Independents: a word for those with just enough awareness to be embarrassed to identify as Republicans. PEROID.
2
Two points: we were told by the administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and supported by some opinions; the people who went to Iraq to look into their nuclear capabilities estimated a 5-10 year time frame of developing them; the administration wanted to invade Iraq.Money?
the financial crisis was out and out theft from those in Wall St., the activities of some and many, due primarily to deregulation's, and we still call it a financial crisis. No many and fewer ever went to jail and have become even wealthier.Money?
Trust....where has it gone and perhaps there was never any from either side
the financial crisis was out and out theft from those in Wall St., the activities of some and many, due primarily to deregulation's, and we still call it a financial crisis. No many and fewer ever went to jail and have become even wealthier.Money?
Trust....where has it gone and perhaps there was never any from either side
1
This article is nominally driven by Mr Trump (whom I support) , his firing of Mr Comey (which I support) , and Mr Mueller, who is mostly unknown to me, but, whose result will be good or bad depending on whether it agrees with our determined conclusions, as in We the Rabble, I mean We The People
Democracy is messy, and noisy and that;s the way it is
=
Thing is, Mr Trump ran against both Pubs (many of whom despised him, per #nevertrump, say at National Review, Bill Buckley's old mag) and of course Dems were just as negative, and more so
My point, is that Mr Trump! is the independent.
Oops.
Democracy is messy, and noisy and that;s the way it is
=
Thing is, Mr Trump ran against both Pubs (many of whom despised him, per #nevertrump, say at National Review, Bill Buckley's old mag) and of course Dems were just as negative, and more so
My point, is that Mr Trump! is the independent.
Oops.
1
There is no difference at all. We are a nation of sheep that follow Madison Ave. dictates. Politicians lead the herds which ever way that they need to get to the gold. there are no saints in the bank vaults, at least it is nigh impossible not to fall from Eden.
In theory yes,unfortunately, the modern Republican party has made the choice starker and starker.
When my conservative friends ask me why I vote democrat I let them know that it boils down to two simple questions for me:
Why would I trust a party that hates government to govern?
Am I a human or a taxpayer first?
When my conservative friends ask me why I vote democrat I let them know that it boils down to two simple questions for me:
Why would I trust a party that hates government to govern?
Am I a human or a taxpayer first?
2
Call yourself " independent "? That's someone with JUST enough awareness to be embarrassed by claiming Republican. Especially common in NON Red States. Just saying.
1
I am a Progressive Independent which is anything but the astroturf kind played by Hillary in the last campaign.
People like myself were last given a place at the table when Henry Wallace was Vice President until Southern Democrats (notice a pattern?) figured FDR would not survive another term and foisted Harry Truman- a Conservative Southern Democrat onto the 1944 ticket. A similar story unfolded when Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Cliintonite (Conservative Business Friendly Democrats) cabal at the DNC decided Bernie Sanders could not be allowed to get the nomination.
As we speak there is a struggle between the Third Way, former DLC (officially gone, but not really) Clintonites and real Progressives who backed Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont- a real Progressive who does not make secret, closed door speeches to Goldman Sachs for cash. There is even a lawsuit where those who rigged the process for Hillary and gave us Trump say it was their right to shove her down our throat and the reporting on this lawsuit is almost non-existent among our mainstream media. (Hmmm...)
I am an Independent until the Democrats remember who they are supposed to be- which looks nothing like any Clinton- Hillary, Bill or Chelsea (soon to run for the House). The Democrats need a Clintonectomy and soon.
People like myself were last given a place at the table when Henry Wallace was Vice President until Southern Democrats (notice a pattern?) figured FDR would not survive another term and foisted Harry Truman- a Conservative Southern Democrat onto the 1944 ticket. A similar story unfolded when Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Cliintonite (Conservative Business Friendly Democrats) cabal at the DNC decided Bernie Sanders could not be allowed to get the nomination.
As we speak there is a struggle between the Third Way, former DLC (officially gone, but not really) Clintonites and real Progressives who backed Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont- a real Progressive who does not make secret, closed door speeches to Goldman Sachs for cash. There is even a lawsuit where those who rigged the process for Hillary and gave us Trump say it was their right to shove her down our throat and the reporting on this lawsuit is almost non-existent among our mainstream media. (Hmmm...)
I am an Independent until the Democrats remember who they are supposed to be- which looks nothing like any Clinton- Hillary, Bill or Chelsea (soon to run for the House). The Democrats need a Clintonectomy and soon.
2
I was a lifelong Democrat until Hillary Clinton's second attempt to become President. I supported her when she was running against Obama. After Obama won I gave him a chance but he made it seem being an American is something to be ashamed of. He did not support our law enforcement even though the world was meaner. He did not enforce American immigration laws. I could go on and on and on. Then comes Hillary again. I was ready to have Hillary Clinton as President until she sold Americans out by pandering to Mexico and refusing to secure our borders. I think she forgot the United States really is a country with borders and laws that must be enforced. LEGAL immigration is a great thing. ILLEGAL immigration I cannot support nor can I support anyone who does support and encourage it. Right now in the US it's everyone for themselves. Quite sad.
2
One has to distinguish between "independence" and "competence". A bureaucratic official can be independent in the sense of not displaying partisan biases and still make bad decisions. In today's atmosphere, Comey has been attacked as serving partisan interests, first from one side and then from the other. But one could persuasively argue that with the best of intentions, he may simply have made unsound judgments. Hoover, during his long career, was a tyrant who was preoccupied with building and wielding his own personal power and became a menace to all who incurred his displeasure, regardless of affiliation.
One could also argue about whether Starr's failings were actually partisan or whether he simply allowed his power to go to his head. It is not clear that the examples given in this article actually illustrate failings of independence rather than of competence, including the proper use of the powers granted to the office.
And the show "Hamilton" notwithstanding, the grievances that precipitated the duel between Burr and Hamilton were primarily personal.
One could also argue about whether Starr's failings were actually partisan or whether he simply allowed his power to go to his head. It is not clear that the examples given in this article actually illustrate failings of independence rather than of competence, including the proper use of the powers granted to the office.
And the show "Hamilton" notwithstanding, the grievances that precipitated the duel between Burr and Hamilton were primarily personal.
I have worked in government both as an employee and as a contractor my entire career. My observation is that generally, the career civil service employees trend center left. But this bias does not seem to affect very much.
Instead, institutional bias matters a lot. The full time bureaucracy is first and foremost dedicated to its own survival. It's primary mission seems to be to feed and care for itself by attempting to grow its staff and budget each year - much like for-profit organizations attempt to grow market share and revenue.
The permanent bureaucracy usually deals with their political appointee overseers with passive aggressive evasion and misdirection. "This too shall pass", seems to be the watchword regardless of which party is in power.
To be certain, there are dedicated public servants who strive to follow their best professional instincts. Unfortunately, the system tends to grind up too many of those so dedicated, while rewarding those who best maintain the status quo.
Instead, institutional bias matters a lot. The full time bureaucracy is first and foremost dedicated to its own survival. It's primary mission seems to be to feed and care for itself by attempting to grow its staff and budget each year - much like for-profit organizations attempt to grow market share and revenue.
The permanent bureaucracy usually deals with their political appointee overseers with passive aggressive evasion and misdirection. "This too shall pass", seems to be the watchword regardless of which party is in power.
To be certain, there are dedicated public servants who strive to follow their best professional instincts. Unfortunately, the system tends to grind up too many of those so dedicated, while rewarding those who best maintain the status quo.
1
No. One does not seek independence except from authority which is generally your family.
In life politics and otherwise one seeks objective facts then one lands at ones preferred argument and hopes that it stands the tests of those who disagree. That test is by arguing and objectively and fairly deciding who won. Refusal to use reason and decide what facts are objective and what aren't is tantamount to conceding you have lost and do not care what harm trying to win anyway causes.
If that is too honest and "Naive" for you then maybe you are in need of this answer more than you know. Fairness and honesty is the only way to a just society.
In life politics and otherwise one seeks objective facts then one lands at ones preferred argument and hopes that it stands the tests of those who disagree. That test is by arguing and objectively and fairly deciding who won. Refusal to use reason and decide what facts are objective and what aren't is tantamount to conceding you have lost and do not care what harm trying to win anyway causes.
If that is too honest and "Naive" for you then maybe you are in need of this answer more than you know. Fairness and honesty is the only way to a just society.
The structure of our Federal Government enables partisan actors to carry out their ill-advised changes of policies. Both major parties are at fault. But it's built into the model, and that needs to change. First, Congress has designated thousands of top-level roles, from the Cabinet on down, that can be filled by political appointees. So every four years or eight years, policy can be whip-sawed left or right. Congress has the power to fix that by making fewer roles subject to appointment.
Second, Congress makes up its own operational rules that enable the majority to run rough-shod over the minority or obstruct the president's agenda. We should amend the Constitution to prevent bad actors from making up winner-take-all rules. Examples: Allow a minority of 25% of the chamber to force a vote. Votes are the best means for voters to hold Congresspeople accountable for taking a stand. Eliminate the filibuster at the same time. Set the Supreme Court on rotating 18-year terms, with one seat vacated every 2 years. This will eliminate the incentive to steal seats or obstruct appointments. We could go on.
We've learned over the past 230 years that our Constitution isn't perfect. We are allowed, and should take up the cause, to improve it, so that partisan actors can't hijack the country for partisan or even personal gain.
Second, Congress makes up its own operational rules that enable the majority to run rough-shod over the minority or obstruct the president's agenda. We should amend the Constitution to prevent bad actors from making up winner-take-all rules. Examples: Allow a minority of 25% of the chamber to force a vote. Votes are the best means for voters to hold Congresspeople accountable for taking a stand. Eliminate the filibuster at the same time. Set the Supreme Court on rotating 18-year terms, with one seat vacated every 2 years. This will eliminate the incentive to steal seats or obstruct appointments. We could go on.
We've learned over the past 230 years that our Constitution isn't perfect. We are allowed, and should take up the cause, to improve it, so that partisan actors can't hijack the country for partisan or even personal gain.
Democrats disgust me.
Republicans terrify me.
What to do?
Republicans terrify me.
What to do?
11
Become an Independent. Vote for whoever best represents your values as an American. It's a choice. Or you can refrain from voting which is also a right. Voting is not required.
1
I've wondered for a while if stuff like this needs to be some sort of triumvirate - three heads of which two have to come up with the same answer, maybe three investigations, three special counsels, or five.
Our country's going through a weird time right now. My guess is that some factor or combination of factors is changing rapidly, widening the gap between those who wish things would stay the same and those who are maybe a bit too fond of change. To be honest, I think our primary system exacerbates rather than alleviates this problem.
Our country's going through a weird time right now. My guess is that some factor or combination of factors is changing rapidly, widening the gap between those who wish things would stay the same and those who are maybe a bit too fond of change. To be honest, I think our primary system exacerbates rather than alleviates this problem.
1
As a career public servant, I can honestly say that there are many public servants who do their jobs impartially despite their own political viewpoints. They enforce the law, and regard its flaunting as an affront to our system. I have worked for both Republicans and Democrats, and I have always appreciated those who wanted my candid views; often those have been the elected officials I disagreed with the most.
9
When you run for political office or register to vote you are asked to decide what political party most closely matches your personal beliefs. Most people pick one of the two major parties, some choose to be independent of any political party, and others choose one of the minor parties. This is perfectly reasonable when it comes to politics.
However, the FBI, the CFPB, the departments of education and justice along with the rest of our non political government agencies need to remain as non political as possible. Why, because Americans are diverse in beliefs and values but equal under the eye of the law. Regardless of your gender, race, religion or political association you are protected by the Constitution.
Sadly our politicians tend to forget that they shouldn't play politics with certain things like the supreme court. Instead of focusing on picking the most qualified candidate who will represent all Americans equally they play partisan politics and choose extremists who are loyal to party ideology when filling what should be nonpartisan roles. Trump has taken things to a new low by appointing people who are unqualified and seek to destroy from within.
Hopefully this election has taught the American people the importance of putting country first even if that means crossing party lines. We need to start voting for the most qualified candidate who will unite us not divide us. The rest of our government can't function when there's so much political strife.
However, the FBI, the CFPB, the departments of education and justice along with the rest of our non political government agencies need to remain as non political as possible. Why, because Americans are diverse in beliefs and values but equal under the eye of the law. Regardless of your gender, race, religion or political association you are protected by the Constitution.
Sadly our politicians tend to forget that they shouldn't play politics with certain things like the supreme court. Instead of focusing on picking the most qualified candidate who will represent all Americans equally they play partisan politics and choose extremists who are loyal to party ideology when filling what should be nonpartisan roles. Trump has taken things to a new low by appointing people who are unqualified and seek to destroy from within.
Hopefully this election has taught the American people the importance of putting country first even if that means crossing party lines. We need to start voting for the most qualified candidate who will unite us not divide us. The rest of our government can't function when there's so much political strife.
3
"When you register to vote you are asked to decide what political party most closely matches your personal beliefs." I registered to vote 40 years ago. I don't remember being asked this question, and if I WAS asked, I don't remember my answer. Certainly it does not affect anything I do or how I'm treated at the polls. What reason is there to ask this question, except to help pollsters and statisticians come up with stupid theories about who did what in an election where their actual vote is secret?
In some states, if you don't register with a party affiliation, you can't vote in the primaries.
Clearly, "bureaucratic independence can go awry," but so can an entire two-party democratic republic.
The anti-democracy Republican Party, with its pro-plutocratic agenda, offers nothing other than the same old, stale and found wanting, Reaganomic solutions: reduce taxes, especially for very rich individuals and corporations; deregulate financial institutions and the environment; privatize, so far as politically possible, all government programs; promote shareholder value to the detriment of workers and consumers; encourage mergers and acquisitions and thereby pave the way to ever more powerful quasi-monopolies.
Neoliberal Democrats must change their ways and insure majority of Americans that the system is not stacked against them--that they have a real opportunity to achieve a prosperous future.
A Social-Democratic curbing of capitalist greed and excess provides our sole hope.
The anti-democracy Republican Party, with its pro-plutocratic agenda, offers nothing other than the same old, stale and found wanting, Reaganomic solutions: reduce taxes, especially for very rich individuals and corporations; deregulate financial institutions and the environment; privatize, so far as politically possible, all government programs; promote shareholder value to the detriment of workers and consumers; encourage mergers and acquisitions and thereby pave the way to ever more powerful quasi-monopolies.
Neoliberal Democrats must change their ways and insure majority of Americans that the system is not stacked against them--that they have a real opportunity to achieve a prosperous future.
A Social-Democratic curbing of capitalist greed and excess provides our sole hope.
2
I think we have forgotten our raison d'etre. A life lived solely for the self, for acquiring the most things, for self aggrandizement, is a life half lived. There is nothing wrong with money, fame, power, it feels great to have them and to an extent, more feels better. They are, however, tools to help a person accomplish something in their life. A successful Master is not the one with the most students, buildings, statues, etc., it is the one who has helped the most people become Masters themselves.
With great success comes great responsibility. You have mastered the rules of this life, now, help others do the same. Use your talent to help others become successful, do not forget the failures in life either; they need a hand up as well. A very successful person I know, said his goal in the second half of his life was to die poor, while everyone around him became rich.
With great success comes great responsibility. You have mastered the rules of this life, now, help others do the same. Use your talent to help others become successful, do not forget the failures in life either; they need a hand up as well. A very successful person I know, said his goal in the second half of his life was to die poor, while everyone around him became rich.
7
If you look at the rich who are trying to buy and game our system they are almost all second or third generation wealthy. Trumps, Kochs, Rebecca Mercer. Having had it handed to them all their lives they don't want it to slip away so they actually have to work.
Most people cannot resist the lure of money and power, or keep its use bridled.
Most people cannot resist the lure of money and power, or keep its use bridled.
1
And I guess, since society as a whole has, with philanthrocapitalism, you have bought that. Like them you don't get the fact, even in the few cases where such claims are actually carried out, that the point of complete distribution occurring at the end of life is ... what can I say.
Your are ludicrous slaves grateful for crumbs of the wealth you create which your no less ignorant masters dole back. The point isn't the recrumbing, it's the missed opportunity from actually being in control of your own lives.
Your are ludicrous slaves grateful for crumbs of the wealth you create which your no less ignorant masters dole back. The point isn't the recrumbing, it's the missed opportunity from actually being in control of your own lives.
1
This article fails to make a critical distinction when discussing the possibility of independence in the federal government. That missing distinction is between the career civil service and the overlay of executive political appointees. It is among the elected and appointed officials that one finds the blind ideologues and the tribal loyalists. But they rarely have expertise.
So when the new crew that comes in every election cycle brings its bright ideas for reformed objectives or new plumbing to reroute tax dollars to its chosen set of voters, cronies and oligarchs, it needs the expertise buried in the bureaucracy to figure out how to make the whole thing work. However the minions of the bureaucracy might themselves vote, they are largely apolitical and thus non-partisan in carrying out the wishes of the executive. They might warn of legal, or scientific, or even (in the case of foreign policy) cultural impediments, but largely they serve as the crew of the ship toiling below decks while the politicians on the bridge decide where they want to go. The crew deals with the hard realities of the engines and other structures of the ship. They have evidence-based decisions to make. Only on the bridge do all paths seem equally possible. Only on the bridge are the neophytes who steer the ship onto hidden reefs or recklessly ignore gathering storms.
So when the new crew that comes in every election cycle brings its bright ideas for reformed objectives or new plumbing to reroute tax dollars to its chosen set of voters, cronies and oligarchs, it needs the expertise buried in the bureaucracy to figure out how to make the whole thing work. However the minions of the bureaucracy might themselves vote, they are largely apolitical and thus non-partisan in carrying out the wishes of the executive. They might warn of legal, or scientific, or even (in the case of foreign policy) cultural impediments, but largely they serve as the crew of the ship toiling below decks while the politicians on the bridge decide where they want to go. The crew deals with the hard realities of the engines and other structures of the ship. They have evidence-based decisions to make. Only on the bridge do all paths seem equally possible. Only on the bridge are the neophytes who steer the ship onto hidden reefs or recklessly ignore gathering storms.
4
Even in New Mexico we have a few smart, perceptive people.
Being identified as " Independent" is one thing as a word or concept. But as the term applies, in current American politics,where the system is as broken and dysfunctional as it is, independent is but another word.
A better question might be, can anyone be truly "trusted" to be independent in today's polarized politics.
With the current level of mistrust and distrust among the entire electorate about the political system itself, it would seem that even Houdini would have a nearly impossible task trying to accomplish what Mueller has set out to do.
Ultimately, it's about gaining the confidence of the American people, which at this point, will likely entail a level of transparency unseen in recent times. The "findings" Mueller is able to uncover and the associated outcomes related to those findings, will only carry credible weight, if citizens on both right and left view the process he employs as " trustworthy". Since he will likely be criticized by either the Right or Left when he concludes his investigation, he needs to appeal directly to the citizens with the information he gathers and the conclusions he reaches.
Mueller has a unique opportunity here to conceivably restore a measure of faith in our political system and government on all sides of the political spectrum. It would entail completing a " Hail Mary " pass in the last seconds of the Super Bowl, and as we have seen, anything is possible.
A better question might be, can anyone be truly "trusted" to be independent in today's polarized politics.
With the current level of mistrust and distrust among the entire electorate about the political system itself, it would seem that even Houdini would have a nearly impossible task trying to accomplish what Mueller has set out to do.
Ultimately, it's about gaining the confidence of the American people, which at this point, will likely entail a level of transparency unseen in recent times. The "findings" Mueller is able to uncover and the associated outcomes related to those findings, will only carry credible weight, if citizens on both right and left view the process he employs as " trustworthy". Since he will likely be criticized by either the Right or Left when he concludes his investigation, he needs to appeal directly to the citizens with the information he gathers and the conclusions he reaches.
Mueller has a unique opportunity here to conceivably restore a measure of faith in our political system and government on all sides of the political spectrum. It would entail completing a " Hail Mary " pass in the last seconds of the Super Bowl, and as we have seen, anything is possible.
It's perfectly possible to be an independent voter. I don't like either of the dominant parties and I try to vote for best candidate ( or sometimes the lesser of two evils). Whether I could stay "independent" if I got involved in politics is a different question.
6
The lesser of two evils, is still philosophically speaking, a vote for evil.
Career State Department employees use NPR as a dissent channel, senior State staff resign en mass in seeming protest of the results of an election.
Scientists in the EPA, and a "hundred" State department employees sign a position statements that are published and sent to Congressional oversight committees.
Senior employees in the VA are allowed retire, rather than face the consequences of the untimely diagnosis and treatment of veterans.
Public perception, always stronger than facts, is that "leaks" come from disgruntled and vengeful Civil Service employees, and a phalanx of amoral contractors.
All of these seem partisan and self serving, and confirms a lack of accountability that grows greater the closer one gets to the point of the pyramid.
Perhaps we need Permanent Undersecretaries and fewer political appointees and contractors in the Federal government. Yes, it would restrict the ability to quickly change the Federal agenda with every election, but what we have now is recurring post electoral whiplash and a bureaucracy that leaks like an old stocking.
Good article. Now, what are the possible answers?
Scientists in the EPA, and a "hundred" State department employees sign a position statements that are published and sent to Congressional oversight committees.
Senior employees in the VA are allowed retire, rather than face the consequences of the untimely diagnosis and treatment of veterans.
Public perception, always stronger than facts, is that "leaks" come from disgruntled and vengeful Civil Service employees, and a phalanx of amoral contractors.
All of these seem partisan and self serving, and confirms a lack of accountability that grows greater the closer one gets to the point of the pyramid.
Perhaps we need Permanent Undersecretaries and fewer political appointees and contractors in the Federal government. Yes, it would restrict the ability to quickly change the Federal agenda with every election, but what we have now is recurring post electoral whiplash and a bureaucracy that leaks like an old stocking.
Good article. Now, what are the possible answers?
1
We've just had the highest-performing independent ever in a presidential run, and Sanders is the heavy favorite to win next time, according to polls which show he is way more popular than any other politician.
7
The answer is apparently too simple to grasp by most - just stop it.
.
If a politician (with a new face) can stand before the American people and speak sincerely, coherently, respectfully and consistently over a period of time in a way that demonstrates they personally have risen above the ills demonstrated by both candidates for President in 2016 - if they can analyze and explain how the most serious challenges our nation faces came to be (many of which remained unaddressed during the 2016 election cycle) without resorting to the partisan blame game and in doing so honestly discuss the successes and failures of BOTH parties' previous policies (there are PLENTY of both to go around), if they can fashion lessons learned that ring true - and - if they can present a credible path forward to begin addressing them in a way most people can understand - then I believe all of us can make profound changes in our political discourse.
.
To anyone who replies "but he or she was that person" - or "but President so-and-so was that person" - I suggest you refer to the first sentence above.
.
Because it starts and ends with each individual politician and citizen. Just stop it. The bad behavior of somebody else does not and cannot provide a rationale for our own bad behavior. These are dark days, but I have not lost all hope.
.
If a politician (with a new face) can stand before the American people and speak sincerely, coherently, respectfully and consistently over a period of time in a way that demonstrates they personally have risen above the ills demonstrated by both candidates for President in 2016 - if they can analyze and explain how the most serious challenges our nation faces came to be (many of which remained unaddressed during the 2016 election cycle) without resorting to the partisan blame game and in doing so honestly discuss the successes and failures of BOTH parties' previous policies (there are PLENTY of both to go around), if they can fashion lessons learned that ring true - and - if they can present a credible path forward to begin addressing them in a way most people can understand - then I believe all of us can make profound changes in our political discourse.
.
To anyone who replies "but he or she was that person" - or "but President so-and-so was that person" - I suggest you refer to the first sentence above.
.
Because it starts and ends with each individual politician and citizen. Just stop it. The bad behavior of somebody else does not and cannot provide a rationale for our own bad behavior. These are dark days, but I have not lost all hope.
2
Ms Gage and Readers: For another take on independence, consider the transition from Alan Greenspan as Fed chair, to Ben Bernanke as his successor. Dr Bernanke, as the new Fed chair, states in his book, The Courage to Act, "I also made changes in the meeting format intended to further one of my goals--reducing the identification of the Fed with the chairman by making it clear that monetary policy decisions were vested in the Committee, not a single person" (p. 122-23). Also, Dr Bernanke's emphasis on "making the monetary process more transparent and systematic" (p. 172) was a movement away from Dr Greenspan's more charismatic operating procedures.
Dr Greenspan, overall, was rated by the investment community and many economists as having had an effective and lengthy run as the chairman of the Fed. Exemplary enough, many believed, to feed the "Great Man in History Theory of Leadership" image or qualifying for an unusual "Cult of Personality" blessing.
Thus, under such circumstances, to depersonalize monetary policy from the chairman was vital for him. By emphasizing a collegial and consensual decision-making structure for monetary policy decisions, Dr Bernanke's equipoise was more sustainable. And, it was due in part to the omission that: "Many economic authorities failed to see the financial crisis coming," that helped to free Dr Bernanke from the overhang of Dr Greenspan's reputational goodwill among many investors and others.
[JJL Th 05/25/2017 5:14p Greenville NC]
Dr Greenspan, overall, was rated by the investment community and many economists as having had an effective and lengthy run as the chairman of the Fed. Exemplary enough, many believed, to feed the "Great Man in History Theory of Leadership" image or qualifying for an unusual "Cult of Personality" blessing.
Thus, under such circumstances, to depersonalize monetary policy from the chairman was vital for him. By emphasizing a collegial and consensual decision-making structure for monetary policy decisions, Dr Bernanke's equipoise was more sustainable. And, it was due in part to the omission that: "Many economic authorities failed to see the financial crisis coming," that helped to free Dr Bernanke from the overhang of Dr Greenspan's reputational goodwill among many investors and others.
[JJL Th 05/25/2017 5:14p Greenville NC]
1
To President Washington's warning, add that of John Adams:
"[A]varice, ambition, [or] revenge . . . would break the strongest chords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net." President Trump, in his "abnormality," is perhaps the biggest whale to ever test the fibers of our Constitution.
The founders of our republic were wise to insist that adherence to republican norms is a central qualification for anyone who aspires to our nation's highest office. Republican senators and representatives often proclaim their dedication to the principles embodied in our Constitution. Those among them who, out of concern for partisan advantage, allow the "abnormality" of the Trump administration to go unchecked are derelict in their most basic constitutional duties.
"[A]varice, ambition, [or] revenge . . . would break the strongest chords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net." President Trump, in his "abnormality," is perhaps the biggest whale to ever test the fibers of our Constitution.
The founders of our republic were wise to insist that adherence to republican norms is a central qualification for anyone who aspires to our nation's highest office. Republican senators and representatives often proclaim their dedication to the principles embodied in our Constitution. Those among them who, out of concern for partisan advantage, allow the "abnormality" of the Trump administration to go unchecked are derelict in their most basic constitutional duties.
2
"The track record of our “independent” experts has been mixed in recent years."
A bit of an understatement perhaps? Unmentioned were other jewels like 'opioids aren't really addicting', or 'there is no downside to unfettered free trade and globalism', or 'the integrity of the market rating agencies will protect institutions and investors', or 'inequality isn't an issue as everyone's boat will still rise', or 'there are no risks training and arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets', etc., etc.
The experts have largely been unmasked as people who make mistakes of judgement like everyone else expect that the consequences tend to be more severe. It might be because they are experts. The cliché in the graduate school that I worked at was that with a masters and a PhD you learned more and more about less and less until you knew everything about nothing. It isn't fair, we do rely upon and need our experts, but we also need some very capable 'generalists', people who know a bit more about systems, networks, risks, as it is hard to poke or pull on one thing these days without seeing an effect elsewhere. "Think tanks' are supposed to be able to provide such a perspective but they tend to have their biases too.
We need a comprehensive study what we've done badly or what we didn’t foresee, and to determine who, if anyone, has done a decent job of estimating the risk of the outcome. Kind of a merit score of the meritocracy.
A bit of an understatement perhaps? Unmentioned were other jewels like 'opioids aren't really addicting', or 'there is no downside to unfettered free trade and globalism', or 'the integrity of the market rating agencies will protect institutions and investors', or 'inequality isn't an issue as everyone's boat will still rise', or 'there are no risks training and arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets', etc., etc.
The experts have largely been unmasked as people who make mistakes of judgement like everyone else expect that the consequences tend to be more severe. It might be because they are experts. The cliché in the graduate school that I worked at was that with a masters and a PhD you learned more and more about less and less until you knew everything about nothing. It isn't fair, we do rely upon and need our experts, but we also need some very capable 'generalists', people who know a bit more about systems, networks, risks, as it is hard to poke or pull on one thing these days without seeing an effect elsewhere. "Think tanks' are supposed to be able to provide such a perspective but they tend to have their biases too.
We need a comprehensive study what we've done badly or what we didn’t foresee, and to determine who, if anyone, has done a decent job of estimating the risk of the outcome. Kind of a merit score of the meritocracy.
1
(2/2) I hone my field plans down until the universes I GOTV are a mere half of what the state party suggests. I chart who I need to target at what phase of the campaign. First round, most engaged voters, I'm looking for volunteers to help me doing voter contact. While still running that list, and a list of potential absentee voters, elderly voters who always vote Dem, plus anyone else who has utilized absentee, I throw in a hard list. New vols go on the absentee and vol search list, because a hard list could drive away a new vol. The hard list is people slightly right of center, and center, who need to have a conver about ugly policies, school lunches, Meals on Wheels, anything that would get the voter's BP up. Middle voters don't keep up between elections.
This all may not sound like rocket science, it's certainly not. But most campaigns don't even have more than a shadow field operation. And those slight operations, and even more robust, don't apply data correctly, stick to what a book told them over what their own experience tells them. The simple treatment of volunteers is done so woefully wrong it blows my mind. Volunteers are treated as simpletons. Smoke is blown up their bums, and they are kept in the dark, as if they are not capable of understanding the tricky work of campaigns. It's NOT THAT TRICKY!! But if my methods were as idiotic as most I see, I'd be embarrassed to show my logic-less logic, too.
This all may not sound like rocket science, it's certainly not. But most campaigns don't even have more than a shadow field operation. And those slight operations, and even more robust, don't apply data correctly, stick to what a book told them over what their own experience tells them. The simple treatment of volunteers is done so woefully wrong it blows my mind. Volunteers are treated as simpletons. Smoke is blown up their bums, and they are kept in the dark, as if they are not capable of understanding the tricky work of campaigns. It's NOT THAT TRICKY!! But if my methods were as idiotic as most I see, I'd be embarrassed to show my logic-less logic, too.
1
I am reasonably independent.
2
When I saw Tipper and Al kissing before the largest audience and a year later filing for divorce, I cannot trust Madison Avenue imagery.
1
The best would be Grass Roots Government by All for All .
Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone.
Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone.
1