Why Can't the Left Govern?

[poofyhairguy]

The failed efforts to get the global-warming treaty done reflect the issue's departure from anything practical. It's impossible to read this history of global warming's demise without hearing resonances of ObamaCare's problems.

The text of the climate-change treaty at Copenhagen in 2009 included "thousands of 'brackets,' or alternative wordings." A participant described the puzzle palace: "There are more and more parallel processes, and everything must be negotiated at the same time. The number of . . . negotiation issues has increased and many of these issues . . . are discussed in different places at the same time. . . . Very few people understand the whole thing." Maybe they could just pass it to find out what's in it.

One organization specialist calls this phenomenon "social deadlock." ObamaCare is social deadlock. But the American left keeps doing it. This isn't the 1930s, and smart people on the left might come to grips with the fact that the one-grand-scheme-fits-all compulsion is out of sync with the individualization that technology lets people design into their lives today.

Rather than resolve the complexities of public policy in the world we inhabit, the left's default is to simply acquire power, then cram down what they want to do with one-party votes or by fiat, figuring they can muddle through the wreckage later. Thus the ObamaCare mandates. Thus candidate de Blasio's determination, cheered on by the city's left-wing establishment, to jam all its kids through an antique public-school system. The ObamaCare mandates are a mess, and the war on charter schools is an embarrassment.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303325204579463581942405804.html

I know WSJ is a conservative sandbox, but I think he makes a good point about the fact that technology has brought an expectation of individualism.

What do you think?

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

You were probably be sarcastic, but history shows this is par for the course for a "great leader of men." Too bad correlation did not equal causation for W.

 

[fskimospy]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303325204579463581942405804.html

I know WSJ is a conservative sandbox, but I think he makes a good point about the fact that technology has brought an expectation of individualism.

What do you think?

It's hard to really say anything to that as there really isn't any point backed by evidence that he tries to make. The idea that global warming summits have failed is similar to issues with the ACA is simply baffling. The guy is twisting himself into knots to try and make parallels and he basically comes up with that both are complex.

That's a guy desperately attempting to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

The reason why global warming treaties are hard to hammer out is that it is a collective action problem without an overarching authority to enforce compliance. Each country is personally incentivized to do nothing to limit its carbon emissions even though they all share a goal of lower global emissions. That has basically zero to do with the Affordable Care Act.

WSJ editorial page has really become a wasteland.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is true.

Just look at Syria.

Obama did NOTHING (except approve for covert operations, aid and assistance as well as campaign for military efforts and allowed for the American people to decide).

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

It would seem that is an acceptable way to conduct business. After all nothing was done about it. Then we have Obama pulling a nuke out of his ass and using it to blow up NYC. You ought to be terrurfied and seek the safety of the NSA. Putin and his actions are trivial in comparison to the Presidents fissionable anus.

Point being that I don't really buy the OP's contention about the left's inability to govern. Oh, I think the basic premise is correct, however it's not because the Right is any good at it either. They are of, by, and for the Party. Who is really right? George Washington, who perceived the dangers of leaders and lemmings.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Yeah yeah the global warming stuff is stupid. We all know why that will never work and Mother Nature is screwed.

But I think his concept that these huge overarching national policies are simply out-of-date and out-of-touch with the modern world is right on. It is not just leftest policies that fall prey to this fallacy, just often it seems leftist action requires some sort of powerful government entity to enforce the "good idea" of the policy over the natural state of humankind (doing whatever is best for each of us).

I think the best thing a political leader can do is push for innovation at a more local level and give the states freedom to innovate and compete with each other for limited resources and talent.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah yeah the global warming stuff is stupid. But I think his concept that these huge overarching national policies are simply out-of-date and out-of-touch with the modern world is right on. It is not just leftest policies that fall prey to this fallacy, just often it seems leftist action requires some sort of powerful government entity to enforce the "good idea" of the policy over the natural state of humankind (doing whatever is best for each of us).

I think the best thing a political leader can do is push for innovation at a more local level and give the states freedom to innovate and compete with each other for limited resources and talent.

I guess I would say that different problems require different solutions. I broadly agree that allowing maximum individual decision-making yields the best results, but there are quite a few times where this isn't the case.

For example each of us other than those with pre-existing conditions find it best to exclude those sick individuals from the risk pool until we become ill ourselves. The thing is that while in the short term kicking those people out of our risk pool is a smart choice, in the long term it isn't. People aren't great long term thinkers though, so you end up with the old insurance system that screwed over so many people. In such a case having a larger authority add regulations that prevents that kind of shortsighted thinking is quite valuable IMO.

There are similar cases with pollution, traffic congestion, and other negative externalities. Individuals are incentivized to behave badly despite that hurting us all as a whole.

 

[Newell Steamer]

It would seem that is an acceptable way to conduct business. After all nothing was done about it. Then we have Obama pulling a nuke out of his ass and using it to blow up NYC. You ought to be terrurfied and seek the safety of the NSA. Putin and his actions are trivial in comparison to the Presidents fissionable anus.

Ooooh, fear mongering,...

You forgot the part about the President's roaving gangs of black young men going around robbing and raping white women.

Am I doing it right??

 

[irishScott]

Yeah yeah the global warming stuff is stupid. We all know why that will never work and Mother Nature is screwed.

But I think his concept that these huge overarching national policies are simply out-of-date and out-of-touch with the modern world is right on. It is not just leftest policies that fall prey to this fallacy, just often it seems leftist action requires some sort of powerful government entity to enforce the "good idea" of the policy over the natural state of humankind (doing whatever is best for each of us).

I think the best thing a political leader can do is push for innovation at a more local level and give the states freedom to innovate and compete with each other for limited resources and talent.

This. There's also a tendency among Democrats to give themselves an A for effort, essentially equating "good intent" with "good results". Hence the "you have to pass the bill to see what's in it", gun control policies that mean well but have demonstrably failed, taxing the rich more with the misguided idea that this will help the middle class in any substantial way, Occupy Wall St, etc. Republicans have a similar fallacy, but the difference is that they don't seem to value "intent" as much. They misguidedly believe that their "morals" will always lead to a good result, but when they pat themselves on the back it's for "upholding their morals" not for "good intentions". Democrats are correspondingly far more likely to truly "compromise" than Republicans, to a fault in some cases.

Going back to the point of the op-ed, a tendency to value intentions over results and a willingness to compromise with an adversary that is not willing to reciprocate will lead to ineffective governing.

 

[Vic]

"I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ooooh, fear mongering,...

You forgot the part about the President's roaving gangs of black young men going around robbing and raping white women.

Am I doing it right??

Yes, you are. Now which of the things that have been mentioned are acceptable to you?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I guess I would say that different problems require different solutions. I broadly agree that allowing maximum individual decision-making yields the best results, but there are quite a few times where this isn't the case.

For example each of us other than those with pre-existing conditions find it best to exclude those sick individuals from the risk pool until we become ill ourselves. The thing is that while in the short term kicking those people out of our risk pool is a smart choice, in the long term it isn't. People aren't great long term thinkers though, so you end up with the old insurance system that screwed over so many people. In such a case having a larger authority add regulations that prevents that kind of shortsighted thinking is quite valuable IMO.

There are similar cases with pollution, traffic congestion, and other negative externalities. Individuals are incentivized to behave badly despite that hurting us all as a whole.

I think that makes sense up to a point, and that point is where what you are legislating goes DIRECTLY against human behavior and you have to spend unlimited resources forcing that behavior.

I think that is where climate change comes in- sure we are ruining the planet and it would be great if some entity could enforce restrictions but no group has that power and it would be scary to give a group that much power. I think the Obamacare mandate's trying to force young people to get insurance is the same way. I think if your policy, despite how great it is, is so against human nature that it requires big government to enforce then you have a bad policy. Sorry, humanity will have to do without whatever benefit your policy intended.

In my opinion, I often see leftist policy directed at how people "should" behave than how they actually behave, followed by a meltdown in the progressive community when the whole world won't play ball and tons of resources (that were previously not considered) have to be spent to enforce what they feel is the correct course of action (sometimes punitively) when incentives would work better. Sometimes I think progressives can't deal with the fact that humans are shitty creatures that only change due to self interest, and ignore that fact to the peril of their policies.

 

[Texashiker]

Where as a true leader will just pull shit straight from out his ass, call it "evidence", shame anyone who opposes military action and send hundreds of thousands to their death.

After Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase congress questioned his authority to make the deal.

Jefferson basically said too bad it's a done deal.

Real leaders know when its time to take action, and when to wait.

All obama does is go on vacation.

As for the opening post, the left is arrogant. They tell the citizens to do one thing, then they turn around and do something else.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yes, you are. Now which of the things that have been mentioned are acceptable to you?

Zero.

Sensationalism needs to stop.

Our government needs to stop reacting to fears - or, more importantly, doing what a group of fearful people demand they do.

We have become a nation of crying babies;
- I am forced to financially support my children,.. this needs to stop, or our children will detroy this nation!!
- I am forced to contribute money to the very system that benefits me,.. this needs to stop, because I can't create/generate more jobs!!
- I am prevented from forcing my beliefs on someone,.. this needs to stop, because my beliefs will die out!!

It's one thing when a wounded, hurt or incapable person crys for help. But, when the very "uber men" are whining like little shits, it makes me sick.

And, they do it by drumming up support, by creating boogie men, to support their crusades.

It's not that the left can't govern. It's that the left doesn't have the creativity to lie and fool people into harming themselves for their own crusades in life.

 

[piasabird]

Just arm the terrorists. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

 

[fskimospy]

I think that makes sense up to a point, and that point is where what you are legislating goes DIRECTLY against human behavior and you have to spend unlimited resources forcing that behavior.

I don't really see why going against human nature is a bad thing. If human nature was inclined towards doing the right thing we wouldn't need a policy to begin with. Also, nothing requires spending unlimited resources.

I think that is where climate change comes in- sure we are ruining the planet and it would be great if some entity could enforce restrictions but no group has that power and it would be scary to give a group that much power. I think the Obamacare mandate's trying to force young people to get insurance is the same way. I think if your policy, despite how great it is, is so against human nature that it requires big government to enforce then you have a bad policy. Sorry, humanity will have to do without whatever benefit your policy intended.

The bolded there seems to put forth an argument that there should be no government policy ever for anything. If human nature were in favor of a certain action you wouldn't need government to enforce it. If government is ever needed to enforce something, we shouldn't do it. ie: no government. Surely you can't mean that. It is in human nature to lie, cheat, steal, and murder from one another. We all seem very comfortable with using the power of government to run policy that is against that part of human nature.

Government exists exactly to address collective action problems. We all wanted the Nazis to lose in WW2 (except maybe Texashiker, haha), but nobody wants to get shot. We all don't want toxic waste in our rivers but nobody wants to implement pollution controls all by their lonesome. We all want to know that if we get sick we aren't permanently cut off from the health insurance market, but nobody wants to pay for it. That's what government is here for, to account for when human nature leads us to do shitty things.

In my opinion, I often see leftist policy directed at how people "should" behave than how they actually behave, followed by a meltdown in the progressive community when the whole world won't play ball and tons of resources (that were previously not considered) have to be spent to enforce what they feel is the correct course of action (sometimes punitively) when incentives would work better. Sometimes I think progressives can't deal with the fact that humans are shitty creatures that only change due to self interest, and ignore that fact to the peril of their policies.

You would have to mention what specific policies you're talking about here.

 

[piasabird]

It can be really hard to determine what is a right thing? Is waiting 4 months for a doctor's appointment like my dad did while he died from Parkinsons Disease the right thing? That was the VA. This is what you can expect from government health care.

 

[Vic]

After Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase congress questioned his authority to make the deal.

Jefferson basically said too bad it's a done deal.

Real leaders know when its time to take action, and when to wait.

All obama does is go on vacation.

As for the opening post, the left is arrogant. They tell the citizens to do one thing, then they turn around and do something else.

Isn't that the exact same complaint that the Democrats had about GW?
Honestly, I don't think any President has actually "governed" in several decades. The government is simply too big and bureaucratic. Nowadays, the job is part salesman, part scapegoat, with lots of benefits, and a hell of a book deal at the end.

As to your last paragraph, that's just the left and the right talking past each other all the time.

 

[Newell Steamer]

All obama does is go on vacation.

Yeah! Obama should be in the front lines.

Stopping abortions, preventing black teenagers from raping white women and kicking Osama Bin Ladin's head right off!!

Woooo!!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's that the left doesn't have the creativity to lie and fool people into harming themselves for their own crusades in life.

I'll have to disagree on this point. There are things which need to be addressed but one side will point at the other and that becomes the lie. The solution is to accept my sides ideology and party. Frame an issue in a way which is favorable to one side, bring in people for the cameras and give them a microphone and you can turn anything into a crisis. I'll cite the Hobby Lobby situation as example. There's conflicting perspectives, but if you were to look at how things are being presented it's poorly done, or nicely done, depending on if you want the facts in their context or want to push something. There are legitimate things which ought to be settled, however "you won't get a transfusion because of this" is inane. We need welfare and job reform. You can't do the first as it's a live wire. In NY it's never going to happen because Al Sharpton will be first in line no matter what. Jobs? Hell, either one side wants another stimulus which doesn't alter the fundamental problems and the other camp which thinks you can bootstrap yourself into positions which don't exist.

Neither side is capable because it determines in advance that it must be right before bothering to examine issues in context. You are on the Left so you are correct. He is on the right so he must be worthless. She is on the Right so she has the answers. They are Leftists and.... and so it goes. The glasses go on before the eyes and ears are ever opened. I hope none of them ever build anything.

 

[Vic]

I'll have to disagree on this point. There are things which need to be addressed but one side will point at the other and that becomes the lie. The solution is to accept my sides ideology and party. Frame an issue in a way which is favorable to one side, bring in people for the cameras and give them a microphone and you can turn anything into a crisis. I'll cite the Hobby Lobby situation as example. There's conflicting perspectives, but if you were to look at how things are being presented it's poorly done, or nicely done, depending on if you want the facts in their context or want to push something. There are legitimate things which ought to be settled, however "you won't get a transfusion because of this" is inane. We need welfare and job reform. You can't do the first as it's a live wire. In NY it's never going to happen because Al Sharpton will be first in line no matter what. Jobs? Hell, either one side wants another stimulus which doesn't alter the fundamental problems and the other camp which thinks you can bootstrap yourself into positions which don't exist.

Neither side is capable because it determines in advance that it must be right before bothering to examine issues in context. You are on the Left so you are correct. He is on the right so he must be worthless. She is on the Right so she has the answers. They are Leftists and.... and so it goes. The glasses go on before the eyes and ears are ever opened. I hope none of them ever build anything.

:thumbup:

 

[dank69]

It can be really hard to determine what is a right thing? Is waiting 4 months for a doctor's appointment like my dad did while he died from Parkinsons Disease the right thing? That was the VA. This is what you can expect from government health care.

What? My old man gets crazy good care from the VA. Way better than anything corporations are peddling these days.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I'll have to disagree on this point. There are things which need to be addressed but one side will point at the other and that becomes the lie. The solution is to accept my sides ideology and party. Frame an issue in a way which is favorable to one side, bring in people for the cameras and give them a microphone and you can turn anything into a crisis. I'll cite the Hobby Lobby situation as example. There's conflicting perspectives, but if you were to look at how things are being presented it's poorly done, or nicely done, depending on if you want the facts in their context or want to push something. There are legitimate things which ought to be settled, however "you won't get a transfusion because of this" is inane. We need welfare and job reform. You can't do the first as it's a live wire. In NY it's never going to happen because Al Sharpton will be first in line no matter what. Jobs? Hell, either one side wants another stimulus which doesn't alter the fundamental problems and the other camp which thinks you can bootstrap yourself into positions which don't exist.

Neither side is capable because it determines in advance that it must be right before bothering to examine issues in context. You are on the Left so you are correct. He is on the right so he must be worthless. She is on the Right so she has the answers. They are Leftists and.... and so it goes. The glasses go on before the eyes and ears are ever opened. I hope none of them ever build anything.

Sorry, but Fox News is the Mecca of the right. Fear is king in right politics. So much so, that when the abortion debate came up in Texas, the right cooked up stories of people throwing feces and used maxi pads and tampoons at politicians,.. yet, no arrests were made,...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...n_debate_dps_finally_releases_its_report.html

Apologies, yes, the left DOES sensationalize. Al Sharpton, that feminist lawyer, etc. etc. But, head mouth peices and news "institutions" like FoxNews aren't really around for the left,..

 

[fskimospy]

What? My old man gets crazy good care from the VA. Way better than anything corporations are peddling these days.

An interesting summary of a recent study on the VA health system:

http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-learn-from-the-va.html

 

[Texashiker]

Isn't that the exact same complaint that the Democrats had about GW?
Honestly, I don't think any President has actually "governed" in several decades.

We have not had a strong president since LBJ.