Support the President - That's what I'll be doing after the election.
 

I'm chagrined about the trend in thinking that holds that it is more important to take all opportunities to express dissapointment over one's personal and often unrealistic expectations than it is to voice support for the Commander in Chief, our President. I don't see the nobility of that high horse through the self-serving exercise in ego that it often appears to be.

I've been thinking that what is almost as crucial today as destroying terror and the reasons for it, protecting ourselves as a nation, and providing for the general prosperity is the need for a whole new generation of individuals to become educated to the fact that it matters very little who is in office - because the responsibilities are awesome and the real-world choices are few for any leader. American foriegn policy is American foriegn policy. Those who experienced both parties' tenure during the conduct of the Vietnam war can attest to this.

And so, In some perverse way, I am starting to think it would be a good education for people who think that GWB is the reason "the world hates us" and we are in such apparantly sad shape as his critics would have us believe (because of his policies) to have their candidate elected. This way they may gain some overarching understanding that their rhetoric does not indicate they have at the present.

As I stated, I will be supporting the President of the United States, no matter who that is, come November. It is more important to do exactly that than many people today seem to comprehend.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Art. What bothers me about the current administration is that their message is "stay the course" regardless of where the course leads. They have been very clear that they feel their decisions have been "right" and they are unapologetic when proven to be wrong (WMDs for example). Since when has it become "weak" to admit a mistake? I have always been taught and truly believe that the best lessons come from mistakes, but to learn from them one must admit that a mistake was made.

I don't know if Kerry is the answer but he offers a change and that is all I'm looking for.

I'm under no illusions that John Kerry will likely make mistakes, or do things that I don't agree with. As you note, that comes with the territory, and Bush isn't the exceptional fuckup that a lot of shrill partisans think he is.

I'm pretty moderate, and I realize those things.

Here's what I'm willing to promise: I'll support Bush when he does things that I agree with, and that are in the best interest of the country. I'll try to be understanding when he does things that will work, but that aren't the things I would have done. Finally, I'll defend him when he's unfairly criticized, even if it's by friends or members of my party.

I hope that I've lived up to those three principles these four years, but it's never an easy or natural thing to do for someone who's a solid democrat, as I am.

However, I'm committed to the democratic process. It's competitive by design. It's important for the president to be questioned and doubted at every turn, as that's how we maintain the public trust. If you disagree with that, then perhaps democracy is not for you. I will never refuse the right to dissent, and to question, but I will always respect what the will of the majority.

I said this on another post, but it was in response to Art's commnets.

In regards to Art's comments about loyalty and respect to the Office of the President, I could not agree more. I do, however, count myself as a member of the loyal opposition, and will call out my President when I think he is doing wrong. Blind loyalty is the death knell of democracy.

Well, for myself, since there are so many people - in fact it is a very popular mindset, especially among my peers (white, well-educated, upper-middle class, intellectual, creative, whatever), where it is the norm - who seem to get a real sense of personal empowerment out of voicing their opposition to things that our government does, I consider it a worthwhile position for me to take that supporting the home team is a good thing to do.

Art, ya moved it on me. ;)

Oddly enough...I would agree with you for once, Art. Although, to some extent, that which you've described has been a thorn in the system for longer than you or I have been alive, I believe that Rush Limbaugh honed it to a razor sharp edge in the 90's, under the Clinton administration. Nothing that Bill could do was right, and every evil under the sun could be directly attributed to him. For good or for bad, Limbaugh is a very effective orator. He swayed the public into believing that his rhetoric was gospel. A modern day Pied Piper, millions marched to the tune that he sang. To be branded a liberal, even the very suggestion of it, was akin to a Scarlet Letter. Some perverse form of McCarthyism. "Are you now, or have you ever been a (gasp) Liberal? Burn Witch!" Now, after eight years of "Clinton bashing", the Liberals are, in turn, using the same arrows that were flung at them, and hurling them toward the Bush administration. Turn about is fair play? Maybe. But, in all honesty, enough is enough. Somewhere out there is the ideal man for the position of President of the United States. A true leader. A statesman...not a politician. I don't believe that we'll ever see him though. Were I he...I wouldn't raise my head above the trenches. To much mud flying. Who wants to be subjected to that scrutiny. And besides, who doesn't have a skeleton, or two, in their closet?

I'll support the president when i agree with what he does. The presidency doesn't entitle one to respect beyond the normal pomp. That is not what democracy is about. There is a difference between valid criticism and partisan swipage.

ahem.... or Woman... :D

This election has made me very tired... I used to love arguing politics -- It was fun -- It's not fun anymore....

Whomever gets elected -- they will have my full support... Respect? Not necessarily, but the support will be there...

Yes, exactly.
I'd like to see a new trend.
That's why I'm starting to think it may be the right time for the opposition to take the wheel. I'm not about to cast my vote their way - but that's my personal choice.

However, if this man, John Kerry, wins. You bet I will be supporting him as our Commander in Chief and our President.

Hopefully some will see the good sense in this sort of thing.

I am not an "America, love it or leave it" type of person, but there is also a point where continued bickering hurts us all.

Come November, I'll support whoever is president, because that is best for the country.

I will also continue to push the issues I support and discourage things that I don't.

Any other course is Anarchy.

I also will support the President - whoever it may be - barring anything incredible.

touché :o

I don't think we should have to support the President. The Republicans gave us 8 years of Clinton bashing and it isn't over. They take potshots are Bill and Hillary whenever they can. Meanwhile, you have delegates at the convention handing out purple band-aids. The Republicans don't have a track record of giving support or respect to the other party but in the last 4 years how many times have we heard them say that we should?

Fuck that. I'll be critical of everything Bush does. I support looking into every detail and disecting every little decision he makes. Why don't we bring it up another notch and start poking fun at Laura Bush too like the conservatives did with Hillary? How about we go after the drunk ass Bush twins like they had with Chelsea (although it is true that they were soft on Chlesea for a while, it didn't last the whole time, if she had been caught with a fake ID Rush would have been all over her)? If they can dish it out when they are out of power, they should be prepared to take it back when they have the power.

I guarantee you that the mainstream Republican talking heads wouldn't be calling out that we should support John Kerry if he gets elected. They'll do the same bullshit they did to Clinton.

Democrats need to stop being pussies; sitting back while they smear us. Give it back 10 times over. See how they like it. This election and Presidential term has been a start, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be to fully oppose the right wing machine.

*Edit - I think it's great that many people here are ready to let bygones be bygones, but I'm just not there yet. Maybe by the next election I will be, but not now.

I'll be glad to support the president until that person takes action that severely conflicts with my code of ethics. If Bush, Kerry, or anyone else goes and bombs a country without provocation, I will not support that action. If a president commits an impeachable offense, I will not hesitate to argue that the president should be impeached. If (actually, more like "when") Bush wins again, I'll be willing to give him a clean slate in my mind. However, I won't support someone who does not deserve my support and respect.

I'll support the president if not doing so would be harmful to the country, just as I have turned around and given my full support to the Iraq war for the sake of both our (coalition) troops and the Iraqi people, even though I was opposed to starting the war.

Check out this article on dissent: http://www.religionwriters.com/publi...03/040703a.doc

note the quote by Teddy Roosevelt:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Dissent and criticism are desperately necessary, especially for a country founded by religious and political dissenters! The lack of political cohesion may make you angry but bear in mind the alternatives, where we would have to go along with what the government did, or be punished. What needs to come up in politics to aid our country is a truer sense of compromise between opposing views, not blind faith in whoever has power.

There's no way in hell Bush will get to start over with a clean slate with me if he wins. Getting re-elected doesn't forgive him for attacking gays, pushing class warfare, fucking up the environment, and all the Iraq BS.

I'm not sure what "support the President" means. I agree that to "take all opportunities to express dissapointment over one's personal and often unrealistic expectations" is not effective, useful, proffesional or mature.

But where is the line? I talked with someone yesterday who clearly feels not voting for Bush is 'not surpporting the President in times of war'. That is too far for me. Listening to the convention, there were many who agreed with that person.

I'm not in favor of piling on, and making fun of Bush at every opportunity, but where do you draw the line? Drawing it at NEVER critiqueing, lauging, questioning, criticising or condemning actions (no matter how egregious) doesn't work for me.


This bears a resemblance to "supporting our troops". In the early days of the war, I was told (in RL, and on this board) I was unpatriotic - and unsupportive of our troops - for being against the war. What a slap in the face.

Same question applies: What does "support" mean?

To repeat,

There is constructive dissent and then there is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Considering it was Bush and his administration that started the trend on playing with others' fears when it comes to terrorism, I can't really agree with any of this.

Unless... there are credible source stating that it was the fault of the US govt as a whole that started it all.

When GWB was elected...I issued him a certain level of respect, above that which I would give to virtually anyone, simply because of the level of responsibility he was taking on. This is the same amount I have given to all four presidents I have had in my adult life.
Respect is given by myself, and must be maintained, grown, or lost. Mr Bush (and his administration) have managed to lose all that I had to give, this is not an easy task. I have no problem supporting something of worth, and to a certain extent that which is less than acceptable (if I can see a future correction), I see neither in this cabinet. I cannot continue to support the obvious(to me) failings, and blindness of our current administration. As I have stated before , I am of no party, However I will be voting democratic this election for the first time in my life. I do this in an attempt to prevent the likely damage I foresee to our republic. For those who cannot (or will not) put the pieces together, that spell out the future direction we are headed, I do not fault you, nor do I completely understand you. This is my own failing, and frequenting this board is of great help in this reguard.
Mine is a rant of frustration, and limited fear. For I do not know where my rights will stand in four years, and I have never had to worry about this before, in America. I only hope I can respect my president again, whomever that may be. Even Clinton left office with more honor in my eyes.....and he was a dog.

This is a very strong nationalistic viewpoint.

Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or the other what you should or should not do. But it seems like you are advocating assent for the sake of assent due to some perception of too much dissent.

I imagine you must have some line which the President must cross in order for you to withdraw your support. You don't mention the existence of such a line, but without it, you would indeed be advocating blind support - which is nothing more than dictatorship (whether term-limited or not).

By default, I do not offer my support to the President, regardless of who he is. There are essentially 2 reasons for this:

1- The numbers game: It is my opinion that the vast majority of American's offer their support for the President. Often with complete disregard for his policies. Therefore, if I can take the opportunity to offer dissent, it is of great benefit to the entire country by virtue of increasing the level of debate over the level of nodding heads.
2- The America of Perfection: If the goal of America is to constantly strive for perfection, to constantly seek to improve our country - the only possible value in refraining from dissent is the ethereal concept of Unity. The concept that we are stronger (and therefore better) because so many of us stand together. I don't see how group-think, as a uniter, equates to better policies and actions. It might make us more resolute, but it could make us more resolute in implementing poor policies just as much as it could make us more resolute in implementing quality policies. In essence, unity is only valueable if we're united behind something good and it is extremely dangerous if we are united behind something bad.

Personally, I find America to be exceptionally misguided. I have a line - it is very narrow and it is very close at hand. If the goal of an American is to try and form a more perfect union, we have a LONG way to go and we won't get there by supporting unity behind mistakes.

tecoyah hit the nail right on the head.

My feelings exactly. Most people aren't fully aware of world history and the fact that our current situation is startlingly similar to that of certain events in the past that ended up a complete disaster. Because of this, my fear is a bit more than limited. I am seriously terrified of another 4 years under Bush.

I will have officially lost all respect for this country if it turns out that the people vote Bush in for another 4 years. Ah, the look in people's eyes 4 years from now when they realized what they've done..

As most of you know by now, I have no interest at all in convincing anyone of anything. Nor do I expect anyone to do things that I do. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Because I am aware there are large numbers of people here and everywhere who feel it their noble duty to dissent, I see a vacuum where positions such as I have taken here have a space to fill.

Please continue exercising your inclination to judge and dissent and withdraw your support from things that do not meet your standards - I know you will anyway. I simply prefer other standards for myself and I think a little movement in this direction - a bit of a trend even - would be a healthy thing for the state of our union.

P.S. Some of us who hold positions similar to the one I ennunciate here are fully aware of world history.

There comes a point where everything the president does rips at your every fiber of being... you cannot find any justification whatsoever in supporting him.

If Bush is re-elected president, I will not support him. He has done nothing for this country except take it in the wrong direction and make it a more likely target for hate as well as terrorism.

Understood. I wouldn't expect one so ripped at the core of one's being to support the man. A word of caution might be in order though. To have one's being in such a state of vulnerability over the actions of an individual whose power is constitutionally and politically limited to the degree the President of the United States' power is limited, may indicate an inability to accept the actions of any individual who acts in this capacity. If that be the case, the real problem could be one's sensitivities and/or unreasonable expectations.

In any event, this was my initial point. I am beginning to think that it may be crucial for the education and evolution of understanding of our citizens that GWB be removed from office - only so that our we may come to understand that he was not the problem. Unless we get a handle on the real problems we face, we may continue the delusion that they are GWB's fault.

That seems rather contradictory, assuming you would act on behalf of what you believe is healthy for the state of our union.

You're expressing your opinion and then stating that you do not wish to convince anyone of the value of your opinion and then stating that if more people held your opinion, the country would be better off.

It sounds as if you are surrounded by people who dissent. You might think about heading to the Mid West for a bit and surrounding yourself with people who do not. It may, in fact, not be a healthy thing overall for this country if more people decline to dissent - it may simply be healthy for your immediate surroundings.

Daily Thoughts

I'd just like to point out that when other people say "Vote for the lesser of two evils," I do consider GWB to be an evil person, whilst I consider John Kerry to be a good person. I would not support a president who I neither voted for nor agree with in the manner of which he executes his duties.

OpieCunningham, I say what I mean. I do not say what you mean. I do not respond to things I have not said.

You're saying that just because my personal sensitivities happen to run across where the president has marked his territory by pissing upon the ground there, it's my problem.

I totally disagree.

There is such thing as being considerate. As a member of society, you are required to be considerate to others, no matter what office you were elected (or in this case, NOT elected) to. The president has in no way shown any consideration for the opinions represented by my half of the population. On top of that, he is doing the job that appeals to the other half of the population VERY POORLY.

Humans are not self-contained animals. They possess empathy and communal responsibility. Some more than others. To feel hurt when one's fellows are slighted is not a weekness, for if nobody felt as such, there would be no such thing as a community, a state or a nation. Leaders are borne of the sympathy they feel for others. It is those who involve themselves for the benefit of others that ultimately make our society the great civilization that it is.

So, if you're telling me that it's MY problem that the buffoon in office is rubbing me raw worse than 75-grit sandpaper, I've got a big middle finger to show to your line of logic.

Journeyman, the "Daily Thoughts" thread is a place for posting the words of others. The words of others that I quote there are not intended as my own words or my own thoughts. I understand your statement, however in relation to the Bavarian Proverb.

Yes, Halx. I used conditional statements because I have no certainty that my interpretations are the case for any particular individual. I typically speak in generalities to avoid personal tete-a-tete.

*Tecoyah sees the brick wall, dives to the side before impact...and rolls out of sight*

This is also a useful tool to say one thing which is so vague that you can switch your viewpoint as suits your needs without fear of contradicting yourself.

I'll try to restate for clarity.

I don't care if you support the President. I respect your reasons for not doing so.

Since there is so much opposition to this President, I am moved to state that I support the President of the United States, no matter who holds that position. I will support John Kerry if he becomes the President.

I also think it would be a good thing if more people held similar views because there is a very popular counter trend existing at the moment - and it has gone far enough. That's my opinion.

I see the ways this forum is used by partisan individuals and I have an interest in using it in a different way.

We are not all partisan Art....some of us simply fear the effects of another Bush/Cheney term. I could care less if they were Dems or Reps....they would still have failed me.

Yes, tecoyah. I also see the way this forum is used by anti-Bush/Cheney individuals and, personally, I prefer to use it in another way.

I'm confident I understood you the first time. I simply disagree with the concept of unity for the sake of unity.

I really don't know what "far enough" means. My impression is that somewhere around 50% do not support the current President. Is that a sign of dissent going too far? Why?

Of course, it is your opinion and you're more then entitled to it.

You may feel that you have your finger on the pulse of the partisan and/or anti-Bush life blood of this forum. But I'm here mainly for the discussion of politics by means of expressing an opinion and digging into the various implications and details of that opinion. It doesn't benefit me if we're all just going to make a statement and then clam up about it.

The fact is - and I have made it several times here - that we do not all do as I do. In fact nearly no one does what I do. That is why I do it. Please carry on and do what you do as well as you are able.

Art, your method of thinking is bothering me. It's as if you've run out of patience for people who hold different opinions than yours and are just like, "Will you just drop your point so we all can live in peace?"

I'm afraid happiness is not obtained by surrendering your will for the sake of stability. Humans will always fight for what they believe. There will always be unrest.

To give up your ego is not noble. It parallels the concept of learned futility. That's when an animal struggles until it realizes it cannot win, and just lays down and submits to the punishment. We see dogs chained to posts, their heads resting on the ground between their paws. Awww... how cute and pathetic.

That's not gonna be me.

Halx, yep. If there's a comparison to make about this it's that I am bothered by the kinds of thinking I've enumerated above. We've delineated the territory between these two poles well. Somewhere in there, I think, is a path forward, for all of us.

Of course there is, but it's not gonna be to many people's liking. That's where consideration comes in. That's where your idea doesn't fit into our society.

Art, your suggestion that all Americans support the President because he's your leader and the "Commander in Chief" also bothers me.

For starters, I don't think referring to him in military terms is really appropriate. Yes, he's the Commander in Chief, but by using that term you are imbuing your whole argument with some quasi-military character, that seems to imply some sort of obedience is required due to his position as the leader of your military. He's also the leader of the country in social and political terms. And western, democratic political systems call for debate, dissention and even opposition. Hell, a political opposition is mandatory in a modern democratic nation!

Secondly, I don't believe that in a democracy, where freedom of expression, the promotion of alternative points of view, public and social empowerment (as opposed to centralized authority) are fundamental, that mindless or automatic compliance and support of the leader seem natural. That smacks more of a autocratic Orwellian society than a free democratic one.

Of course people should be free to disagree and even withdraw their support from a democratically elected leader who is implementing policies (military, social, economic, environmental etc) with which they don't agree. Yes, they should stay within the bounds of the law, restrict their "opposition" to legal means, but to simply say "He's the boss, so therefore I must support him" is not true. Indeed, it even has undertones of a fascist nature and I'm reminded of some infamous autocratic regimes of the past and today (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist North Korea, Communist China, Singapore) where the state called for obiedience and unqualified support from their population. It's just not right.

"We were only following orders"...

If the President, no matter who he is, began to implement policies that you fundamentally disagreed with, are you saying you would support him simply because of the position he holds? That's nonesense. Say he decided he wanted to invade other countries, withdraw from the United Nations, abandon tax for corporations that donated large amounts of funds to his political party, began implementing Christian fundamentalist social policy etc. Any number of hypothetical actions could end up in many people withdrawing their support.

Automatic support and obedience, and the abandonment of political opposition, are not good things. They would damage your society more than you think.


Mr Mephisto

Sounds reasonable to me.
There's more to life than freedom of self-expression. Much of it gives me a headache anyway.
Committment, selflessness, patriotism, compromise, sacrifice, self-discipline, might be additional concepts of value in an increasingly unstable world.

Yes Powerclown. You're absolutely right.

Those attributes you mention are all laudable and many are sadly missing to today's masses.

However, I would not add automatic (or "entitled") support of the President to that list. Otherwise you would have no debate, no challenge to the status quo, inertia and slow degenerating decay in society.

Mr Mephisto

Excellent post Mr Mephisto, you said it better than I could.

Just this once I'll respond to things ascribed to me that I did not say. Just this once because it so egregious that it amounts to putting words in my mouth and then arguing against those words as if arguing against my positions.

I never said "all Americans" should do anything and never suggested it. Quite the opposite.

I never advocated "Automatic support and obedience, and the abandonment of political opposition..."

I went to great length to make clear that these have nothing at all to do with my positions. This sort of thing is why I simply do not respond much in here.

I made some exception to that practice in this thread - for purposes of explanation - to no avail, evidently.

<b>I'm amazed at about half the adults in the country. Where the f*ck is the
anger, and the outrage? Does anyone read and make the effort it takes to
stay informed. It's gotta be a commitment at least equivalent to a part time
job. We're talking about our country.....too many openly criminal presidents,
and.....with the exception of Johnson, in terms of working to subvert their
oaths to defend the constitution, all since Nixon have been of the Repub party.
This thread is about uninformed mush, considering what's going on !</b>

I cannot imagine living without questioning and holding those in authority accountable.
How do you do it ? You mentioned the "law" and the "rules". You really believe that any of the Bush bros. or Poppy have any respect for the law or are restrained by it ?
Even after four years....it still smells....similar to the way the recently discredited 2004
Florida "felon voter purge list" smells (whoops, after CNN sued to get the
courts to open the secret new 2004 voter purge list for public scrutiny, it was discovered that 2000+ names on the list were of voters who had applied for and received clemency from Gov. Jeb Bush, and.....after Jeb and his Secretary of State both swore that the list intended to prevent up to 48,000 people from voting, was rechecked to insure accuracy, but had to be kept secret to "protect privacy" CNN sucessfully persuaded a state court judge to order disclosure it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, explained by Jeb Bushco when nailed about the omission ---Fla. Hispanics tend to vote Republican -as a "database error"), and the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice, required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 VOTES.......
<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml">
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm">
http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/8950005.htm">
"Berg said (Jeb) Bush and the clemency board are empowered to repeal the rule and automatically restore voting rights to felons, which former Gov. Reubin Askew and the Cabinet did for a group in 1975."</a>
<b>The Reagan/Bush '41 Supreme Court 5 were certainly acting like the "activist
judges" that Repubs constantly disavow when they invented the unprecedented
"Gore Exception" to "install" the current ROTUS in the White House....have you
read it???? Add the machinations of Jeb and his current and previous Secretary
of State, and their now discredited felon purge lists, and they have as much
credibility and legitmacy as Janet Jackson's "wardrobe accident". Wake up !!!
A coup took place in Dec., 2000, and Jeb was brazen (and stupid) enough to try
to pull the same shitty tactic in 2004, relying on excuses to keep the new list secret.</b><br>
<a href="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_c_02.html">"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."</a> - Thomas Jefferson 1787

Yes. Since posts like the one above are so common nowadays, there is value in opposing positions.

Jefferson said:
<i>
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
</i>
<b>Do the sheeple in this country really think that Jefferson would react to the majority of the posts written on this thread any differently than I am if,
in light of what he wrote above, he encountered this of the "sitting"
president ? Is this man facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not:</b><br>
<a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html">
(As of April 2, 2004.....)
The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a>

Art, I think you post quite often, actually. But I also think that your comments are worded vaguely, which may be a factor in why you feel your position is so maligned.

I don't care if they are maligned. That's nothing personal.
I don't appreciate the words I use being replaced by other words that say very different things, just for the sake of argumentation. I say what I say the way I say it. To my way of thinking it is far more precise than it is vague. Things are not so simple. No, they are not so simple. Things are quite complex.

This Politics Forum - like all others I've seen - has problems. My statements in this forum are intended to be off the norm. Why? Because it is clear that the norm in here - and in political speech in general - is a problem.
I'm trying to do something different with it. That's what I'm doing here.

I think it's extremely difficult to convey meaning via writing through anonymous channels, where we know little to nothing about one another and have no benefit of body language.

You have my best wishes in your attempt to bend the box, I was just lending you my perception.

Understood.
Your contribs are always appreciated.
Thanks.

art:

it is fine if you think supporting the home team is a good thing.
i am glad to see that you accept the fact that there are others who value the idea of dissent, even the strongest possible dissent. that way you and i, for example, can continue to talk even though politically we occupy antithetical political positions.

there is a paradox in your position, i think:
from a view oriented toward maintaining the existing order, dissent is kind of like a feedback loop--like any bureaucratic system, the state (the government) requires feedback loops to adjust its relation to the world around it.
if everyone, everywhere thought that "supporting the home team" was not just a good idea, but was necessary, the result would be that the "home team" would implode, and that sooner rather than later. that implosion---which would start with a slide into irrationality in which internal fantasies about the world would replace information about the world, from which chaos would follow, would take down along with it everything you would defend.

so it would seem self-defeating to argue that support for the home team makes any sense in general.
because if your argument were to win politcally, in the real world, you would lose, and lose entirely.

so its probably better this way. even if it pisses you off.

I see your point, roachboy. Mine has been even more simple.

I'm fully aware that there will never come a time when everyone at home supports the home team.

In a room where the majority of the speakers are saying one thing. I occasionally take it upon myself to say the other thing.

Well said.

<p><br>

If Bush '43 holding only 1/7 of the press conferences in the same length of time that his father, Bush '41 managed to hold, is that not a cause of concern to
you, and news coverage of Jeb Bush's 2004 felon purge list exhibiting no ability to even survive the light of public examination as a legitimate instrument of authority, despite Jeb Bush's assurances of the lists integrity, when he was still able to keep the list secret, do not seem like larger
problems to you than the voices of political dissent relating to Bush '43,
what would be the impetus to nudge Bush into holding more press
conferences, or for Jeb to abondon his voter purging policy ?
Bush already has Fox News, Rush, Hannity, and Drudge to cheerlead for him
without any demands that he answer directly to the people, via the press.
Challenging and questioning authority can only strengthen and legitimize it.
Is your pronouncement of a problem causing harm, something that you can document ?

Art, if you're saying, in more words, that your plan predictably backfired on you, then I'd say you went about it the wrong way. You already knew what your post would produce before you hit the submit button.

I think you need to be more specific and pointed, with 'plain english' wording, as everyone else here has been. Then, maybe, you will achieve your desired effect.

I don't have a plan, Halx - except to observe the results of saying the things I say.

As I've mentioned, I do not intend to convince anyone of anything. This is an important principle of mine. I would be more pleased, of course, if people responded to things I actually say than things I don't say. But I have no control over that.

I have an interest in spurring discussion. I do that fairly well.

But my main plan, if it could be called that, is to say things that I think need to be said - in the contexts wherein I choose to say them. I always appreciate the opportunity to do that.

My impression is that this discussion has focused mainly on how you approach discussions - not the purpose of supporting or not supporting the sitting President. If it was your intent to discuss how you approach discussions, you have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

This thread became useless when you decided that anyone who questioned you on your post was not reading the words of your post.

You come across very arrogant and condescending.

It is your opinion, and I respect that. I do not respect somebody that spends more time complaining about people misunderstanding him then he does trying to explain what he said.

I attempted to enter the discussion you seemed to desire in your initial post because it held interest for me. My attempts did not succeed. So I will now withdraw.

I think I've done a good job of outlining with each post what I'm interpreting your words to mean, Art. If any of what I'm writing is wrong, then I believe you have done a bad job of communicating on the level. As Opie pointed out, you are approaching this very arrogantly. I think we agreed that we don't allow people to use our members for social experiments.

Threads often have lives of their own based on who responds to them and how.

Reading through the thread is illuminating.

Its digressions have been effected by several factors and several individuals. Some I responded to, some I have not. I don't stay active in most threads in this forum for this long myself as a rule.

The problematic nature of this one notwithstanding, I'll restate an original position or two because I think they have merit.

I see some value in supporting the President who is duly elected - even though this is still disputed by some in the current instance - and who is invested with the Constitutionally prescribed powers of leading the nation. I see so much value in it that I pledge to support the other party's candidate if he comes to power. This is especially significant in a context where it seems so outrageous to say such a thing. That's an abnormal condition that's noteworthy. This thread helped me to comprehend how severely it is the case.

Many people believe their dissent is noble. I don't contest that some dissent is noble. Much of the dissent I see is not. Why? Because it is done for reasons that are self-serving and not in the interest of anyone except the dissenter. I think that occasionally needs to be said.

In any event, this current political climate is, in my opinion, an unhealthy one. My pledge of supporting the other party's candididate is offered in the interest of conciliation. I'm surprised that isn't acknowledged. But perhaps not.

Those who dislike the current administration so passionately are not easily cooled. This is another problem we have. I'd like to address it but it seems it is not amenable to moderate discussion. That's too bad. It's why I am beginning to think it may be best for the nation if GWB is not elected. It would be a poor state of affairs for his detractors -who are so vocal - to live the rest of their lives believing he and his administration were responsible for the state of the nation and the state of the world. In my opinion they are not. That's one of my initial points and I'm taking the space to restate it here.

American foreign policy reflects, in large part, the ongoing cultural assumptions of the USA. Some aspects of this, perhaps the fact that the vast majority of US citizens are religious, for example, seems to be at the root of what offends the detractors of GWB - as he reflects this aspect of our citizenry. I have no interest whatsoever in religion but I understand why it has always been an integral part of our government - because the people want it that way. There are other factors that can be listed here that operate in the same way - the particular trade-off between security and liberty made by our citizens that was disussed earlier comes to mind.

So I suppose, what I see is that the detractors of the current administration actually are offended by some aspects of US culture that are reflected in the current administration.

I'm offended by the culture that supports John Kerry equally as much - believe me. But I am willing to accept and support him if he is elected.

Art,

This thread exemplifies some of what I believe we had discussed earlier in the Constructive Engagement thread. Specifically, your purposes in posting are not always compatible with the reasons and assumptions behind others' posts in this forum. I don't want to put words in your mouth, since I think you speak well for yourself, but it seems that when you see someone who disagrees with you, your first thought is not to treat them as a potential convert and argue with them. I think that you, like myself, try to see this person as a potential teacher and learn about their view points. If this is true, then it would make sense that you could make a post such as the one that started this thread and think that people will just accept it as a statement of your views which is intended more to illuminate your thoughts than it is to change theirs. At least, that is often how I post, and how I try to read the posts of others. Unfortunately, the common mode of dialogue here on TFP and in real life is to proceed to attempt to convince someone of the validity of your views as soon as a disagreement is discovered. I don't truly believe that the tension in this thread is due to arrogance or condescension. I think it has come from the fact that different people express themselves for different reasons - and when this isn't acknowledged the friction between modes of communication is frequently assigned to the individuals doing the communicating.

That said, I have to agree with Art's original post. I don't believe that he is preaching assent for the sake of assent. I do think that he is saying that because he (and I think so to) sees what appears to be much dissent for the sake of dissent, he feels that a balancing position is appropriate. I respect that there are people that strongly dislike our current president. In truth, I value that this is the case. However, I also value people who dislike or like GWB in the context of his position. I can say that I think the political atmosphere might promote more healthy discussion if we didn't seem to personalize our dissent or support for politicians as much as has become customary under Bill Clinton and George Bush. It is hard to say whether we are seeing a swing of the pendulum towards personalization (and I don't mean personal or negative attacks - I mean the type of opinion that people hold as individuals) or if we are witnessing the birth of a new mode of political awareness. Of course, it is always possible that this is and has been standard operating procedure in politics, and we are having a collective mismemory of the "good old days".

Also, I can sympathize with frustration over people arguing with what they think I believe rather than what I say. It happens to me quite often in real life, and I can't decide whether it is because I don't express myself well or if it is because people are not good at listening to each other. Probably some of both...

Art,

I posted in another thread (I don't honestly remember if it was the beginning of this one :) ) that I consider self-interest to be, or one of, the most noble causes.

That is, if my dissent is a function of my self-interest, although I am not convinced it is while recognizing that could be due to my own ideologies, I welcome that. I do not view myself, in my capacity as a citizen in this nation, as being subservient to the nation or the nation's best interest. I view this nation as a construct--created to serve my interests. Following the Grand Liberal theory, a mass of people striving for their self-interests, operating within a larger contract that hinders harmful behavior (as in, taking by force), and based upon rational discourse, will find the best possible course of action for the group as a whole.

Now all of that can not be 'proven' by any scientific yardstick I know of, which leads me to understand that my position is fundamentally ideological. I still believe it to be a better flavor than adhering to what one knows works best--a fair and non-perjorative (I hope) description of the Grand Conservative theory.

My issue with the notion of the use of religion is not that I am disturbed by religious people, per se; rather, that the melding of many powerful mediums, one of them religion and another media, hinders the rational discourse I think best for the reasons outlined above. I do not intend to impugn conservatives by insinuating that they are not rational by that statement. I state it in the sense that certain core beliefs can not be resolved through discussion or the presentation of evidence. Some things, I understand, can only be understood via faith. That bothers me because it shuts off a thorough analysis of one's positions.

One member thought I meant that such people are less intelligent when they rely on faith over what one might consider evidence. One's lack of information, willfull or otherwise, does not indicate one's intelligence to me. I know people who are very intelligent, yet still choose to rely on things unseen over the things that are seen. I just don't believe that will get the mass of people very far if we are trying to evolve as a people (yet two more fundamentallly ideological positions of my own: that faith won't achieve the desired result and that we actually are evolving as a mass of people). So I become incensed with politicians who tailor their message in ways that will abuse the trust many good people I know place in their government officials. While I understand how powerful machiavellian politics can be, I become angry when a democratic leader drapes his or herself in that rhetoric.

That's my biggest problem with religion in politics.

In a nutshell:

I think it's wrong to get people incited over the issue of abortion, for example, at the expense of economic issues. While I understand that many people would find it their moral responsibility to ensure another person does not sin, I find it disingenuous for a politician to bank on that belief when he or she must know, if he or she really were a christian, that persons are individually responsible for their own sins, according to the tenets laid out in the christian bible. So that position held by many christian politicians and voters smacks of hypocracy--a trait definately condemned in that book, if nothing else.

Really well said, ubertuber. I find myself attempting to argue my point across more often than not. I think it has more to do with the fact that I think if I express myself enough, that the other person will understand how I came to the decision and, ultimately, indicate that he or she knows where I am coming from. It usually appears like I am trying to browbeat others (often characterized as an 'opponent') into capitulating. I have tried to tell people when I understand their points, but disagree nonetheless. Usually, though, I end up swinging back and forth of how well i handle it, depending on how I feel about the situation, the day, or even the preconceived baggage I may have about a given poster.

I suspect that people disagree and misinterpret things I write because of their history with my persona or their belief about my belief. It's possible that sometimes people already know they disagree with me, in general, and so subsequently watch for 'reasons' to disagree within my posts. I have no way of knowing whether I do this to others, because my position is that this occurs as a function of egoistic interaction (in the non-perjorative, human condition sense of the word) rather than people intentionally finding ways to disagree.

The idealism of perfectly understood discourse is admirable.

The inherent limitations of language dictate it is not something which will ever be attained, and therefore to treat it as a great disappointment by denouncing discourse in general is misguided.

If you have an opinion you wish to express, by all means express it. If someone responds with what you consider to be a mischaracterization, it would be wise to either refrain from commenting all together or describing how your opinion differs from that perception of your opinion. To take the course of action that has been laid out in this thread - pointing out that someone else's perception of your opinion is incorrect without bothering to shed light on why it is incorrect - does no one any service.

A discussion can fulfill many needs. If you view it as a method of attaining an agreed upon outcome, more often than not you will be disappointed. If you view it as a means to seek alternate perspectives to your own for your own growth, it is a powerful tool - but only if you encourage it, not if you denounce it and hide behind your initial, apparently miscontrued, opinion.

That a course of action has been taken which intentionally limits discussion by effectively saying "you have your opinion and I have mine, that is all, but I will point out that you don't understand what my opinion is" while claiming that there is some higher purpose to this type of "discussion" is not only disingenous, but pure arrogance.

This thread has become an interesting discussion. A discussion which is not only fundamentally unrelated to the topic, but the inevitable outcome of any topic started by someone who intends to treat a discussion as an unwelcome intrusion into their opinion.

Opie,

I believe it is important to distinguish between debate and discussion. There are some people here that don't want to debate - they want to discuss. The difference lies in that they do not wish to convince others. It is about illuminating differences of opinion rather than eliminating them.

I would like to say (referring to a post you made early in this thread) that not all dissent raises the level of debate, and most debate actually lowers the level of discourse, particularly with intensely personalized topics such as current politics. This is related to the paragraph above - an invitation to dialogue is not the same as an invitation to debate. I also would like to say that this in no way means that dissent and debate are bad things. It is just that occasionally they are square pegs which can't be forced into the round holes of discussion. There is a time for everything, but in a thread that Art starts, you can bet that round pegs are more appropriate than square ones.

Well let me respond also, as you are directly quoting me and some of the phrases I used in my post.

No, you're right. You said "people should". I presumed, even assumed, that this meant that you were referring to Americans.

In every healthy political discussion, one assignes to one's "opponent" some characterisations, attributes and opinions, then moves on based upon them. Either direct quotations, or most of the time, interpretations of what they said. To do otherwise, to base an entire argument on specificallly what was said and not what was implied (or indeed what was inferred), reduces that argument to a pedantic bout of word games.

Heck, I myself fell into this trap only yesterday with another poster.

The point is that this does not do the 'argument' any good, but results in hightened feelings and raised tension.

Coupled to that is a tendency of yours to express yourself in terms that are easy to interpret in many ways. What you may consider explicit, many will interpret implicit. That's not a criticism, but simply an oberservation based upon my opinion of your use of language. But having said that, I think in this thread you have used language that is clearer than usual.

So, going back to the specifics of the post and your responses to my post...

Perhaps you didn't. But that is how I interpreted what you said, or in this case, took your position one step further. It happens in political debate all the time. It happens in any debate all the time. You say something, which is interpreted and expounded upon for the retort. That is what I did, and many did before me.

Why not respond with a counterpoint, rather than simply complain about being misquoted?

Well, let me quote one specific response of yours and bring to bear some standard semi-Socratic reasoning upon it to show you how your position was interpreted.

"Please continue exercising your inclination to judge and dissent and withdraw your support from things that do not meet your standards - I know you will anyway. I simply prefer other standards for myself and I think a little movement in this direction - a bit of a trend even - would be a healthy thing for the state of our union."

1) "Please continue excercising your inclination to judge and dissent..."

This is a direct invitation to not only dissent in the general term, politically, socially etc, but also specifically in this thred.

2) "... and withdraw your support from things that do not meet you standards"

Again, you are accepting the position of others and, by implication, 'blessing' their opinion .

3) "I simply prefer other standards for myself...

Here is the crux of the matter. By preferring "other standards" for yourself, you are immediately implying that the "other standard" is the opposite of your preceding invitation for dissention. In other words, a reasonable interpretation would be "Please continue to dissent, but I will not."

That is how you were interpreted. I think it's quite a reasonable interpretation and indeed I think it fostered an interesting debate. Note that many people do indeed take the position that was attributed to you; viz, the President should be supported because he's the President.

Hence, not only due to your original post, and subsequent comments made by you, and the fact that "Presidental obedience" is a common opinion, we developed upon the argument to debate the issue further.


Well, I'm not really sure what the purpose of this statement is. Are you refuting the arguments of others? Are you clarifying some misconceptions? Or are you figuratively sighing and saying "Tsk tsk, those people never really understand me despite my condescending to engage in petty debate with them. They'll never learn"... etc.

The use of quotation marks is usually used by me to imply the indirect quotation or expression of phrases, as often used in verbal discussion. I'm NOT implying you actually said the above phrase. I also think that's quite obvious, but worth explicitly calling out in this circumstance.


So, in summary...

You may not have said exactly what others implied or responded to. But welcome to the real world of political debate. That's what it's all about.

People interpret what is said, build upon those statements and interpretations, and move the debate on.


No offense was meant, taken and hopefully implied in this thread. I've enjoyed it and hope you have too.



Mr Mephisto

Yes. It's been interesting.
My most recent post here is about the original topic(s).

You know Art, I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even notice that last post of yours. I immediately responded to your earlier one where you expressed "frustration" at being misinterpreted.

Now that I read your later, longer and (in my mind) much clearer post, I have to turn around and say "I don't disagree with you one bit. In fact, I agree with you."

I think one of the problems in today's American politics (as an interested external observer) is that it has become so very vitriolic.

People believe Bush stole the Presidency. Other's that Clinton was a debase criminal.

It's just gotten nasty, and the "higher, more noble" causes and concepts have been forgotten.


Mr Mephisto

I would label things differently, but I do understand the difference between the types of communication.

However, this discussion/debate about the concept, benefits and risks of discussions/debates is not interesting to me.

Art, in the interest of truly understanding the point you are trying to make, I think many of us would like greater clarification of your standards. I realize you are loathe to set down specifics, but is there a line which a President can cross which will disrupt your support? I agree stongly that we should support our government and country and I would like to see less vitriol and hate in our politics. But Democracy needs agreement and dissent in order to thrive and grow. Should we be more civil? I believe and wish we were, but Democracy can be an ugly process. You have said that you almost wish Kerry will win because many of us will learn that GWB is not the cause of most of our problems. I agree that the President clearly cannot be blamed for all of the ills in America and the world, but I firmly believe that if anyone else who ran for the White House in 2000 (Gore, McCain, Nader or Bradley) had won, we would not be in Iraq, at least not in the manner we are now. So it is foolish to say there is really no difference in who our leader is.


edit/ Art, I also wanted to thank you for the topic and thoughtful insights. Hopefully threads like this can remain thoughtprovoking and civil.

I have always felt, just for myself, that rebellion and rejection - on whatever level you can manage it, is the only logical response for me and how I feel. If I cannot change the world, theleast I can do is reject it and refuse to allow things which are done to be done in my name. Any political leader elected under the present capitalist system is going to stand for things which are directly ideological opposite to what I believe, the best I can ever hope for in any election is "the lesser of two evils" - it isnt about blaming my own failings or the problems in my life on someone such as a primeminister - at the end of the day the person in charge is really not as important as a system, any president of America or leader of any western European nation will stand for the same things, capitalism, hand in hand with the social capitalist state - and the logic of exploitation and competition, the repression of co-operation and community.

From my perspective, I prefer Kerry to Bush because I believe Kerry is more competent and less tainted... if Bush or Kerry is elected I will reject them though, because they stand for all the things which I do not. Terrorism is symptom of global capitalism - you can never truly quash violence with greater applications of violence - world revolution is the path to universal peace and understanding.

I completely agree with everthing you just said. right on.

mml, again this is in context with what is occurring in the Western democracies today. Within that context, it's my opinion that the fashion of questioning the government has attained mass-media chic status - it is de rigeur for many contemporary intellectuals. I see no historical need to throw my individual voice into that deluge.

Instead, I prefer to support our due process and leave the critiques to others. I wouldn't support administrative usurpation of Constititional processes. Short of that, I have no reason to raise my voice in opposition to this or any other President. The job is difficult enough and as I indicated earlier, there is already more than sufficient criticism from the citizenry.

I am not sure I can support John Kerry if he were to become president.

I would however support our troops no matter how he uses them and would never do anything at home which would be seen as aid and comfort to our enemy. While this might not be the same as support for Kerry, I would not make his job harder when the lives of our troops were on the line.

Ustwo - I am not sure that your Churchill quote was right. I think he said "communist" and "capitalist"?

It was as it is written.

yes. but im not sure it is from churchill

I dont want to thread jack.. but the terms would have meant very different things to Churchil than they would mean to a modern American. Still, perhaps you are right, after all Churchill was a member of both the liberal and conservative party, although ideologically they are very close.

Still, to back to the thread's main point - at the end of the day to be brainless rather than heartless is a choice I make. Maybe when I pass 30 I'll think different!

SF - you put that very well. And there is something undeniable about the polarities. All my refeferences to context do indicate that I take public positions in relation to history and the positions of my colleagues - if I see a groundswell in one direction, I work to stake out the validity of an opposing position because I think the best directions must be combinations of the polarities involved - especially as regards the opinions of good people.

If we were entrusted with legislative positions, you and I, it would be incumbent upon us to work out agreements toward mutually agreeable progress.

i wonder about how some segment of people have shifted from opposition (political and/or cultural and/or affective) to cheerleading the order they once opposed---maybe one thing that happens is that the spaces bundled in parentheses get split apart along the way, or the notion of opposition gets reconfigured, or maybe something just happens that disillusions---the narratives would always be particular---but i wonder about how people who have made this shift think about their psychological and political trajectories, either as they are doing it or after the fact.
it is a complex transition, i imagine--i wonder how folk rationalize it.

one thing for sure--winston churchill has nothing of interest to say about it.

I watched my friends and colleagues – radical, anarchist, ultra-liberal, intellectual, creative individuals move unchanged from decade to decade. I saw that as quite the oddity, as the world changes daily.

In addition, I came to doubt my own life-long convictions because I could not separate those instilled in me by decades of so-called “alternative” media, which in time, I saw become the assumptions of mainstream media because the biases of my friends, peers, and colleagues were carried along with them directly into it.

At some point, I decided that my identity was my essential aesthetic creation. Since then, I have consciously crafted it and it exists as does any other text – in a constant state of evolution, flux, and re-interpretation.

My convictions today are the result of life-experience, introspection, and the creative application of aesthetic principles.

interesting--in my case i became more politically radical as i got older--but the political aspects move and have moved along a line seperate from making sonic chaos...the two paths chatter back and forth to each other, but they dont have any more direct link that i can determine.
alot of the above has to do i think with finding the effects of growing up in a small new hampshire town were much deeper than i had imagined, and that a political awareness, for me at least, had to wait until fighting against that inherited frame of reference played itself out. things started as inchoate rebellion, gradually that dropped away, eventually was replaced by a much different kind of relation to the world around me.

the diversion in the thread might be interesting--once it became a kind of metaconversation, i started thinking about the conditions that inform problems with talking constructively (or keeping that inmind as a possibility when things turn polemical) and realized that the complications that come up are probably symptoms of the ways in which people come to fashion political positions/worldviews (politics as a way of extending local experience outward, of framing it, as a mode of trying to process the world)--and that the discussion seemed from there to lead to questions of how people make these positions for themselves, where they moved from, where they moved to, what prompted the shift, how they see their own pasts, etc.

and the same thought lead to a consideration of limits on how self-aware people might be on this kind of shift--not that people do not know, but that they look at their positions from the inside...but it would seem less an inevitable relation for folk who have shifted more across their lives.

so discussion about discussion seems to lead to trying to talk about the kind of relations that structure discussion. dont know if this is the best place to pose this order of question--but i would be interested to see what came of it, should folk react here or in another thread....

Yes, roachboy - do us the honor if you would, of posing this sort of thing in a thread of its own. Some might say it is philosophy, but the philosophy of politics belongs here in this forum, as far as I'm concerned, because there is a real need for it here.