The Real Mitt Romney

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you see that one of the reasons privatization is making a comeback, is that the efficiency it brings is badly needed?

Of course, privatization is just another word for the private sector: ie., Conservative marketplace, ie.; Capitalism.<snip>

Not quite...

"privatization" is just a re-phrasing Willie Sutton's attitude towards banks.

Does anyone really think that privatizing Medicare and Social Security
by having "savings accounts" held in Wall Street banks is because
the Wall Street is so dedicated to helping the sick and older members of society ?

... or privatizing the prison system is only because the new owners just
want to do a better job of rehabilitating prisoners and reducing recidivism ?

... or privatizing government land is because the oil companies or timber companies
or cattle companies or tourist services are more interested in the
quality of the environment and protecting endangered species ?

No, privatization of the government property and services "is where the money is"

And the current crop of "conservatives" are way too lazy to start a
their own new business and compete for customers and make a profit out of it.
They want to take an easier road and take a permanent hand-out
from government property and services.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

lol I didn't even spot that.

Adak, Thatch is still alive.

I haven't heard a word about her, for years. Thought she had Alzheimer's or something, years ago.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Think about our children's future, if we have to close our businesses. Our entire economy would go belly up.

As Bain has proven over and over.

[Flint]

I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:

What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction. This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.

This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.

So why should we want the government to be run like a busuiness? Not because we want it to specifically adpot the values of finance capitalism, but because the concept of business leadership is what creates the only thing which can make or break a machine with millions of moving parts--the culture defined by the shared vision of that organization.

So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.

We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.

Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.

Why do political parties get so polarized?

Because the numbers of people represented are far too great to form a true consensus, on everything, so the political system we have in place forms these coalitions of positions, and as a politician travels upward into greater scope of command, his obligations necessitate adoption of an accepted portfolio of positions--a fragile alliance of diverse interests, consolidated just enough to hold just about 50% of the people's allegiance. This is politics, this is how it works. It isn't one man or one party that acts this way, it's the system.

So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."

These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.

And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.

The reality is, we have two very general groups, who even within themselves do not agree on most things. The amount of things that everybody agrees with is greater than the unity of either of these contived classifications of people.

I think that maybe the areas where we disagree are in the basic gut feeling we have about the best way to get things done. This is probably more informed by our personal experiences than anything else. I know it is for me. I think that it should be this way, rather than getting wrapped up in cliques. Rather than making amateurish errors in reasoning as we cobble together a makeshift argument for a pre-conceived notion.

None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?

We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.

But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.

I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.

It is good to question and examine things.

Belittling someone who disagrees with you is something which damages your own personal growth.



Okay, I'm just rambling now.

But I think I'll actually post this.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

As Bain has proven over and over.

Do you have ANYTHING to back this up - anything remotely FACTUAL?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Flint

I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:

What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction.

I disagree. Leadership involves different things, for different situations, and also varies with the aptitude and expertise, of the leader. Some lead quite effectively, with a "hire good people, sell them on the goals, and let 'em go!" management style. Others, (most), use a combination of management, and personal involvement, style. Steven Jobs was VERY personally involved at Apple, for instance - most would say somewhat obsessively. He made it work very well, nonetheless.

This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.

This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.

Quite right - you nailed it. Good discussion, glad you posted it.

We know that unless you're aggressive, your voice will generally be given less attention, in some venues. You don't want your candidate to be too passive in a debate, for example. While positive political ads are generally best, negative ads, can be effective, especially near the end of a campaign. Try and leave an undecided voter with a bad impression of the opponent, just before they go to the polls.

We've been lazy with our election laws, our tax loopholes, and the influence we allow all manner of special interest groups. It brings in a lot of $$$ into the political process, that gov't then doesn't have to provide to the candidates, but it forces the candidates to "court" their $$$ contributors, when they reach office.

As Representative Charlie Wilson's character said in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War":
"I'm Israel's guy on the hill"
"Charlie, how many Jews do you have in your Texas district anyway?"
"Six, I believe. But you don't win elections with just voters, you win elections with campaign donors, and mine are the Jews in New York City."

And that, (almost word for word), is exactly why our political process is far from what it should be. It's $money$, buying influence, making sure that the gov't, in choosing it's winners and losers in business, chooses THEM/THEIR cause, as one of the winners.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Flint

Smart guy stuff.

Amen

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you have ANYTHING to back this up - anything remotely FACTUAL?

sigh...So you haven't been paying attention.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.

At first I thought "wow, what world does Flint inhabit where there is no evil and everyone really is, ultimately, only wanting good things for everyone."

It seemed so Pollyanna, and strange that such a glowing recommendation on the inherent goodness of mankind would be in a thread topic initially devoted to the love of Romney, to seeing what a good man he really is, deep down.

Then I thought of a sign I have in my office, to remind me when Dragon Lady gets so far beneath my skin she's gnawing on my bones:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.--Napoleon Bonaparte



But I don't believe in the inherent universal goodness of mankind. Sure, goodness exists in abundance, but hardly because there is no evil to counter it.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

One more time:

The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.

Correct, and as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.

Very good, and again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.

Full marks, and once again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Your post in #389:

That's incorrect, obviously.

Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:

That's a webpage full of glossary terms. I'm seeing a whole lot about what the House does and what the Senate does, and a whole lot about term definition, such as what 'adjournment sine die' means. (Thanks by the way, that was a new term for me.) Fascinating. Do let me know if I missed it, but I'm still not seeing a term that defines how the office of the President has the ability to change the actual process laid out in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 and further defined in the 17th, 20th and 25th Amendments because he's Conservative or Liberal or Insert-Label-Here. Considering the official guidelines for the creation of laws in this country, my statement is correct.

QED, the Office of President and what color his sign has on it has no direct effect on the process until the bill comes to him to sign, because that is his prescribed role. He can indirectly affect it as a champion and cheerleader; he talk to people and flex Executive Muscle, such as it is. He can go to Senator X's office, or House Leader Y's office and have a nice chat. And that might change some minds and a bill might sail through or get voted down because of it. He can sign it or send it back and say 'Do it again!' But he's not the one actually doing it. Therefore, anything he wants to do or have done must get past the 535 first. If most of the 535 like his plan, it'll be fairly easy; if most don't, it can be tough going; if most don't give a whatsit, then who knows. His political leanings do not supersede the 535 in the process. When it comes to passed laws, he can say "I had this done." He can not say "I did this."


And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Yes, I know. When the Liberal is wrong, and the Conservative calls him on it, the Conservative is always being<fill in the negative behavior here>

I harbor a morbid curiosity as to how you've decided I (or anyone who does not agree with you) am liberal.




Probably better that I don't ask but this could be entertaining.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.

That's over in Aisle 5 under "Discuss the Political Process."

This is Aisle 7 "Reasons You Are Wrong If You Don't Love Mitt."

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

That's over in Aisle 5 under "Discuss the Political Process."

This is Aisle 7 "Reasons You Are Wrong If You Don't Love Mitt."

Aw man... there's no maps in this place!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

~Snip what I agree with~

So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.

Who's shared vision? The people in this thread? The people on the board? Americans?
The people I've talked to who are fairly successful businessmen (including family), complain they could have made much more money, not because of taxes but because of government regulations. They want no regulations in the way of doing things cheap, easy and profitable. Some of the regulations I understand are unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all laws.

But in every example they cited to me, the law was to protect people and the environment. No, you can't run the floor drains from the body shop into the creek. No, you can't fill in the swamp for more parking. No, you can't sell counterfeit drugs from China.

In the age of multinational corporations even the states can't protect the public, only the feds have the clout. The recent case of people dying from tainted steroids was apparently a loophole in the regulations, which is a case for more, not less.

We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.

Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.

Why do political parties get so polarized?

Maybe nobody(at least very few), hates babies, but some care little about them or their future if they don't live in the right neighborhood or come from the right stock.

~Snip what I agree with~

So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."

These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.

Yes they do, and it's a pre vs post FDR vision. Pre FDR the "middle class" was composed of the managers of the robber barons businesses, bankers, and very successful business men. Post FDR and WWII, the "middle class" expanded exponentially because of a consumer driven manufacturing economy and labor unions. Post Reagan we've sen the decline of both and the pre FDR vision wants to continue that slide.

And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.

While I agree we get bogged down on specifics that nobody wants to reveal, the specifics tell the truth about the vision.

~snip reasoning based on a false premise of agreed goal~

None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?

We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.

Again, who are "the people involved in these dicussions"? Confined to the Cellar, I'd agree. But on the national scene there are some bad people, people who will lie cheat and steal to subjugate the masses.

But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.

No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible

I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.

It is good to question and examine things.

Absolutely, there's a lot to be learned in the internet discussions if you can pick your way through the static. But this personal growth you speak of is mostly personal understanding of other peoples trials, how you perceive, and possibly treat, them. This may make the world a tiny bit better and surely makes you a lot better person.
That said, politics is a different animal in that the outcome affects how you are treated by the government, and how the government allows other people to treat you. That makes it personal, sometimes imperative to your life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever blows your skirt up.

[DanaC]

Excellent post, bruce!