September 30, 2003
So I was reading some editorials in the New York Times and they had the usual anti-Bush, anti-large-American-Corporation spin. I was seriously considering writing my own letter to the editor saying (with probably little significance) that these columnists lose credibility when they just cover a single side and do nothing but criticize the other. Then I read the next editorial, by David Brooks. It's exactly how I feel.
"Have you noticed that the furious arguments we used to have about cultural and social issues have been displaced by furious arguments about the current occupant of the Oval Office?"He has a point. Politics seems to have resorted to name calling and pointless arguments. Rather than face "facts that might complicate [their] hatred," lots of people let their irrational emotions control their mouths and thoughts. And, as he mentions, while this is prevalent among the Democrats now, it's not unique to them, nor just to partisan politics; remember "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and "freedom fries?"
Posted by charr at 9:08 AM
What drives me mad is the celebrities who publically voice their uninformed opinions. Just because they happen to look good in leather pants and stage makeup we all have to listen to their silly opinions.And don't get me started on Jane Fonda...
Politicians have always argued with whatever president is in office. It just seems that it's getting nastier and spreading to the general public. The worst part is that most of it is nonsense, lies, or rumors; people don't care to find out if what they are hearing (from celebrities, politicians, media, etc) is the truth.Brooks made a good point that this didn't start with the Democrats' basing of Bush; Republicans were just as feral about Clinton. I would add that the Democrats are better at it.And the French totally deserve to be called cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :)
Republican - Democrat. The one common denominator here is - Politician. Don't ever forget that they'd change their views and morals in a second if it got them votes or one more rung up the ladder. Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm afraid that it's more the rule.
That was one thing that impressed me in the CA debate that McClintock was in. He said unpopular things. If the govt was run like a business (not the corrupt kind), cuts would be forced simply to operate. There's too many interests and people with their hands out asking for funds. When the going gets tough, businesses cut the fluff perks and then cut jobs. They have to to stay afloat.If it's a choice between funding an art exhibit and fixing a road, I'm all for fixing the road. Art is good and relevent to our culture but roads get us to work and help us make more money (which funds the govt).
I like what you said. One thing I love about Adam Smithian economics is the principle of the invisible hand, and that things work themselves out. If the government were run, on a limited amount of capital and non-abuse of power, I think it would be much more efficient.
One flaw with your run-it-like-a-business idea. This isn't a 1,000 employee corporation. Changes that would result in quick benefits in such a scenario are unique to small entities. Plus, your example of Art-exhibit vs. Road repair is like compairing apples and bricks. Here's a better comparison - Infrastructure (road) repair vs. Homeland Security/Missile Defense.
Sure, the view is simplistic, but I think there's value to it.