Comments on: Obama vs. Ryan vs. Bachmann http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/ Informed reflection on the events of the day Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.23 By: Paul Ryan: Ideologist-in-Chief (Obama Wins!) « Jeffrey C. Goldfarb's Deliberately Considered http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/comment-page-1/#comment-25893 Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:57:10 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=1982#comment-25893 […] explained this from the point of view of the politics of economics a year and a half ago, while I first suggested my reasons in my review of Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address and Ryan’s official Republican […]

]]>
By: Thinking about Obama on MLK Day: Governing with Republicans? « Jeffrey C. Goldfarb's Deliberately Considered http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/comment-page-1/#comment-22879 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:35 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=1982#comment-22879 […] view and commitments were on clear view, appropriately in his last State of the Union Address, as I pointed out at the […]

]]>
By: Maureen http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/comment-page-1/#comment-5612 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:59:07 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=1982#comment-5612 I believe it may have been Ezra Pound who the statement. Meanwhile, Sartre said: “Everything has already been said, but because no one ever listens, it is necessary to begin all over again.” Voila.

]]>
By: Maureen http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/comment-page-1/#comment-5611 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:54:22 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=1982#comment-5611 I see no tension between Obama moving towards the center, or rather, becoming a progressive centrist (as Hillary Clinton describes herself), and also advocating for things like social justice. Where is it written that such views are mutually exclusive? Why not adopt a hybrid perspective that entertains a couple of different viewpoints? Let’s move away from the dichotomy and more towards the synthesis. Who was it that said that the sign of a first rate mind is the ability to entertain two opposing ideas at the same time? (Sartre? Pound?)

]]>
By: Scott http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/01/obama-vs-ryan-vs-bachmann/comment-page-1/#comment-5173 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:03:53 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=1982#comment-5173 Paul Ryan is certainly wrong in his assertion that, “Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness and wise consumer choices has never worked, and it won’t work now,” and your right to point out the role government plays in supporting innovation. To be sure, one should never depend on the government alone, but Ryan forgets the huge role government, the pentagon specifically, played in developing technology such as the Internet and that America’s military supremacy, a much beloved supremacy by red state America, depends on technological innovation fostered by government, that is taxpayer, money.

While Obama stressed international competition, the need for the government to continue to play the role it has in the past in supporting innovation, and that business, and innovation, in many other countries is heavily subsidized by their governments. Republicans seem to take things like this for granted. To me it seems that, above all, they believe it isn’t America’s capacity for innovation that makes America great, its America’s ideology. Obama mentioned that America was the only country founded on an ideal. It seems many would like for America to remain number one, and this ideal alone, mentioned by Ryan, will be enough. Ideology isn’t enough; nor is America being god’s favorite nation enough, and some would like to believe. This is the disconnent with reality that permeates the Right’s rhetoric.

Furthermore, great sacrifices, primarily monetary, by both rich and not so rich, are needed in order to balance the budget. The deficit is huge compared to the cuts being proposed. It seems few politicians are willing to face up to this, perhaps because they don’t want to ask Americans to sacrifice anything. (Not a recipe for winning elections I suppose.)

Kennedy had explicitly asked American’s to contribute to the greater good at the time of America’s last Sputnik moment, and American’s responded. But with the political climate as it is now, Kennedy might be branded a socialist if he were to give the same speech today. And this perhaps for no other reason than to win an election; a republican could say something similar, “Country First,” and be considered a “patriot.” What does it really mean though to say “Country First”? “Tax Cuts” first, or simply “Leave Me Alone”? I believe that the contested meaning of a phrase like “Country First” lies at the heart of America’s problems. It isn’t the American people that make this problematic as much as it is political machines during their quest to say whatever it takes to win elections.

Yet perhaps an ideology has still died; I’m not sure which one though.

]]>