. More typically, this is at least partly because his Vice President (e.g., Nixon, Bush, Gore) is running for office. Here, not so. Perhaps there is some, but I don't see much sign of it. Iraq is such a clusterfuck that many Republicans up for re-election in '08 will distance themselves from him (e.g., Brownback, Smith, Coleman, and -- until the President suprised everyone by going along to an extent, McCain, who thought he'd outfoxed everyone by pushing for escalation). Do you see any sign that there is pressure on the President or that it might have any effect? If so, what?
Quote:
|
Why avoid the word? Nothing is wrong with being moderately elitist -- although it is wise to hide it well.
|
To many, it's pejorative, which is why many think it wise to hide it.
Quote:
The point is not that politicians should not be accountable to the people. My point was that they should do the right thing even if they pay the political price down the road. Don't formulate public policy with your own political interests in the forefront.
I'm really not sure we were discussing the same thing.
|
I agree with the second and third sentences here. Who wouldn't?
I thought you were lamenting that public opinion might have an effect on Iraq policy. If all you mean is that you disagree with the public, and you're afraid that the public will persuade the government to do the wrong thing here, the interesting conversation is not about whether public accountability/involvement is a good thing in general, but rather what is the right policy choice right now. If so, let's turn to discussing what Spencer Ackerman said.
But I thought you were defending elitism
per se. If so, I would suggest that governmental decisionmaking is worse when hidden and insulated from public scrutiny.
edited in an attempt to improve clarity
