Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

political flipflops

0 helpful
16 replies

by john_wills

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
Today's SF Chronicle tells that U. S. Senator Feinstein, after years of opposing school vouchers, has come out in favor of them, at least in DC. The teachers' unions are very annoyed; in some countries the unions have nothing against support for church schools because church-school teachers are in the unions, but here they won't join because the unions are against vouchers, a vicious cycle. What interests me most is the flipflop: by and large it is risky for a Democrat to be pro-voucher, anti-abortion, a few other things; Kucinich has suddenly become pro-abortion to be in the Democrat running for the Presidency, for example. Something must have changed in the constellation of influences surrounding Feinstein(I here ignore the possibility that she has had an honest change of opinion: the value of vouchers is not in serious dispute, and she has been against). How can we characterize the influence structure around a politician? What are the channels of control? How is a party or fraction's ideology determined?

16 replies

by generalist

Many years ago, at a City Council meeting in El Monte, California, one of the Council members said that he was a politician and that he represented the will of the people. He added that if enough people contacted him about an issue, supporting one choice over another, he might change his mind about the issue if the arguments were reasonable. He also added that he was there to reflect the will of the people.

I've always considered his comments to be those of an 'honest' politician.

Perhaps Feinstein is listening to the will of the people. But it would be clearer if the support, or lack of it, were in her home state.

by oldefar

Now if we went whole hog on representatives who only followed the will of the people, we could eliminate much of the process and go with a direct vote on issues.

What a facinating experiment that would be, and one that the founding fathers of theUS took care to guard against in drafting the Constitution.

by admin

vote and then watch in real time online?

Boy what a mess that would be, reducing the US government to an instant gratification popularity contest. Maybe it could be on msn.com

"Is the President Hot or Not?"

Oh man!

by jardinier

Our current Prime Minster habitually tells lies, which are eventually shown to be what they are. And yet his popularity continues to rise.

A well-known Australian commentator, Clive James, suggested that we resolve the problem by electing a new electorate.

by oldefar

The first and most important objective has to be getting elected and holding the seat. As with any attempt at dominating "market" share, this means having a differentiator from the competition, a value statement that rings with the target market, brand recognition, and an ability to recognize and respond to market trends.

The secondary purpose is to promote one's own personal agenda while in office. This may be via a strong public position or shrewd backroom negotiation. It can mean some compromised positions that will only seem valid if viewed through the lens of history.

by john_wills

Winning a seat is pointless unless I get to do what I sought the seat to do. We often find politicians forgetting their purpose in seeking power and so doing things quite different from what they originally wanted because of compromises with the spatchcock of conflicting influences. Kucinich went into politics partly to save babies from being aborted; to get further in politics he has taken the pro-abort side, without which he will not win the Democrat nomination: he has forgotten why he went into politics. What interests me is why Feinstein has become pro-school-choice for the poor after being anti-choice for a long time.

by jardinier

but somebody has to do it. I have no time for people who sit on the fence and blame anything and everything on politicians, but avoid any direct involvement. And that is why, a few years ago, I finally decided to get involved. The few politicians whom I know personally -- and they are from both major parties in Australia -- are decent, sincere people who work hard to do a difficult job. Their family life is interrupted, and they have to see themselves lampooned in the media. I guess I am one of the lucky ones. My local State MP -- who happens to belong to the opposite party to myself -- never fails to personally answer my emails or follow through on any request I make of him. If he has a personal agenda that is in conflict with the dedicated service he provides for his electorate and the State, then I have seen no evidence of it.
There is very little glory in being a politician, and the golden handshakes which they work out for themselves pale in comparison to those of executives who work in the corporate area.

by generalist

The occasional political discussions occur because some of us have hobbies that are not tech oriented. By speaking up here, we at least have a general idea of where a person might be coming from.

Tech people have some aspects in common. But there is enough variety to be interesting.

by jardinier

If you have follwed these discussions for even a short time, you will have noticed that the political discussions attract by far the greatest interest, sometimes runing to 150 postings or more.

Obviously people in the IT Industry like to chew the fat (discuss important general issues) with their peers.

If you come across a discussion topic that sounds like it might be political, then don't read it.

by maxwell edison

You are indeed correct, this isn't (or at least wasn't intended to be) a political forum. However, many of us indulge in such conversation just as you yourself might participate in "off-topic" discussions (politics, sports, one's social life, etc.) around the water cooler at work. I've never met anyone who NEVER talks about non-work related topics at work, nor would I really want to. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, you know.

I think you might find, however, that many, if not most, of the participants in such discussions do indeed pay their dues, so to speak, to the technical aspects of these threads - as well as the Q&A threads. Just look at all the 10k blue squares next to the names of the participants (If there were 100k squares, you'd see plenty of those as well), and you'll realize that these folks spend a fair amount of their time giving free advice to anyone who asks for it. There are the exceptions, however, as some of the people simply take advantage of the open forum, and don't really contribute to the technical issues - perhaps because they don't care or don't know.

I've not seen your alias before, so let me welcome you to the TechRepublic community. (Not in an "official" capacity, but rather as one of the "regulars".) I can assure you that there are a lot of decent folks who frequent these threads (some not so decent), and if you ever have a technical issue to bring to the forefront, rest assured it will be addressed in the most thoughtful and professional manner. And feel free to contribute yourself to either the technical or non-technical issues.

by maxwell edison

...to see what happened if EVERY politician spoke only on a core set of principles, not caring about the politics of the matter, and just let the chips fall where they may. I've seen so many cases of these political flip-flops all for the sake of getting elected or re-elected. I blame the voters, however, as well as the politicians, since they are the ones with their hands out, asking "what will you do for me", "what's in it for me", and so on. I'd like to see a politician say, "I'm not going to do a damn thing for you, but I won't create any obstacles that prevent you doing for yourself." Now that would be refreshing. (This applies to both sides of the political aisle, by the way.)

And doesn't it just piss you off knowing that we're going to start paying for Warren Buffet's prescription drugs - all for the sake of "what's in it for me"? What's wrong with this picture?

It's worth repeating over and over again:

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you ? ask what you can do for your country."

- President John F. Kennedy (January 1961)

by john_wills

It would also be interesting to see what would happen if no-one committed any sin. The only thing I can do to achieve this state is to avoid sin myself. Similarly, the ony way I can work towards every politician sticking to core principles is to stick to mine whenever I am being political. I suspect that Feinstein actually reverted to principles after a long time currying favor with the unions etc. Kuchinski even more obviously is going against his principles in the hope of gathering support or at least avoiding attack by certain influential groups. Feinstein is a little more confident of her position within the party and the government. I hope she goes a few steps further. But a politician sho starts off following his principles is likely to do more good for his principles than for himself.

by jardinier

The population of Australia is about 20 million. How many individual Australians did you investigate in your survey to come up with the conclusion that dishonesty is a common affliction of Australians?

This discussion is closed to new replies.