Discussion Regarding Minor Missteps and Gaffs by Politicians

[ParanoiA]

And thus, we see why the true substance driven statesman is dead, only on display at the intellectual museum. No one who is focused on real problem solving, disinterested in partisan babble, committed to the principles of the constitution and honest reverence to the people is going to be "perfect" enough to pass our pedantic social tests. We sure are missing out.

[PhDP]

In what is it different from before ?

[CDarwin]

And thus, we see why the true substance driven statesman is dead, only on display at the intellectual museum. No one who is focused on real problem solving, disinterested in partisan babble, committed to the principles of the constitution and honest reverence to the people is going to be "perfect" enough to pass our pedantic social tests. We sure are missing out.

 

It's not demonstrably that politicians are any worse in character, either. They're just not allowed to be principled any more. Every little step in the process is under the public eye, so at every stage politicians have to cater to the few and vocal: the special interests and the partisan fanatics. That's transparency and democratization for you.

[ParanoiA]

It's not demonstrably that politicians are any worse in character, either. They're just not allowed to be principled any more.

 

Isn't a lack of principle a lack of character? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you, but if we're going to start throwing poop at each other for "lip slips" then we shouldn't be too surprised when we get a lip savvy return on our investment - which is entirely substance free.

 

This waters down the possible intellect we could enjoy in these positions if we would stop playing along with these idiotic exercises. The few fanatics can do this all day long and still not garner a moment's attention from the rest of us. But we play along. I'd rather deal with a guy that doesn't talk like an ace, but rather thinks like one.

 

Of course, I want to distinguish slip of the tongue from slip of the brain. If you meant to say "that's a great bit" but instead said "that's a great tit" then I say leave it to the fanatics to wrestle over it. But when you say "A came before B" and you meant to say "A came before B" and then realize that B came before A, then you spoke from a position of ignorance and it should be noted. That does seem relevant to the job.

 

Every little step in the process is under the public eye, so at every stage politicians have to cater to the few and vocal: the special interests and the partisan fanatics. That's transparency and democratization for you.

 

I don't really think transparency and democratization is the problem though. I mean, I see it, sure. But we, as in the public, should be aware of that transparency and not react like children when they say something they obviously didn't mean. It's using someone's speech imperfections to defeat them in debate.

 

You've seen these people in your life. They make themselves right by ridicule. They're arguing with someone and everytime their opponent missteps their speech, stumbles on a noun, they're right there pounding it in their chest, showboating for the crowd.

 

We should be the crowd that doesn't respond to that.

Edited July 25, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

I have to agree with you ParanoiA. It reminds me a lot of that movie Idiocracy. To his credit, Pangloss has repeatedly mentioned that we should avoid such content free attacks, and I think he's spot on when he reminds everyone of this.

 

One of the challenges is the subjective nature in interpretting the slips. What one considers relatively harmless another might consider extremely important. That makes general guidelines in such discussions difficult.

 

Like you, I agree that McCains recent slip on the Anwar Awakening is a big one, and that Obama's comments on the committee are minor, but others may feel differently and we find ourselves remaining in the realm of disagreement as a result.

 

It's challenging, but to the heart of your point, I couldn't agree more. Let's see more content. Let's exercise some level of intelligence when reviewing potential candidates for these amazingly important positions, and not so consistently settle for the cheap shots and sucker punches.

[Pangloss]

Moved into a new thread. I agree with iNow above. I thought about this some more following the resolution of my thread on McCain's banking flap and bascule's thread on McCain's Anwar Awakening gaff. I've never felt that a rule about this would be either necessary nor a good idea, since we have an intelligent and consistent group of regulars that pretty much keeps things on an even keel, but I'm absolutely determined to see our political discussions remain at a high intellectual and philosophical level.

 

So as far as I'm concerned anything goes, but if I start to see a lot of cheesy, partisan material that belongs on (or comes from) places like Democratic Underground or Free Republic, I'm not gonna be a happy moderator.

 

8^D <-- happy moderator

=8(G <-- surprised and unhappy moderator showing injured delete finger

[bascule]

I felt the McCain gaffe re: the Anbar Awakening was a bit more notable as CBS deliberately manipulated the interview footage to hide it.