The Democratic convention

Private effort, common good


See article

Readers' comments


Bruce Warner

All extreme partisan wackiness aside, the big themes of each party can be summed into one phrase apiece: For the Repubicans: "Hard work brings prosperity" for the Dems: "The government can do so much good".
These two ideas have long been thought to be opposites, and this - among other things - has really served to alienate the two parties. However, the idea of a hard-working, self-made American can, in fact, perfectly harmonize with the idea of a benevolent government working to better society.
For example, as a poor man, I can work very hard much of my life, completely independent, and if opportunity does not present itself, I'll be lucky to reach a median income. With little opportunity and high expenses, I may never be able to build up the kind of money needed to get that education that will land me a six-figure job.
On the flip side, sitting around relying on government handouts will not get you anywhere - that much is obvious. However, our many poor often do need these things in order to survive. What's the solution?
With a little government help (say, WIC to help feed the kids and a good grant for college because you studied hard in high school), one could put those handouts to good use. Combined with hard work, one can pull oneself out of poverty and if not achieve wealth, at least achieve "well-off" and put one's children on the path to achieving wealth. It is in that balance between capitalist and socialist methods where we will achieve real success.
The two parties need to look past their differences. Until then, we'll continue to see gridlock, and continue to be forced to those damn dirty political ads that someone is wasting billions of $ on!
Wake up, politicians! Most Americans are somewhere in the center!

Oldwhiteguy in reply to Bruce Warner

Bruce, I think that is a terrific comment. And you are right. But I do think that the right's takeover of the GOP has hardened "hard work brings prosperity" to the point of cruel exclusion. To put it another way, the Dems would (mostly) agree with the "Hard Work" thought. But the current GOP has publicly stated its denial of government doing any good, with the single exception of defense spending. They've also threatened their own members into publicly pledging to refuse ANY tax increases. Unless we get past those two ideological landmines, how can we hope to unlock the grid?

mtnhiker in reply to Bruce Warner

re Bruce Warner: Not bad- but you interjected "benevolent" government - the liberal/socialist/fascist view of Benevolent - do as the state says and everyone will get along (dispite the American Cosntitution may say), would differ vastly from the conservative view and American Constitutional view - of limited government.
"With a little government help" - that's what got us to where we are. Follow up question - where does governmeent help stop?

for the liberal/sociaist/fascist mindset - the line is never drawn
for the conservative/Constitutionalist - we went over the line a long time ago.

Locke1632 in reply to Bruce Warner

Bruce, interesting perspective. Although, I'd like to take it a bit further. There are two aspects of this that warrant a closer look. First, it's an often closely held belief that there is a linear relationship between effort and reward. That belief is, of course, totally baseless. There are numerous variables that affect earning power beyond ones willingness and ability to work. The variables include where you're born, who you're born to, emphasis on education, peer group, ..and, in many cases, pure dumb luck!

The second aspect is the perception that wealth is a zero sum game. Did Bill Gates' success make the world poorer? Too many in the American GOP believe that 'hand outs' take earned money from wealthy pockets and are then given to less well-off pockets who have not earned it. The fact is that, properly structured, assistance in the form of education, health-care, and, even, subsistance, help bring some (not all) out of poverty. These people are then able to spend more in the economy, and have a better chance of having their subsequent generations leave poverty behind. Ultimately, the smaller the number that we 'allow' to be poor, the better our total economy will be at weath creation.

Bruce Warner in reply to mtnhiker

That's why the balance is so important.



VeritasVosLiberates in reply to Locke1632




The growing disparity of wealth has created a 1% that is concerned only with itself and delusional about their own importance. They now wield influence far beyond their numbers because of Citizens United, Fox News and the fact that the current president is African American. Their tactic is pure and simple, the big lie. Their addition lies, their recitation of the facts are lies and their announced intentions are lies. And they couldn't care less. This right-wing hijacking of the GOP leaves the Democrats as the Center Party by default.


Yes, I am an entrepreneur, established and operate my own small business. pu tin long hours and expect that 'government' using my tax dollars, should perform its role in spending that money, wihtout waste on such basics the Presienert highlighted such as transport infrastructure and education.
I am increasingly resentful of being treated by the Democratic Party hierachy, from the President's "You didn't build that" down to the lowest party flunky as a "beast of burden" for implenmenting their gradiose social schemes based on some vague and undefined 'social good'.
I may be treated like a donkey, but it does not mean I will act like an ass.

Oldwhiteguy in reply to orsolino

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. You're buying the GOP version of the "didn't build that" line which, in reality, was to recognize how society works, ie, with teachers, firemen, ditch diggers and everyone else who we all need to make our businesses work. And as for the vague and undefined social good, here's my definition: the biggest wealth disparity in our history. And the top 1% are paying the lowest tax rate since Eisenhower (not counting Swiss accounts). And those guys want to continue the tax cuts.
We desperately need to lessen the gap NOT by handouts, but by having everyone pay their fair share and by supporting those things which are an investment in our future. You have to do what you feel is right. But as for me, it's when I get information hidden from me, when I'm lied to and when the numbers clearly don't add up to solving the problem, that's when I feel like I'm the ass.

Noumoe Nouzeg in reply to Oldwhiteguy

Well said. The GOP needs to lie consistently, otherwise millions of voters will understand that they will get robbed once the GOP is in power. It's mindboggling that they seem to get away with it, at nearly 50% of the popular vote.

mtnhiker in reply to Oldwhiteguy

Information Hidden? Numbers not adding up? Like (poetic justice) 16,000,000,000,000 in debt during the Democrat convention - crony capitalism going to obama supporters - You mean those numbers?
As far as paying a fair share - I came across this gem in MOney Magazine for 2010: "49 million of the 69 million households -- pay payroll tax. Of those, 34 million end up paying more in payroll taxes than they get back on their federal return."
Numbers: 20 million households pay no income tax
15 Million housholds that pay income tax get more back than they pay>

thepragmatist2 in reply to Oldwhiteguy

I can see both sides of the "you didn't build it" debate. You are correct in that businesses utilize infrastructure typically created by someone else (phone lines, internet, distributing goods on roads others built) but the typical thinking is that "government" created those things. The reality is that the American people created those things. "Government" which is a collective of US citizens paid for by hard earned tax dollars, has simply become the vehicle to manage many of those projects. Fireman, Policemen, teachers and everyone else we need to make our system work exist because of the hard working corporations and taxpayers, not in spite of them. If you want evidence of that look at the recession. When tax receipts go down because companies go bankrupt and tax payers aren't working then government projects also stop getting funded and government workers get laid off (unless you are the federal government and can borrow sh** loads of money which then has to be payed back by the US taxpayer).

I do agree with one thing you said. I think everyone should pay their fair share...I do not agree however that you really believe that. For me, when taken apart, the term "fair" implies some measure of equality, and the term "share" implies that we each contribute. This is contrary to what we have in America today where 46% of US taxpayers do not share in the burden of Federal taxes. To put it bluntly what you really mean is "we need to make you a little worse off so that we can make them a little better off". Now let me clarify that I am not rich and would be happy to take any free stuff you want to give me but I certainly don't believe it is "Fair" if I pay only 8% of what I earn and someone else is forced to pay 35 or 40%. In my estimation "fair" would be we all pay the same percentage.

After all, if you owned a garage full of collector cars and I needed a car so I took one, would you not have me arrested? I mean it's fair...I needed it and you weren't driving it right? I mean I know you worked hard to buy it but it was just sitting there collecting dust and I really needed transportation.

guest-iaimmls in reply to Oldwhiteguy


Ded Kitty in reply to orsolino

The first time I heard the "You didn't build that" sound bite, I was appalled. But after listening to the whole speech, I understood what Obama meant, and agree with him. Has nothing to do with telling business owners that they didn't build their enterprise. It was pretty clear that he simply meant, there is an infrastructure you did not build upon which the business you built can operate thanks to other people and the complicity of the US government. The fact that the GOP ran with it and used the sound bite to distort the whole meaning, looks pretty dishonest. I understand that Obama is their opponent, but no one likes people who cheat in order to win.


One of the only problems I had with Bill's speech and the whole DNC are the photos of people that look like George Clinton rather than Bill Clinton ... maybe it's a convention, but showing a woman with her medicare card and tubes coming out of her nose was exactly what the Repubs were talking about when it comes to wasting money on people that just want to take.


Socialism does not work without capitalism, the Russians and the Chinese have proven that quite abundantly, it is time for Democrats like Mr. Obama learnt that too. Dreams are not built on ideology but on pure pragmatism, I back anyone who has proven to be good with money and building then at making promises. I certainly would not trust a man who spends more then he has, I know for sure that he will eventually take me down along with him.

calbearz in reply to Space41

If the Republican platform was fiscal responsability and a balanced budget that would be a good argument. But actually their platform is to safe a few pennies in social programs while giving dollars in military spending and tax breaks to the wealthy. The national debt quadrupled and doubled in the previous two Republican administrations, so can you trust them as "men that don't spend more than they have"?

J. I. Penick in reply to calbearz

One thing that has become increasingly irksome to me in discussions of American politics is that the party holding the White House is given mindless sole credit and/or blame for economic and debt performance, while the partisan leanings of the House and the Senate are flat out ignored.

The President is not, thank God, Caesar, and treating him as if he is solely or even primarily responsible for the state of the country is not only foolish, but detrimental to the Republic. There is an endless feedback loop where this single-minded focus on the Presidency continually increases that office's stature and hence influence relative to Congress; and, frankly, the executive branch is already too powerful as is.

(Not trying to single you out, calberz. It's almost ubiquitous.)

teacup775 in reply to J. I. Penick

And it doesn't help when the fourth estate mindlessly re-enforces that echo chamber by merely regurgitating the talking points of each party, while making no reference themselves to these kind of facts.

But then, if I wass cynical, I'd say the fourth estate can't force politicians into a situation where they must answer questions raised by such facts.

And the band plays on!

Riph in reply to Space41

Actually, about 250,000,000 Chinese who have come out of poverty in the last 30 years would disagree with you. But don't let facts interfere with your philosophy.

Space41 in reply to calbearz


Space41 in reply to Riph

Is China better off today by using capitalism as a tool then they were before using it, do they not have more cash in the bank to play around with then we do? How they spend the money over the 250,000,000 you mentioned out of the 1,347,350,000 is another matter. We too have misspent our cash in this country, as we all know, we should be making all of our politician more accountable and yet we waste our time with foolish ideologies. Once every four years we, "the little people", get interested in choosing a men to head the country's top civil servant's job and many of us think that we have done our duty. I take it that you are a left leaning idealist, would you ever vote for someone who is the best of two choices regardless of your personal ideology?

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Space41







Space41 in reply to A Reasoned Voice

Being a bit nit picky is why you volunteered to be on this post, that is okay, I can understand that. You are entitled to what you know and push it, especially if you desperately want your candidate to win. But as far as I am concerned, I only have two candidate to choose from and based on my people experience I have made my pick, I am sorry if it does not agree with your ideological position.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Space41




BenWalters in reply to J. I. Penick


Space41 in reply to Ded Kitty

I never said we were socialists. I believe 'A Reasoned Voice' was arguing in favor of socialism above. I believe socialism works best when it is tied to capitalism, neither work effectively solely on their own. Unfortunately, our governmental and economical systems have broken down due to poor leadership and supervision.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Space41

Space41, I can assure you I was never arguing in favor of socialism. I believe in the free market and capitalism. Socialism has a whole slew of implementation problems.

But I am no Adam Smith extremist. I believe that government oversight/regulation is essential for the free market to operate efficiently. Also, I believe that in a modern society, some social safety net is necessary.

As others have said, I believe each problem should be looked at on its own, without ideology. For some things a pure unregulated free market works best, for others strong government control works best.


"attacking Mr Obama for a garbled remark in July"

This is the 3rd time TE has chosen to refer to Obama's remark as garbled. It is as wrong-headed now as it was the last two times. The remark was clear, the Republican retelling is garbled.

If TE were my puppy, I would be rubbing its nose in the mess.

SwittersMN in reply to Quibbler

I think what TE means by garbled is phrasing that gives ammunition to the opponents. Has it been taken out of context? Absolutely. But there are many ways President Obama could have made his point without using that phrase. If you asked him, I bet he wishes he would have phrased it differently. He is not an infant. He lives in the grown up world of American politics where sound bites rule and context is distorted by both parties. So garbled seems a fair assessment.


I have watched quite a bit of both conventions, including outside of the prime time hour. While there has been quite a mix in the quality/focus of speakers, what really struck me was the difference in mood. Even with all the difficulties of the past 4 years, both resolved and remaining, even with the relentless drumbeat of opposition to progress of any kind from the Republican party, the DNC convention was surprisingly positive, forward-looking, affirming and (dare I say it?) hopeful. In comparison, the Republican convention was negative, angry, mean-spirited, backward-looking and even hateful.

Now the Democratic approach is not surprising - as an incumbent there is no other option, but the Republicans did have an option. They could have built a positive picture of the alternate future based on more conservative principles and asked the electorate to choose between two paths.

I am an Independent and believe that a thoughtful, public-minded Republican party is essential to the proper function of democracy in the US. I do not see how they can fulfill this role, though, as the party of No.

calbearz in reply to Quibbler

I agree, I said that the Democrats make the Republicans look like robots ... angry robots. Everything was cold and calculated, except for many Clint Eastwood, while the Democrats seem more like your neighbors and the people you see at a ballpark or any big gathering.

mtnhiker in reply to calbearz

Democrats are like neighbors that you have to watch constantly or they will take all of your things because they feel like they are entitled and that you really did not earn it. And if they could not do it legally or illegally they would get the courts to do it for them. And if you do not like it they will organize thugs outside your house or business.

RoyFan51 in reply to Quibbler

As an older American, I found the Republican convention disheartening, an unending serious of mean attacks, some personal, many based on misleading statements or outright lies. And, of course, putting an unscripted Eastwood on stage, an excruciatingly hard-to-watch embarrassment of one of America's movie icons, spoke volumes to me about Romney's ability to make good decisions. He can't.

Locke1632 in reply to Quibbler




Ded Kitty in reply to mtnhiker

Interesting, I think the same of Republicans. Not only they actually want to bilk my retirement money by nixing social security and putting it in volatile Wall Street funds, but they also want to get into my wife's privates.



I think the Economist should just stick to European politics.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Clark.Kent

While you bring up a valid point about the administration's contentions, and while The Economist doesn't always hit the nail on the head, I still think that the Economist provides better coverage of Amercan politics than any other source. This article still provided some valuable points, even if I don't agree with all of it.

I don't need a newsource that I always agree with... in fact that provides little value. The Economist routinely provides reasonable perspectives that provoke thought and discussion. Likewise, unlike other sites,the majority of poster also provide valuable perspective (it just gets skewed around political season with all the nutters who are more interested in evangelizing their POV than discussing)

SwittersMN in reply to Clark.Kent

I grow tired of the stick to European politics garbage. Not as bad as the knee jerk attack many do about England, but boring nonetheless. Lots of places to get your news. I happen to enjoy an outside perspective even when I disagree. Cheers

SwittersMN in reply to Clark.Kent



"independents... gravely disappointed by the gap between his promises to transform Washington politics, and a reality that has seen him look like a prisoner of congressional dysfunction and obstructionism."

On day one of his presidency, the right had delivered a welcome gift in the Citizens United ruling. This proved to be a mortal wound to his corruption curbing plans. Does that mean we should now vote for the people holding the knife?



Republicans could care less about the American Dream. They are the cultural descendants of Plato, John Calvin, and Oliver Cromwell, who would take American back to 1896 economically and to the 1600s culturally. The first date corresponds to the election of William McKinley, who was the first reformer against the Guilded Age. The second range of dates includes the reign of Oliver Cromwell and the time of the Salem witch trials.

Despite the rhetoric, Republicans want an oligarchy of CEOs, old, money, and executives, with Evangelical Christianity, Social Darwinism, and Ayn Rand as ideological buttresses. Think Plato's Republic with businesspeople as the 'warriors' and a Reagan-like figure as 'philosopher-king.'

Sooner or later, the businesspeople backing the Republicans will tire with democracy. Watch for a period of even greater social conflict as had happened with France from 1796-1945, with Republicans as the latter-day Bonapartists.



If we are to believe this line of arguement we must make certain that all those horses, donkey's and mules that made up the wagon train get equal credit with the actual pioneers.

The problem with the Democratic party is that it ignores - at its own peril - that these ventures were from voluntry association, not mandatory collectivist action rammed down the American tax-payers throat.

That is a terrible blind spot in directing this country;s future.

Quibbler in reply to orsolino

I do hope you realize that, unless you are a pioneer (presumably meaning an entrepreneur), you have just labeled yourself an ... a donkey.

No one deserves to be considered a mere beast of burden - all people have a right to human dignity and a fair playing field.

And the US remains a voluntary association. Anyone who does not want to contribute to the common good following the democratically set down rules has two options: argue for a change in rules or move to another voluntary association.

Quibbler in reply to orsolino





"... is America better off today than it was four years ago, when he took office?" Yes, but not enough, and a major reason for "not enough" is Republican obstruction on Capitol Hill.

Southern Bell

After hearing Bill Clinton's and Michelle Obama's speeches, I'm struck anew at just how deficient and vapid were the ones delivered by Ann and Mitt Romney, particularly Ann's.

I like Mrs Romney a lot and respect her for dealing with two terrible illnesses, both life threatening. And her words about her personal life with her husband were moving and rang true.

But once she started the schtick about how she and Mitt were just like the rest of us and had "struggled" when they were in college, I suspect she lost a lot of the country. This part of the address was false and condescending and thus earns her speechwriter an F.

Mrs Romney should have just said something like "Mitt and I were born into wealth and privelege and thus believe God has chosen us to be doers of good in this world, for more is expected of those of whom more has been given. Just like other great American families such as the Kennedys and the Roosevelts who were also born into great wealth and privilege, we take the responsibilities of promoting the common good very seriously"

Mentioning two revered, wealthy American families, most of whose members are Democrats, would have resonated more with independent voters than the dishonest line that she and her husband's financial situation was like the average Americans.

calbearz in reply to Southern Bell

Wherever anybody falls in the polical spectrum, they must recognize that Michelle Obama's speech was not only good, it was close to perfect. So it made Ann Romney look like a novice by comparison ... and Bill, his speech was like having a politician sitting next to you talking politics. You would ocassionally throw this random facts and he would come back with a more in-depth look to educate you because politicians are the ones that know the inside story.

Gary C

The US economy is growing slowly but Europe is falling back into recession. Unemployment across Europe is much higher than in the US. Europe is leaning toward more toward the austarity the Republicans seem to be promoting than Obama is. Relative performance is a better measure than absolute performance.

Yes Germany as well as a few other states in the EU are doing OK. But there are states in the US that are also doing well. If you want to look at individual states you can look at Massachusetts - it ranked 47th in US job creation when Governor Romney left.

calbearz in reply to Gary C



The concept and measurement of American Dream for Democrat's constituencies and Republican Constituencies differ substancially.

When you are an illegal immigrant from a country of extreme poverty, with only basic or no education, and not a hint of hope of ever improving, coming to American right there becomes a Dream come true. Once here,you get a job as a gardener or janitor, now you are in! a fixed income to get that dreamed TV or stereo at Walmart, send remittances home, and get your kids educated for FREE! Just there the lives of these mostly latinos have improved 300% - so if they just stay there and on top of that are warrantee free health and a SS check sometime in the future? Hey! Who could ask for more.
They dont need to know how that Soc Sec money is coming from, they dont need to know who was the builder or owner of that famous hotel they work for, they dont need to know how the owners of that beautiful house of the gardens they keep made their money. All they need to know is that the "US government" will give them stuff.

That's a Democrat constituency version of the American Dream. And please dont give me the Rubios/Castros/Sandovals...those are the ABSOLUTE exception to the rule.

When you are the descendant of multiple generations white anglosaxon Americans, your American Dream takes a completely differnt angle, standards, ambitions and aspirations. Children of Kennedys are not going to be comforted with recieving one SS check in 40 years...they will most likely follow a political career in a already well stablished family. The dreams of Sam Walton may have been to have the largest retailer store in America. The dreams of the Waltons children, then start from THAT level up to built the largest retailer store in the World.

When reps talk about American Dream they think the concept is definable by every individual based on his own life levels - what Dems call American Dream is basically opportunity for the ones at the lower level by punishing and smearing at the ones at the top, who instead have their OWN next pursue on their dream list.

It will be interesting to see if (or when) someone like Chelsea Clinton gets in politics, with such a "silver spoon" (I hate that phrase) upbringing with parents that are among the most famous, savvy and experienced politicians and let's see if she is going to be bashed the way Romney has been because of he's own upbringing.

I'm trying to figure out how anybody gets their children educated for free. At least where I live, schools are paid for primarily thru property taxes. If you own a house, you pay those taxes. If you rent a house or an apartment, those taxes are part of your rent, so you pay them. If you buy anything from a business in your community, its property taxes are part of what you pay. In short, education isn't free for anybody. If you live here, you are paying for it.
(Granted, to the extent that Federal funding is involved, and the Federal budget is in deficit, you are not paying the full cost. But I didn't have the impression that that was what you were talking about.)


Excellent point Jouris. I know well that schools are paid for by property taxes that we all pay and are not gifts from the Feds like many people like to think they are. So my question to you is, DO YOU think illegal aliens are PAYING for property taxes? is the same with the use of emergency rooms in hospitals. YET, the US (god bless its generous heart) WILL NOT deny education to people. The costs are either prorated or provided somehow.

Freaux in reply to Thatseasy

As most illegal immigrants are probably not property owners, I would imagine most are paying some form of property tax in the rents they pay for housing. In my neck of the woods, landlords have been known to charge above-market rates on sub-par housing if they suspect the tenant won't/can't negotiate because of an immigration issue.

Not sure what point you were trying to make with the rest of your comment.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Thatseasy

I believe both parties share a similar American Dream, they just differ on how to get there.

This shouldn't be a choice of playing favorites (interesting how you acccuse the Democrats of smearing those at the top while at the same time you are smearing those at the bottom). IMHO, we are all in this together, and all have a responsibility to do our best to make the American Dream available to all. Reasonable people can disagree on how to do that.

The point (which I obviously did very badly at making) is that property taxes are something that you can't avoid. If you rent, it's part of what you are paying (even if not explicitly). If you own, then you are going to get a tax bill every year. And if you don't pay it, the county sherriff will be around to see you about it. Unless you are living out of your car, there is just no way around it. (And who lives out of a car and send their children to school from there?)


This he suggested, ignored a centrist case for business and government working together to promote growth and “broadly share prosperity”.

- Such beautiful words. Such feeling. Such bunk.

What on earth does business and government "working together" mean? I'd rather not have them collude at all. Yes they can work in parallel, but not together. For that matter businesses alone should not "work together". There's a word for that - its called a cartel.

And what exactly is "broadly share prosperity"? What level is prosperity? How much of it is to be shared versus retained for oneself ? And how far is it to be shared - with family and friends, with everyone in your country, why not every fellow human on planet earth?

Politicians (on both sides) love using words like "fairness", "justice", "community" and my favorite one - "values". These in politics are the equivalent of white-labelled goods in manufacturing. You can take whatever means to you as "fairness" and say the guy on the podium is on your side. And he knows that. in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

Here are three examples of business and government 'working together' that I think you would support.

- Government decides where the roads will go, private businesses build and use them.
- Government sets up standards bodies for interoperable equipment (e.g. ANSI, ISO, ITU), and private businesses provide the experts that write the standards.
- Businesses hire skills they need and fire ones they don't; government provides training and employment insurance to help people transition.

If this sounds banal, it is. It's just the normal working of an advanced civilization, it happens every day, and those who do it well (e.g. Israel) usually outcompete those who do it less well (e.g. Egypt). Those who didn't do it at all (e.g. the Sioux) get crushed.

grinnell in reply to seize_the_diem

If I understand correctly, a cartel is when companies producing the same product come together to reduce competition and raise the prices beyond what they otherwise would. Companies in a supply chain provide different parts to the same company.

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to -

Thanks for your response. You are correct - I would support the examples you have listed.

But this may be a matter of semantics - the examples you have listed to me would be examples of government and business "working in parallel", not "working together".

My understanding of "working together" is a case in which each party has material input or influence into the decisions and actions made by the other.

The former is a case in which each party has pre-designated roles and they are performed like a double blind test, completely impartially, without any input of influence of either party on the decisions and actions made by the other.

Yes, there are some examples in which the "working together" part works. But the risks vastly outweigh the benefits. Most third world countries are the way they are to a substantial degree because of the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" cabal between business and government. So it was in that sense that I meant that I don't want them working "together".

The message that I was trying to convey in the post overall was that politicians will never spell out what it is that they precisely mean by terms like broadly share/distribute. They thrive of using fluffy and vague words that sound pleasing but governance is about hard choices where you are forced to choose between two desirable things but cannot have both. Or tolerate one of two bad things because you can only get rid of one. That hard choice is never made clear. Its always a choice between black and white, like we're all retards - "My dear little Tommy, when asked to pick between candy and crap, always choose candy".

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to A Reasoned Voice

In an ironical illustration of the point of my original post, the term "working together" can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

To me, working together is "active co-operation" which is a mere step away, if not the same as "collusion". As part of a team.

To you, working together means (I'm assuming) performing designed roles that are each important but without influencing the actions or decisions of each other.

A team of detectives and scientists working together to solve a case versus detectives and doctors working together in their own separate roles to keep a city functioning.

As I've said below, I'm not very trustful of politicians because they thrive on using such words that can be interpreted in different ways by different members of the audience. The words sound all nice and good like Mom and Apple Pie until you start asking different listeners what they understand by each term.

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to seize_the_diem

You are correct. That was an overreach in my argument. Supply chain is a classic and desirable example of businesses coming together. I'm still not sure though that a similar partnership is desirable between government and business, but someone may convince me!

thepragmatist2 in reply to

These are all true examples. One small caveat...I would also add that government is not some amorphous body that magically provides these services. Our government in actuality is made up of US citizens who work for the US taxpayer who are owners and workers of the private corporations that build and use the roads. So in effect the government worker works for the taxpayer, not for the government. And the tax dollars of those corporations and private sector workers fund and pay for those roads and for the "expertise" of the government that decides where those roads go. It is the US citizen and taxpayer that allows the government to exist in it's present form, not the other way around. That is where the liberal party forgets what government is all about and where the extreme right takes it way to seriously.


If you enjoy political speeches, Bill Clinton's was vintage. The interesting thing, I thought, was his pitch to claim the Democrats as the party of aspiration. You might think this sits uneasily with the Democrats' statist instincts, and in any case the Republicans would seem to have claimed it as their own niche. But Clinton drew a philosophical distinction between (Republican) individualism as a rhetorical mantra and (Democrat) aspiration as an emotion.


Clinton was a monster in his speech last night.

Thatseasy in reply to Focus131

Yet is Obama the one credited with the silver tongue. A good orator reads from a teleprompter, give passionate entonations and can sell refrigerators in Alaska (plus hope and change).

Clinton, like Reagan can communicate. They can explain you the most difficult things in language that even a 6th grade person understands. I disagree with the Democratic platform - but Clinton has GOT TO BE one of the best, savviest, diplomats, wisest, impeccable, perfect, exceptional, phenomenal politicians we've ever seen in the American Landscape.

He was just terrific. Oh Well, too bad he isnt running...


I think this 'Pro-Choice' stance taken by the Democrats is FOOLISH!

(The Republican's 'No-Choice' stance is the correct one)

Reflux in reply to TS2912

By Foolish do you mean because it will cost them votes?

Or Foolish as in "I want to impose my religion on everyone so I am Pro-Life and must vote GOP"?

Or Foolish as in "They need someone like Romney who flip flopped on Abortion?"

Thatseasy in reply to Reflux








Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

