number5 wrote:
Where do you get your notions that Americans would support anything called "a social welfare state" or Swedish style redistribution?
The fact that Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security are VERY POPULAR programs. This study, as well:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt138956.htmlBut please, give as much unsupported assertions and personal anecdotes as you like.
number5 wrote:
Have you met us? We're way to arrogant a people to follow anyone else's lead and we pretty much hate poor people. Cognitive dissonance doesn't even begin to describe it. Most of the libertarians I know hate the ACLU.
I said "civil libertarians", which has a much more specific meaning than "libertarian" - which, in the states, generally refers to people who support the elimination of vast sectors of government services.
number5 wrote:
I think you way overestimate the intellect of Americans.
The ignorance of most Americans on public policy is more attributable to the lack of mass mobilizing organizations like unions then any differential in native intellect between Americans and non-Americans.
number5 wrote:
As for compromise, it's a basic technique used to solve problems. We teach it to children and they usually grasp the idea by age 4. Johnny wants to play catch and Timmy wants to play tag. They can choose to either:
a) both play catch only
b) both play tag only
c) take turns playing catch and tag
d) throw a fit and go home
You'd be surprised at how easily a child understands that compromise is the most effective and efficient way to get what they want.
Please understand that I in no way mean to condescend you. I'm just trying to illustrate how foolish our government is. When we are polarized, the democrats pass health care and then the republicans promise to repeal it. We accomplish nothing. Most of the times they just throw fits and go home. If only the grown people could just come together at the table and discuss ideas...
The HUGE problem with that analogy is that the dynamics of compromise are a lot different when one compares the operations of two kids and a ball to how any legislative body works. Such oversimplifictaions are pretty outrageous. Here's a better, though not perfect, example:
There's some bizzaro world junior high school in which the Student Council is tasked with allocating money to school facilities. 60% of students elect a slate of council reps and a president & VP who want to fix a sinkhole right outside the school door that students have to precariously leap over.
40% of students are so myopic and short-term greedy that they think the budget shouldn't go towards that, but instead a new vending machine right outside on of the more prestigous classrooms. So, the 60% block tries to "compromise" with the 40% block, who refuse anything but 100% of funds going to the vending machine. Everything's stalled and, next election, students say "if the 60% slate doesn't do anything, why not just elect the 40%ers".
This is a pretty controvoluted example, mainly because federal US politics has no childhood equivalent.
I think you just made my point for me. If the 60% slate doesn't do anything, why not just elect the 40%ers?
17 Oct 2010, 2:05 pm
