Have you changed your vote?

[monster]

Originally Posted by Juniper

If you’re 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart. If you’re 40 and not a Conservative, you have no brain.
— Sir Winston Churchill

I'm 40.
---Juniper

But do you have a brain?

US politics in general is so far the the right of UK politics, I'm not sure you can really apply Winston's quote here

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by monster

But do you have a brain?

US politics in general is so far the the right of UK politics, I'm not sure you can really apply Winston's quote here

If you compare the pre-welfare state UK of Churchill's time to current US politics, perhaps the quote stands.

[Cicero]

It's important to use your heart and brain. I'm 32.

[classicman]

I'm trying to use both and I'm getting killed for it.

[smoothmoniker]

My vote will go to the first person who stands up and, in response to some insipid story of heartbreak and loss, says, "I'm sorry for your situation, but solving that problem is not the job of government."

[Juniper]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

My vote will go to the first person who stands up and, in response to some insipid story of heartbreak and loss, says, "I'm sorry for your situation, but solving that problem is not the job of government."

:::applause:::

[dar512]

Not exactly the same thing, smooth. But at some point in Obama's nomination speech he does say that there are some problems the government is not intended to solve.

[smoothmoniker]

... and yet every speech since then has laid out the ways in which he thinks government SHOULD solve all of your problems. Doesn't count.

[BigV]

From here:

Originally Posted by Barak Obama

What -- what is that American promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours -- ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now.

If you withhold your vote until that condition is met, sm, you'll never vote. I appreciate the spirit, though.

I think in every case I've seen like the one you describe, the individuals are relating personal stories, and the candidate replies to the larger public, transforming the question (and the corresponding answer) to the closest match to some public policy he espouses. Each candidate is in the business of saying yes. Even when it is pronounced "no" they're implicitly saying yes, I'll do that for you.

Saying, "that sucks, but it's not the government's job to fix that problem" is not going to happen. People want government to fix stuff, by action or restraint. You might well see that arrangement of slyly edited out of context quotes assembled into a self incriminating mashup by each worthy opponent. But neither one will tell any voter "Grow up, I'm not your mommy or daddy."

[Pico and ME]

I believe that a society should provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. What about the elderly who cannot afford healthcare...should they just go off into the woods and die? What about single mothers rasing their children on minimum wage? Should their children be deprived of adequate nutrition and healthcare...because government should not have to solve that problem?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

I believe that a society should provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. What about the elderly who cannot afford healthcare...should they just go off into the woods and die? What about single mothers rasing their children on minimum wage? Should their children be deprived of adequate nutrition and healthcare...because government should not have to solve that problem?

Why are single women who make minimum wage having children? And why does it become the government's responsibility?

[Juniper]

The trouble is, these politicians SAY this is the way things should be, then go and do the opposite. Doh.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Juniper

The trouble is, these politicians SAY this is the way things should be, then go and do the opposite. Doh.

That's because the truth is always unpalatable to some (regardless whch camp you're in) and because the soundbite media culture trims down anything any politician says into a devastating body blow to their campaign. They have to paint a picture that fits within fairly narrow confines.

Fundamental problems require fundamental solutions, big ideas. Unfortunately big ideas are about as dangerous a thing for a politician to express as one can possibly imagine. If what you have to say is logical and sensible, it matters not one jot. By the time the media have finished with the words that came out of your mouth, they've turned you into a dangerous communist, or a self-serving oligarch.

Individual people are pretty damn smart. Taken as a body, they make up the public and the public isn't smart, it's easily manipulated. It's easily manipulated, because it exists (by its nature) in the public sphere, and the public sphere is the media's demesne. The 24 hour news channel is King, in the realm where public opinion is formed. And the political world defers to it absolutely. It has to, It's not about the ideas, now. It's about navigating the path to the White house, trying to simultaneously inspire with change whilst reassuring with continuity.

This is the price of mass engagement in the public sphere. Big ideas get spun out into the media, where heavily biased news shows use them to create moral panic at the prospect of the other side's candidate winning. With each campaign team complicit in creating this destructive environment by throwing as much dirt as they can dig on the other (overtly or covertly taking said dirt to the public), they have effectively trapped themselves in very narrow pass. Too many concepts have become politically suicidal even to contemplate.

People don't want big ideas. We might think we do. We might even crave them. We want leaders who are capable of solving our most pressing national problems and leading us into stability and prosperity. The trouble is that requires big ideas. It requires political bravery. We don't like big ideas, we fight them. We don't like brave politicians, we don't elect them.

Unsurprisingly we (on both sides of the pond) have elected more and more craven and self-serving politicians and fewer and fewer brave politicians (or maybe I am being unfair) to high offices.

[Pico and ME]

How do you propose stopping these women from having children?

I was grabbing for any examples.

In a smaller community people can easily band together to provide assistance for those among them in need. But in our larger society that is much harder to do...so what happens to those still in need?

[lookout123]

Single shot to the back of the head?