Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parrallel to the current debate?

No, I saw that as well. I have enough faith in Reid to realize that he probably meant exactly what you indicated. In fact, he probably considered things like the ADA, and the Clean Water Act when conceiving the analogy(Reid isn't really an idiot, he's just not a very good politician). He probably rejected those possibilities on grounds of obscurity; failing to realize that his intended meaning with respect to the slavery debate is probably even more obscure for most of the electorate who engage with history, and politics, on an emotional level (and then there's the obvious spin/hostile voter issues).

Ok, I just have to say this... american democracy has failed in regards to congress. I am not talking about just this issue, but in general. We generally vote by how the person presents their plan than by the actual content of the plan itself.

Thus, we mostly get hot air blowing diehards who have no clue how to actually fix the problem. Thus when something fails, they immediately start pointing fingers rather than try to fix the problem because that is all they know how to do.

Congress is a reflection of its constituency.

It would be if our votes actually mattered...

There's so much wisdom on parade in this thread that my liver is going to leap up my throat and strangle my brain if I don't start drinking hard soon.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be if our votes actually mattered...

To Congressmen they do. Why do you think all these, generally well educated men, pander to the largest segment of the bell curve? They want to be reelected. Obviously, this is more apparent in the House, than the Senate by virtue of design.

Their job isn't to do what the country tells them to do. They're supposed to represent their constituents to the best of their abilities. This means considering both the desires of the mob, and the relative viability of those desires.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be if our votes actually mattered...

They do matter. The problem being that the ones with the largest impact are the ones that don't vote. Non-votes still count, just not in the tally of recorded votes. The more moderates that do not vote just leaves it to the extreme wings to be the ones controlling the vote.

exactly.

Polonius wrote:Am I the only person that read what Reid said and actually saw a parallel to the current debate?

Yes

Polonius wrote:The analogy is that in both the current health care debates, and earlier civil rights and slavery debates, the opposition essentially relied on a "let's not move too fast" type argument. History has more or less vindicated those movements, along with admittedly better examples (the ADA, the clean water act, etc.).

Well that is not an accurate representation of the historical situation on both of those events. Slavery was not that big of a deal to most people in the North, rather it was a very loud, very active minority of Abolitionists that drove the argument forward. Even still, they had neither the power nor the support to eliminate slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement. The notion that it was only the South that had problems with race is incredibly stupid and unfounded. The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North. Granted they were less severe and less widespread, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. My point being it wasn't a now or never vs. lets take this slow argument, rather it was: you should change because we think it is the right thing to do vs. bugger out of our lives type argument.

Polonius wrote:If you actually read his comments, it was that history has not judged kindly those that put their own economic interests before social progress. Now, it was either a misstep or an intentionally thrown elbow, but his actual statement is actually sort of correct.

No it is not.

Cane wrote:You're the one being willfully ignorant if you think the Repubs aren't the primary mud flingers throughout the health care debacle especially in the realm of crazy headlines. Hell that was a criticism even the likes of Jon Stewart and other lefties brought up including the infamous Bill Maher: the Dems have been playing the debate too soft while letting the Repubs win the crazy headlines through intentional misinformation and overall craziness. See: Sarah Palin, Faux News, YOU LIE, etc. It got to the point where Obama and other White House officials had to speak out in order to dismiss the looney bin stuff that the GOP brought onto the table.

Well, it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to actually read the thread all the way through. I not only admitted my disgust with the GOP, but I also pointed out that since they are in the opposition they are going to mud sling more, just like the Democrats did when they were in the same position. Please read before you post.

Cane wrote:Willful ignorance, bah humbug. More like its you're the one in denial of the GOP's actions these past few months aka "willful ignorance" with a pinch of trolling to the mix.

Flame fail. Nice try though Cane.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement.

The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North.

And that is precisely why Abraham Lincoln preserved slavery in the North and only freed those slaves that lived in the South.

Had Lincoln *also* freed the Northern slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been properly declared unconstitutional based on 5th Amendment grounds.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Well, it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to actually read the thread all the way through. I not only admitted my disgust with the GOP, but I also pointed out that since they are in the opposition they are going to mud sling more, just like the Democrats did when they were in the same position. Please read before you post.

What about my OP seemed outlandish? I pretty much stated that this is par for the course for politics and even dated it back to the founding fathers. I did make an emphasis on the GOP's take but it was deserved due to the craziness that Palin, death panels, YOU LIE, etc. imposed on the health care topic.

Flame fail. Nice try though Cane.

Play with fire you're gonna get burned, I perceived 'willful ignorance' as a personal attack so like a politician I threw it right back.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement.

The Boston Bus Riots is a prime example of racial tensions in the North.

And that is precisely why Abraham Lincoln preserved slavery in the North and only freed those slaves that lived in the South.

Had Lincoln *also* freed the Northern slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been properly declared unconstitutional based on 5th Amendment grounds.

Uhm, the emancipation Proclamation couldn't be ruled anything as it is not legislature and has no legal weight. It was just what it said it was, a proclamation. It wasn't the legal mechanism that would come into place to remove slavery as a legal institution. Also being racist in the North (which they were, no doubt) is not the same thing as slavery. You could not legally own another person in New York. Now, there are defacto slaves like indentured servants, but that wasn't aimed solely toward blacks and was equal opportunity exploitation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well that is not an accurate representation of the historical situation on both of those events. Slavery was not that big of a deal to most people in the North, rather it was a very loud, very active minority of Abolitionists that drove the argument forward.

That depends a great deal on the historian you read, but yes, generally its correct to say that there were more people who were indifferent to slavery than who held an adamant opinion on it. Though that's true of most every significant political movement; including both sides of the healthcare debate.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Even still, they had neither the power nor the support to eliminate slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with the unity of the USA then eliminating slavery. It was the same way with the Civil Rights movement. The notion that it was only the South that had problems with race is incredibly stupid and unfounded. My point being it wasn't a now or never vs. lets take this slow argument, rather it was: you should change because we think it is the right thing to do vs. bugger out of our lives type argument.

No one has even hinted at the idea the North was without race issues.

Incidentally, a "Now or Never" argument is a form of moral imperative. Its the same thing as "do this because we thinks its right".

"Let's take this slow" would've been Lincoln's position with respect to abolition; depending on the time period being discussed. And it certainly represents the opinion of those elected officials who saw the unity of the United States as being more important than slavery. "Bugger out of our lives" also was a feature of the debate, though by no means the only one, just as its a feature of the healthcare debate, but my no means the only one.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Flame fail. Nice try though Cane.

Its best to avoid trying to claim the moral high ground in a flame war you started.

dogma wrote:That depends a great deal on the historian you read, but yes, generally its correct to say that there were more people who were indifferent to slavery than who held an adamant opinion on it. Though that's true of most every significant political movement; including both sides of the health care debate.

What historians would dictate otherwise? It is an accepted consensus by the historical community that this was the reality of society.

dogma wrote:No one has even hinted at the idea the North was without race issues.

It was a preemptive strike against criticism.

dogma wrote:Incidentally, a "Now or Never" argument is a form of moral imperative. Its the same thing as "do this because we thinks its right".

They may be similar, but they are not the same, there are very subtle differences. Now or never indicates the complete moral collapse of society that is inherent in crusade movements, ie: slavery, temperance, civil rights, and now health care. "Do this because we think it is right" is chalked up to issues that are being forced upon people regardless of problems they are having or not, ie No Child Left Behind, etc.

dogma wrote:"Let's take this slow" would've been Lincoln's position with respect to abolition; depending on the time period being discussed. And it certainly represents the opinion of those elected officials who saw the unity of the United States as being more important than slavery. "Bugger out of our lives" also was a feature of the debate, though by no means the only one, just as its a feature of the health care debate, but my no means the only one.

Agreed of course. My thoughts exactly.

dogma wrote:Its best to avoid trying to claim the moral high ground in a flame war you started.

The issue in question has been resolved. It was chalked up to a misunderstanding on my part, with both parties saying regrettable things. I resolve to fix this issue over a couple of Shiner's. Cheers Cane!

Cheers and happy holidays. Mmm Shiner

JEB_Stuart wrote:What historians would dictate otherwise? It is an accepted consensus by the historical community that this was the reality of society.

That's a lack of clarity on my part. The thing which varies from historian to historian is the degree to which the abolitionist movement is regarded as a minority opinion. Where the minority is not denoted by active members of the movement, but sympathy with respect to the cause; usually also including an explicit distinction between opposition to slavery, and a belief in equal rights for blacks.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
They may be similar, but they are not the same, there are very subtle differences. Now or never indicates the complete moral collapse of society that is inherent in crusade movements, ie: slavery, temperance, civil rights, and now health care. "Do this because we think it is right" is chalked up to issues that are being forced upon people regardless of problems they are having or not, ie No Child Left Behind, etc.

Ah, you meant 'right' ( as used in the latter phrase) in the sense of efficiency, or expedience. I took it as right in the sense of a moral pronouncement: ie. the right answer as opposed to wrong answer, rather than the right answer as equivalent to the best answer.

Don't you love the English language on the internets Dogma? It is so clear!

JEB_Stuart wrote:Don't you love the English language on the internets Dogma? It is so clear!

As clear as, oh, say a Constitution.

Also, if you read the Emancipation Proclamation carefully, it does not free any slaves. It did nothing about the slave states that joined the north (he did not want to lose their support), and since the slaves in the south were in states that had seceded... lets just say they weren't free either. It only gave hope.

dogma wrote:No, I saw that as well. I have enough faith in Reid to realize that he probably meant exactly what you indicated. In fact, he probably considered things like the ADA, and the Clean Water Act when conceiving the analogy(Reid isn't really an idiot, he's just not a very good politician). He probably rejected those possibilities on grounds of obscurity; failing to realize that his intended meaning with respect to the slavery debate is probably even more obscure for most of the electorate who engage with history, and politics, on an emotional level (and then there's the obvious spin/hostile voter issues).

The most common reaction to an analogy is to note the person you're being compared to, not the exacting nature of the similarity. If I pointed out a road construction plan was similar to Hitler's, the reaction probably wouldn't be to consider the forward thinking nature of the design and the emphasis on national transport objectives, it would be to take offense at being compared to Hitler. Possibly not the most rational reaction, but we humans aren't all that rational, especially when it comes to politics.

There's also the point that 'you're on the wrong side of history' is a very polarising argument to begin with, and one that needs to be handled carefully if it's to achieve anything. Using the argument by way of analogy to slavery isn't going to handle that.

Seriously, if someone just wanted to show history tends to showing progressives in a better light than people protecting their economic interests, then he would have picked a drier issue like the Clean Water Act. But if the motivation is to villify the opposition then a person will pick a more emotive issue, such as slavery.

Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

Both the Press, and the Politician-heads, are in a constant battle of branding. Both want to sell news, but they profit it from it in entirely different ways. Look at Grayson, he started strong (well... he started something...), then basically disappeared as soon as FOX picked up his 'trail'. TBTH it is not an entirely unintelligent way of playing Politics, just a very harsh one. Reid is going a softer route, although one side has and will continue to see it as ignorant and spiteful... which... could also be a 'good' thing.

But yeah... he is not the most efficient politician...

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

It's not true.

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

It was an analogy, it isn't true or false, it's illuminating or not illuminating. Do you think the 'on the wrong side of history' argument is clearer for a lot of people after Reid's comment?

sebster wrote:
Seriously, if someone just wanted to show history tends to showing progressives in a better light than people protecting their economic interests, then he would have picked a drier issue like the Clean Water Act. But if the motivation is to villify the opposition then a person will pick a more emotive issue, such as slavery.

No doubt. I'm not saying this was anything other than mudslinging. I'm saying that it wasn't some kind of gaffe, but a planned statement which actually has a basis in reason. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better, or even that it was done poorly (I'm on the fence about the feasibility of rational public discourse with respect to this issue). It simply means that the statement makes sense in the context of a certain kind of political strategy.

dogma wrote:No doubt. I'm not saying this was anything other than mudslinging. I'm saying that it wasn't some kind of gaffe, but a planned statement which actually has a basis in reason. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better, or even that it was done poorly (I'm on the fence about the feasibility of rational public discourse with respect to this issue). It simply means that the statement makes sense in the context of a certain kind of political strategy.

Cool, I think we agree then. I doubt that there's much value in the Democrats entering a mudslinging contest with the Republicans because they'll lose*. You're better off staying clean while ineffectively selling your message, instead of getting dirty and still failing to sell your message.

But maybe there's headway to made from this, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.




*The core competency of the Republicans is mud slinging, whereas the core competency of the Democrats is... umm...

My missus is from California (staunch Democrat) and i always argue with her about politics. I maintain i would probably vote republican if i was American as i am, pro military, against socialism and advocate fiscal responsibility. I also point out i vote conservative over here and think the labour party have been a staggering failure (as always) have almost bankrupted the country (as always) have scorn for our soldiers (as always) and spend money that we dont even have like it grows on trees (as always)

Anyway, the only downside of the republican party as i see it is the bizarre way that "God" seems to be somehow tied to the GOP.

I digress, i spend alot of time watching American political shows as i find them to be genuinelly amusing. The way that the two partys in the US seem to be so much farther apart than in our politcal system (with the three main parties all becoming more alike every year) makes for some great debates.

I listen to Shaun Hannity on the radio most nights, and like to watch Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly for example. I agree with half of what they say, and find the other half terribly amusing. Highlights of this include Hannity calling someone a child molester when he said that the Navy Seals should be on trial ("Oh yeah? Well ok i think your a child molester, lets have a trial!") O'Reilly going apeshit on Geraldo Rivera and Glenn Beck pretending he was about to cry when Chuck Norris was over visiting the troops. Its comic genius. With Chuck Norris!

Anyway, the other day Hannity was talking about this exact topic, and he said the same thing that one of you Republican chaps said the other day, ie - Lincoln was a Republican.

Now, this prompted another debate between me and the missus when i said "oh ok he was a republican eh?" She said that he "technically" was, but he was a "democratic republican" and the party doesnt exist anymore, and that Lincoln would "most certainly" be a Democrat now.

Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?

I point out that i might not have a vote, but i have alot of leverage, and after my constant attacks on Obama (all style, no substance and a wealth of promises he knew for a fact he could not keep) she voted for an independant in the general election!

Although, after McCain (who i genuinelly do like) had a spastic for a vice president i didnt want him to win either....

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Is the woman telling me lies?! And do i sound like an Elephant or a Donkey?

mattyrm wrote:
Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?

Not really. What if is always a silly game, though it can be fun. The truth is that both parties are radically different now than they were then. The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a indeed Republican, but that doesn't mean anything in a modern context. There is so much more to the context of his times than just his party affiliation that.

Oh i forgot another classic moment, whilst watching Hannity and Holmes on Fox News he actually asked a panelist the question

"Would Jesus have advocated the GOP?"

mattyrm wrote:all style, no substance

There's no such thing as substance in American politics. There's a sort of zeitgeist which equivocates a certain set of positions with substance, but that's about it.

mattyrm wrote:
And do i sound like an Elephant or a Donkey?

Neither. The Republicans aren't actually about the majority of the positions you seem to hold, with the exception of being pro-military (though, in terms of rhetoric, they embrace them all). You sound more like a Libertarian. They don't get a cute(?) animal mascot.