For my US political friends (and expect a long post from me on the subject, as soon as I can get my sleep issues back under some semblance of control):
I was listening to an interview with an evangelical Christian who was reluctant to support Mitt because he's representing himself as anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but she doesn't know if he seems 'genuine'. It struck me that I don't know why Mitt needs to be genuine. Isn't it enough for her if he says "I don't actually care that much about gay marriage or abortion, but I promise I'll fight for your position in exchange for your votes anyway." This 'shares our values' nonsense is just nonsense.
I don't know why Mitt doesn't just embrace his insincerity and political pragmatism. He can paint Obama as the liberal ideologue and represent himself not as a conservative ideologue but as a flexible, tough-minded businessman who is willing to do whatever it takes to serve America's interests. It's how they're going to see him anyway, so why can't he paint it in a positive light? Don't we want a president who can face down Putin and bluff him convincingly?
Well, you do want a candidate who will put forward policies that you think are good. And you want to know what he'll do. What you're actually voting for. Besides that, people don't always vote logically. I remember when Bush was running, people said he's the candidate you'd most want to have a beer with. Which... does not strike me as a qualification for President. But the fact is that people will be more likely to vote for someone they like (or think they would like) and less likely to vote for someone they perceive as unlikable or standoffish.
That said, the problem with Romney being highlighted here is that he says things that are provably, objectively false. Not uncommon, but he takes it to a surprising degree. That link is actually a tag feed to a series of posts (currently up to 17), each detailing at least half a dozen major lies. Included amongst the variety are occasions when Romney has flat out denied saying something or taking a position when there's recent video of him saying it in no uncertain terms. That's not bluffing, and I don't think it's really pragmatism, either. He will say whatever he thinks the people currently in front of him want to hear at that moment. Which is not an effective way to lead. And will not serve us well in diplomatic talks. It certainly doesn't describe someone who will fight for your position - not when he's promised other people just as strongly to fight for the opposite.
As for Obama... he's far from an ideologue. Most of the dissatisfaction from the left stems from the fact that he is actually a pragmatist. He won't push a hard line, even on important ideological matters, when he doesn't think he'll be able to get it passed. He won't take action, even with executive orders, when he thinks the political capital could be better spent elsewhere.
There's always going to be dissatisfaction from parts of the left with any president who has to make compromises. That's not really proof that he's the kind of political pragmatist that Romney is. On a number of issues, Obama has been thoughtful and careful and politically aware- and very insistent on pushing the agenda he came in with.
Remember, throughout this campaign Romney's been advancing the argument that the health care bill he passed in Massachusetts was good for Massachusetts, but not necessarily good for the country. You can either pass that off as etch-a-sketch, you can call it 'lying', or you can pass it off as the kind of political pragmatism that values what the voters want more than some internal moral compass. My point is that the latter is something you can sell.
"Mitt Romney: If the voters want DADT Repealed, I can work on it, but I'm not going to do it by executive order" is an appealing political position.
And in my estimation it's the best Romney has to offer. He's going to come off as insincere if he thinks he has to present himself to the country as someone with deeply held beliefs that he's committed to fighting for. He plainly isn't a man like that.
People will always dislike compromise. On any side of any issue. If it looks worse from the Left than the Right, it's because you agree with the right. Actually, independant analysis shows that the Right has taken a sharp Right turn, while the Left has stayed pretty much where it has been.
In fact, they've moved so far Right that they've taken to denouncing their own policy proposals as Leftie garbage. The insurance mandate was the Republican platform in the 90s, Cap and Trade was the Republican platform in 2008, etc. Market-based solutions which they instantly turned against when Obama endorsed them.
It's also worth noting that on major issues where Obama has stepped in to take a personal hand in negotiations (health care, the debt limit, etc.) Republicans have repeatedly negotiated in bad faith. They say they want A, B, and C. Obama offers them A, B, and C with D for good measure. And suddenly they say that's no good. It's too far Left. They want E, F, and G, too, or they won't do anything.
As for Romney, he actually is on record as saying that he thinks his MA health care plan should be a model for the nation. There's video.And a transcript. And, oh yeah, an op-ed Romeny wrote in which he pushed for his plan (which Obama opposed at the time) to be adopted nationally. To say he never supported it as a national plan is a deliberate untruth. AKA a lie.
It's not pragmatism. Pragmatism is seeing what's doable and going for that. You could maybe say that pragmatism is changing your position because you see the tide has turned. But saying "I never said that" when there is, in fact, video of you repeatedly saying exactly that... That's lying. Flip-flopping is a whole other issue.
As for executive orders, Obama has made much less use of them than Bush did. And he held off on doing DADT by executive order for a long time because he knew that it could just be reversed by the next President. But the fact is that he is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, and it is his right to do that.
More to the point, Congress has become a broken mess. Largely because Senate Republicans have abused the filibuster to an historically unprecedented degree. Way more than back in the 90s when they raised a huge fuss about the Democrats using it more often. It's gotten to the point that they don't even have to filibuster anymore. They just have to say that they will, and the bill or the nominee or what have you doesn't even make it to the floor. It's gotten to the point that a majority vote still counts as losing because bills are now expected to get 60 votes. For everything. At that point, doing some things via executive order seems more than reasonable to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I don't know why Mitt doesn't just embrace his insincerity and political pragmatism. He can paint Obama as the liberal ideologue and represent himself not as a conservative ideologue but as a flexible, tough-minded businessman who is willing to do whatever it takes to serve America's interests. It's how they're going to see him anyway, so why can't he paint it in a positive light? Don't we want a president who can face down Putin and bluff him convincingly?
From:
no subject
That said, the problem with Romney being highlighted here is that he says things that are provably, objectively false. Not uncommon, but he takes it to a surprising degree. That link is actually a tag feed to a series of posts (currently up to 17), each detailing at least half a dozen major lies. Included amongst the variety are occasions when Romney has flat out denied saying something or taking a position when there's recent video of him saying it in no uncertain terms. That's not bluffing, and I don't think it's really pragmatism, either. He will say whatever he thinks the people currently in front of him want to hear at that moment. Which is not an effective way to lead. And will not serve us well in diplomatic talks. It certainly doesn't describe someone who will fight for your position - not when he's promised other people just as strongly to fight for the opposite.
As for Obama... he's far from an ideologue. Most of the dissatisfaction from the left stems from the fact that he is actually a pragmatist. He won't push a hard line, even on important ideological matters, when he doesn't think he'll be able to get it passed. He won't take action, even with executive orders, when he thinks the political capital could be better spent elsewhere.
From:
no subject
Remember, throughout this campaign Romney's been advancing the argument that the health care bill he passed in Massachusetts was good for Massachusetts, but not necessarily good for the country. You can either pass that off as etch-a-sketch, you can call it 'lying', or you can pass it off as the kind of political pragmatism that values what the voters want more than some internal moral compass. My point is that the latter is something you can sell.
"Mitt Romney: If the voters want DADT Repealed, I can work on it, but I'm not going to do it by executive order" is an appealing political position.
And in my estimation it's the best Romney has to offer. He's going to come off as insincere if he thinks he has to present himself to the country as someone with deeply held beliefs that he's committed to fighting for. He plainly isn't a man like that.
From:
no subject
In fact, they've moved so far Right that they've taken to denouncing their own policy proposals as Leftie garbage. The insurance mandate was the Republican platform in the 90s, Cap and Trade was the Republican platform in 2008, etc. Market-based solutions which they instantly turned against when Obama endorsed them.
It's also worth noting that on major issues where Obama has stepped in to take a personal hand in negotiations (health care, the debt limit, etc.) Republicans have repeatedly negotiated in bad faith. They say they want A, B, and C. Obama offers them A, B, and C with D for good measure. And suddenly they say that's no good. It's too far Left. They want E, F, and G, too, or they won't do anything.
As for Romney, he actually is on record as saying that he thinks his MA health care plan should be a model for the nation. There's video. And a transcript. And, oh yeah, an op-ed Romeny wrote in which he pushed for his plan (which Obama opposed at the time) to be adopted nationally. To say he never supported it as a national plan is a deliberate untruth. AKA a lie.
It's not pragmatism. Pragmatism is seeing what's doable and going for that. You could maybe say that pragmatism is changing your position because you see the tide has turned. But saying "I never said that" when there is, in fact, video of you repeatedly saying exactly that... That's lying. Flip-flopping is a whole other issue.
As for executive orders, Obama has made much less use of them than Bush did. And he held off on doing DADT by executive order for a long time because he knew that it could just be reversed by the next President. But the fact is that he is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, and it is his right to do that.
More to the point, Congress has become a broken mess. Largely because Senate Republicans have abused the filibuster to an historically unprecedented degree. Way more than back in the 90s when they raised a huge fuss about the Democrats using it more often. It's gotten to the point that they don't even have to filibuster anymore. They just have to say that they will, and the bill or the nominee or what have you doesn't even make it to the floor. It's gotten to the point that a majority vote still counts as losing because bills are now expected to get 60 votes. For everything. At that point, doing some things via executive order seems more than reasonable to me.