15 ms·

> “The challenges we face are big, but our politics are small,” Mr. Cruddas said. “We have stopped asking ourselves the important question Bobby Kennedy asked.

by imgabe 12y ago

> “The challenges we face are big, but our politics are small,” Mr. Cruddas said. “We have stopped asking ourselves the important question Bobby Kennedy asked. What makes life worthwhile?” This is the real problem. I can't imagine any current politician giving a speech like the one quoted in the article. Politics today is not about "How do we make our country as good as possible?". Instead politicians only care about "How do I get my party to win and make the other party look bad?"

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
It is our own fault: we no longer vote for idealism. And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope." Edit: did I say something offensive?
- dataker 12y ago
  Not really, but pragmatism, rather than idealism, would be a better idea. Most of the time, people believe in ludicrous promises and take the candidate as a just and incorruptible individual. One would be better off looking at what candidates and their backers truthfully represent.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It is our own fault: we no longer vote for idealism. We who? > And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope." A pretty much immutable property of the two-party system in the US has been -- from day one -- that the other side will drag you through the mud for whatever you say. Whether it is idealistic or pragmatic or anything else. The idea that this is somehow new is, well, historically blind.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    We the citizens and voters. We do vote these people in office.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The guy who ran on "hope" was elected President twice, and then continued doing the same things his predecessor did that we "hoped" that he would stop.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    I didn't feel that way. Obama is just the president, not a dictator whatever the republicans would like us to believe. But he did getone thing important done in a term that was otherwise quite lacking in oppurtunities.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      He had the power to roll back, or at least stop using, the executive powers that Bush established. Instead, he expanded them, to the point of personally authorizing the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Can you imagine how it would have went if he didn't do that? I mean, ya, sucky choice, but when the Republicans are ready to pounce on him for being weak on national security ("see we told you Obama was a weak"), I see how it is hard to go backwards. If there is one thing Americans hate more than they gov killing Americans abroad, its Americans getting killed by terrorists at home. Ya, this is a very abstract threat, but politics revolves around it.
        NarTh 12y ago
        Well, if maintaining power for yourself or your party is one of your top priorities, "Republicans are ready to pounce" is a sound justification. One could ask however, is that kind of thinking what people expected or hoped for?
- mcguire 12y ago
  I believe that's incorrect, although I cannot find the article that I read recently: One of the oddities of modern America is that one party promotes idealism strongly (or it's antagonistic synonym, ideology, if you like) and many Americans strongly identify themselves (and vote) by idealism. The other party has been more pragmatic, and apparently a significant majority of Americans like the specific policies. A chunk of them just don't vote for their preferred policies.
sz4kerto 12y ago
> "Politics today is not about ..." It has never been. Parties or other representatives will represent (or claim to represent) their backers, not everyone. The more important the backers are the more they will influence the politicians. If there are two parties, one represents everyone equally and the other provides you slightly more advantage than to others, then you will (normally) vote for the latter. You should _always_ look at politics from the game theoretical and/or evolutionary perspective. (Read 'The Dictators' Handbook').
- api 12y ago
  There's certainly a lot of truth in that, but for whatever reason -- game theoretic or otherwise -- I would practically fall out of my chair if I heard a president today say stuff like what's quoted at the top of this article. Even if it was just politics, it's clear to me that the bar for political speech has dropped considerably.
rayiner 12y ago
Rhetoric is tuned to the sensibilities of the time. We live in a much more cynical time with much lower public faith in government: http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-gover... (75% versus about 20-25%). Which is ironic because we had more to be cynical about back then. After all, JFK was a rapist, and his FBI director was trying to get MLK to kill himself. It's entirely a function of economics. When JFK gave speeches, the U.S. was on the top of a world in which all its competitors had bombed each other to pieces. When Obama gives a speech, it's in a world where U.S. blue collar jobs have fled to China and Mexico. Idealism just rings hollow under those circumstances.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- e40 12y ago
  We live in a much more cynical time with much lower public faith in government It also just so happens that one of the main parties in the US has been working tirelessly for the last 40 years to make sure that faith in government is lowered. I believe it's their overarching strategy to get people to disconnect from politics, so they can rule the roost. What other reason for their party's popularity, when the party policies are not in the best interest of those voting for it?
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    The role switches based on who controls the White House so you cannot attribute that to one party or the other but should attribute it to both. However, do not confuse the national parties and the Washington establishment with local Democrats and Republicans. The local level politicians usually are much more responsive to the needs of their constituents.
    - afterburner 12y ago
      Didn't local Republican government refuse Obamacare money because, well, it was Obamacare? I think your statements are not in line with the facts, not by far. State Republican governments are often more beholden to corporate interests than even the federal party. They often fall in line with federal level ideological ploys as well (eg. banning gay marriage), so they're no better on that front.
madaxe_again 12y ago
> What makes life worthwhile? The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. It's not just a problem with politicians, it's a problem with all of us. We have, en masse, forgotten what actually matters in life.
- replicatorblog 12y ago
  WRONG! Lets let Conan field this one: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
- lgieron 12y ago
  > The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. I'd probably be sick all the time with all that wind.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> I can't imagine any current politician giving a speech like the one quoted in the article. You don't have to imagine... if you like, you could listen to them all day. They hire speechwriters who author stirring oration, and not even just during campaign season. No one bothers to listen. Ignorance? A disdain for becoming informed? I actually think that it's we all know how hollow their words are. How conditional and revocable their not-really-promises are. How many excuses they have ready when nothing changes.
astazangasta 12y ago
I find it ironic that the New York Times followed this up with "RFK was right, we DO need more jobs." Personally I'm rooting for 'full unemployment'. Everyone should read Galbraith's "the Affluent Society". Our economy is built on scarcity; we couple productivity to consumption (thus, we need jobs because we need to have money so we can buy things so we have jobs). This is idiotic, especially when we don't have scarcity any more. It's very likely humanity is productive enough to give everyone a high standard of living, but our economics don't permit it. We're too busy redistributing income upwards. Basic income seems a way out, at first. But a post-scarcity economy should be fundamentally different. This likely means getting rid of some forms of property; this won't be easy.
- mason240 12y ago
  >This is idiotic, especially when we don't have scarcity any more. We are nowhere near living in a post-scarcity world - a world isn't possible anyway (assuming an earth based society) because there is a finite amount of resources such as land, water, minerals, ect.
  - astazangasta 12y ago
    There is plenty of land, water, minerals, etc. We just need to use it efficiently. Agriculture needs to go, for example. This is not impossible on Earth. As for whether we are post-scarcity, our productive capacity is high enough to give everyone a decent life - global GDP per capita is $13,000. We just need to organize to achieve this.
    - festivusr 12y ago
      Agriculture needs to go where, exactly?
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        I'm just guessing as to the intent of the previous poster, here: Up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
PublicEnemy111 12y ago
The key to rhetoric isn't that you have to be correct, its that you have to prove that the other person is wrong(or incompetent). Thus, we have the ad hominem attacks that are so prevalent

by imgabe 12y ago

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

It is our own fault: we no longer vote for idealism. And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope." Edit: did I say something offensive?

dataker 12y ago
Not really, but pragmatism, rather than idealism, would be a better idea. Most of the time, people believe in ludicrous promises and take the candidate as a just and incorruptible individual. One would be better off looking at what candidates and their backers truthfully represent.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> It is our own fault: we no longer vote for idealism. We who? > And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope." A pretty much immutable property of the two-party system in the US has been -- from day one -- that the other side will drag you through the mud for whatever you say. Whether it is idealistic or pragmatic or anything else. The idea that this is somehow new is, well, historically blind.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  We the citizens and voters. We do vote these people in office.
philwelch 12y ago
The guy who ran on "hope" was elected President twice, and then continued doing the same things his predecessor did that we "hoped" that he would stop.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  I didn't feel that way. Obama is just the president, not a dictator whatever the republicans would like us to believe. But he did getone thing important done in a term that was otherwise quite lacking in oppurtunities.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    He had the power to roll back, or at least stop using, the executive powers that Bush established. Instead, he expanded them, to the point of personally authorizing the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Can you imagine how it would have went if he didn't do that? I mean, ya, sucky choice, but when the Republicans are ready to pounce on him for being weak on national security ("see we told you Obama was a weak"), I see how it is hard to go backwards. If there is one thing Americans hate more than they gov killing Americans abroad, its Americans getting killed by terrorists at home. Ya, this is a very abstract threat, but politics revolves around it.
      - NarTh 12y ago
        Well, if maintaining power for yourself or your party is one of your top priorities, "Republicans are ready to pounce" is a sound justification. One could ask however, is that kind of thinking what people expected or hoped for?
mcguire 12y ago
I believe that's incorrect, although I cannot find the article that I read recently: One of the oddities of modern America is that one party promotes idealism strongly (or it's antagonistic synonym, ideology, if you like) and many Americans strongly identify themselves (and vote) by idealism. The other party has been more pragmatic, and apparently a significant majority of Americans like the specific policies. A chunk of them just don't vote for their preferred policies.

sz4kerto 12y ago

> "Politics today is not about ..." It has never been. Parties or other representatives will represent (or claim to represent) their backers, not everyone. The more important the backers are the more they will influence the politicians. If there are two parties, one represents everyone equally and the other provides you slightly more advantage than to others, then you will (normally) vote for the latter. You should _always_ look at politics from the game theoretical and/or evolutionary perspective. (Read 'The Dictators' Handbook').

api 12y ago
There's certainly a lot of truth in that, but for whatever reason -- game theoretic or otherwise -- I would practically fall out of my chair if I heard a president today say stuff like what's quoted at the top of this article. Even if it was just politics, it's clear to me that the bar for political speech has dropped considerably.

rayiner 12y ago

Rhetoric is tuned to the sensibilities of the time. We live in a much more cynical time with much lower public faith in government: http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-gover... (75% versus about 20-25%). Which is ironic because we had more to be cynical about back then. After all, JFK was a rapist, and his FBI director was trying to get MLK to kill himself. It's entirely a function of economics. When JFK gave speeches, the U.S. was on the top of a world in which all its competitors had bombed each other to pieces. When Obama gives a speech, it's in a world where U.S. blue collar jobs have fled to China and Mexico. Idealism just rings hollow under those circumstances.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
e40 12y ago
We live in a much more cynical time with much lower public faith in government It also just so happens that one of the main parties in the US has been working tirelessly for the last 40 years to make sure that faith in government is lowered. I believe it's their overarching strategy to get people to disconnect from politics, so they can rule the roost. What other reason for their party's popularity, when the party policies are not in the best interest of those voting for it?
- Shivetya 12y ago
  The role switches based on who controls the White House so you cannot attribute that to one party or the other but should attribute it to both. However, do not confuse the national parties and the Washington establishment with local Democrats and Republicans. The local level politicians usually are much more responsive to the needs of their constituents.
  - afterburner 12y ago
    Didn't local Republican government refuse Obamacare money because, well, it was Obamacare? I think your statements are not in line with the facts, not by far. State Republican governments are often more beholden to corporate interests than even the federal party. They often fall in line with federal level ideological ploys as well (eg. banning gay marriage), so they're no better on that front.

madaxe_again 12y ago

> What makes life worthwhile? The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. It's not just a problem with politicians, it's a problem with all of us. We have, en masse, forgotten what actually matters in life.

replicatorblog 12y ago
WRONG! Lets let Conan field this one: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
lgieron 12y ago
> The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. I'd probably be sick all the time with all that wind.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> I can't imagine any current politician giving a speech like the one quoted in the article. You don't have to imagine... if you like, you could listen to them all day. They hire speechwriters who author stirring oration, and not even just during campaign season. No one bothers to listen. Ignorance? A disdain for becoming informed? I actually think that it's we all know how hollow their words are. How conditional and revocable their not-really-promises are. How many excuses they have ready when nothing changes.

astazangasta 12y ago

I find it ironic that the New York Times followed this up with "RFK was right, we DO need more jobs." Personally I'm rooting for 'full unemployment'. Everyone should read Galbraith's "the Affluent Society". Our economy is built on scarcity; we couple productivity to consumption (thus, we need jobs because we need to have money so we can buy things so we have jobs). This is idiotic, especially when we don't have scarcity any more. It's very likely humanity is productive enough to give everyone a high standard of living, but our economics don't permit it. We're too busy redistributing income upwards. Basic income seems a way out, at first. But a post-scarcity economy should be fundamentally different. This likely means getting rid of some forms of property; this won't be easy.

mason240 12y ago
>This is idiotic, especially when we don't have scarcity any more. We are nowhere near living in a post-scarcity world - a world isn't possible anyway (assuming an earth based society) because there is a finite amount of resources such as land, water, minerals, ect.
- astazangasta 12y ago
  There is plenty of land, water, minerals, etc. We just need to use it efficiently. Agriculture needs to go, for example. This is not impossible on Earth. As for whether we are post-scarcity, our productive capacity is high enough to give everyone a decent life - global GDP per capita is $13,000. We just need to organize to achieve this.
  - festivusr 12y ago
    Agriculture needs to go where, exactly?
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      I'm just guessing as to the intent of the previous poster, here: Up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

PublicEnemy111 12y ago

The key to rhetoric isn't that you have to be correct, its that you have to prove that the other person is wrong(or incompetent). Thus, we have the ad hominem attacks that are so prevalent