Skip to main content

Presidential Politics - III - deep concerns



What concerns me about Republicans is that there seem to be candidates from moderate to far right all advocating courses of action, many contradicting the other.  Moreover, many seem to have a firm constituency that believes in the correctness of their proposals.  It is the lack of internal consensus that is of greatest concern.  All camps delight in extolling their virtues in equal measure to their opponents’ faults.  Another, most troubling concern, is that of the polls.  In this cycle, we see complete amateurs vying for the top spot, with essentially no records of achievement – except possibly with giving speeches.  Overall, there is so much internal dissent, it has become disturbing.  Pollsters, even the most honest, have little experience polling preferences among such a large group of participants.  They give percentages of error not sustainable even by elementary statistical methods.   Moreover, they have no method of accommodating newsworthy visibility.   Yet, polls are driving the competition like nothing else.  

What concerns me about the Democrats is that all the candidates are some flavor of progressive – mostly a far left viewpoint of how this nation should operate.  Progressivism is almost exclusively concerned with social policy.   In this case there are only two (really) candidates, both with similar views, competing over shades of gray.   A recent piece in Solon.com entitled “Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up” summarizes the viewpoint that no matter how bad our person is, morally, ethically, or capably, what is important is the progressive agenda.   What is of more concern is the abject loyalty of Democrats toward the progressive candidates regardless of their positions, their flaws, or their records.  There seems so little internal dissent it has become disturbing. 

However, over the brief 220 year history of this country, we have seen consistent and periodic swings between the relatively liberal and relatively conservative agendas.  It is as if, the country can endure one direction only to unspecified limits before it signals a change is in order.  The observer may quip maybe we should find middle ground, some compromise between the two, leading to a steady and stable future.  However, that is not the way politics works.  It does work by contrast, conflict, and contradiction.  Always has.   A current change has been in the absence of compromise in respective positions among elected officials.  Another is the choices we are offered are no longer “relative” but “extreme.”  This is not good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view