8 ms·

I'd think that speaking up against the status quo is fine, as long as your goals are in line with the new administration's goals. It would make no sense to app

by modoc 18y ago

I'd think that speaking up against the status quo is fine, as long as your goals are in line with the new administration's goals. It would make no sense to appoint someone who wants to push an opposing agenda.

Alex3917 18y ago
IIRC Lincoln did.
- tptacek 18y ago
  No, that's a gross oversimplification. Re-read Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln appointed his political rivals in the Republican Party to his cabinet. He did not appoint secessionists. And his strategy was imperfect: despite his immense political talents, he was still hurt by defectors and infighting. On the other hand, slipshod vetting damaged two recent political figures: Clinton's cabinet nominations in '92, and McCain's selection of Palin this year. Obama was elected to do a job. You may want him to do some other job, like uniting the political parties or greating a great National Salon so we can debate libertarianism and socialism and economics rationally. That's not the job he's undertaken now.
  - Alex3917 18y ago
    Wasn't one of Clinton's picks given flak for having written something saying that kids should be taught about masturbation as part of the school sex ed curriculum? It seems to me that that's actually the perfect example of filtering out people who have spoken up against the status quo.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Donna Shalala. Yes. But even if I agree that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss in the public record, I can still concede that the administration shouldn't waste time picking fights with the ~15MM people (and their ~100 elected representatives) that have a huge problem with that. And it's all relative. If Warren Buffet wrote an article about teaching masturbation in a sex ed curricula, they'd still put him up for Sec T. If you're someone with no name recognition going up for a post that's not a top priority and there are 20 other reasonable candidates for the spot, your outre positions are going to be more of an issue. This all seems reasonable to me. I don't expect Obama to suspend thermodynamics; nothing's going to be 100% efficient, and I want health care fixed more than I want to watch epic media debates.
      - Alex3917 18y ago
        I agree with what you're saying, but realize that the same thing can be good on one level but bad on another level. For example, reading social news sites might be bad for my personal productivity. But at the same time, an almost limitless amount of waste could be eliminated from society if only people spent more time reading (non-fiction) books and discussing current events. Similarly, I realize that Obama has only a limited amount of political capital and it's easy to waste it by backing controversial issues that ultimately amount to nothing anyway. But at the same time, how many of our problems in society come from the lack of intellectual integrity? Maybe bringing intellectual integrity to Washington isn't enough to fix everything from the economy to health care, but it would sure as hell ameliorate the problems. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say this isn't the appropriate time to reform sex ed. But to say anyone who has ever even thought about the issue is unfit to serve the country, that might save political capital on one level but I do worry that we're digging ourselves into an even deeper hole in the long run.
        tptacek 18y ago
        I too would like to suspend thermodynamics, because I have some awesome ideas for perpetual motion machines. I would also like my grilled cheese sandwiches to fly. But you started this discussion by implying Obama was a hypocrite for wanting to vet cabinet-level nominees, and you should concede that you were wrong to do so.
        Alex3917 18y ago
        Speaking of intellectual integrity, I never said anything implying Obama should not vet candidates. I disagree with one specific part of the vetting process, that candidates should be required to out themselves for having ever entertained any "potentially embarrassing" ideas. If I am correct you hold the view that the best way to effect positive change in society is to maximize the political capital of our leaders by selecting candidates who have never had any original ideas or held any controversial positions. (And I add original ideas, since most new ideas are controversial.) However, I don't believe this is true. I believe that candidates who are intellectually curious and have intellectual integrity are the best leaders to effect change in society, since even if the public does not initially agree with all of their ideas these leaders will be in a stronger position to convince them. While I value your opinion, you have not convinced me that it is indeed correct, and so I see no reason to concede.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]

by modoc 18y ago

Alex3917 18y ago

IIRC Lincoln did.

tptacek 18y ago
No, that's a gross oversimplification. Re-read Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln appointed his political rivals in the Republican Party to his cabinet. He did not appoint secessionists. And his strategy was imperfect: despite his immense political talents, he was still hurt by defectors and infighting. On the other hand, slipshod vetting damaged two recent political figures: Clinton's cabinet nominations in '92, and McCain's selection of Palin this year. Obama was elected to do a job. You may want him to do some other job, like uniting the political parties or greating a great National Salon so we can debate libertarianism and socialism and economics rationally. That's not the job he's undertaken now.
- Alex3917 18y ago
  Wasn't one of Clinton's picks given flak for having written something saying that kids should be taught about masturbation as part of the school sex ed curriculum? It seems to me that that's actually the perfect example of filtering out people who have spoken up against the status quo.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Donna Shalala. Yes. But even if I agree that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss in the public record, I can still concede that the administration shouldn't waste time picking fights with the ~15MM people (and their ~100 elected representatives) that have a huge problem with that. And it's all relative. If Warren Buffet wrote an article about teaching masturbation in a sex ed curricula, they'd still put him up for Sec T. If you're someone with no name recognition going up for a post that's not a top priority and there are 20 other reasonable candidates for the spot, your outre positions are going to be more of an issue. This all seems reasonable to me. I don't expect Obama to suspend thermodynamics; nothing's going to be 100% efficient, and I want health care fixed more than I want to watch epic media debates.
    - Alex3917 18y ago
      I agree with what you're saying, but realize that the same thing can be good on one level but bad on another level. For example, reading social news sites might be bad for my personal productivity. But at the same time, an almost limitless amount of waste could be eliminated from society if only people spent more time reading (non-fiction) books and discussing current events. Similarly, I realize that Obama has only a limited amount of political capital and it's easy to waste it by backing controversial issues that ultimately amount to nothing anyway. But at the same time, how many of our problems in society come from the lack of intellectual integrity? Maybe bringing intellectual integrity to Washington isn't enough to fix everything from the economy to health care, but it would sure as hell ameliorate the problems. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say this isn't the appropriate time to reform sex ed. But to say anyone who has ever even thought about the issue is unfit to serve the country, that might save political capital on one level but I do worry that we're digging ourselves into an even deeper hole in the long run.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        I too would like to suspend thermodynamics, because I have some awesome ideas for perpetual motion machines. I would also like my grilled cheese sandwiches to fly. But you started this discussion by implying Obama was a hypocrite for wanting to vet cabinet-level nominees, and you should concede that you were wrong to do so.
        Alex3917 18y ago
        Speaking of intellectual integrity, I never said anything implying Obama should not vet candidates. I disagree with one specific part of the vetting process, that candidates should be required to out themselves for having ever entertained any "potentially embarrassing" ideas. If I am correct you hold the view that the best way to effect positive change in society is to maximize the political capital of our leaders by selecting candidates who have never had any original ideas or held any controversial positions. (And I add original ideas, since most new ideas are controversial.) However, I don't believe this is true. I believe that candidates who are intellectually curious and have intellectual integrity are the best leaders to effect change in society, since even if the public does not initially agree with all of their ideas these leaders will be in a stronger position to convince them. While I value your opinion, you have not convinced me that it is indeed correct, and so I see no reason to concede.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]