Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Unfitness to Govern

Sanity is a useful tool in governing, so consider these two items:
I believe a classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Now, let me think, suppose I was president, should conciliate  people who have said their goal is only to destroy my policies by removing me from office?

How should I deal with traitors who try to kill necessary treaties, so I can't have a victory -- therefore letting someone run against me as in effective?

Is it as good idea to try to reach an agreement with people who do not  negotiate in good faith -- anyone remember the strung out talks of the Gang of Six?

Should I propose a meaningless cut ($2Billion a year), when I could go after pet overspending that my enemies use as pork -- such as agriculture, mining subsidies an unaudited and unauditable defense department, and inducements to off shore jobs?

If I want to seem weak -- and yes that matters -- then sure. But the first job of government is to govern.

There is contention that there were ideological reasons for the reactionary's* victories.  An ideological choice clearly motivated reactionary base, but I submit that perhaps the gormlessness of the party in power -- its leader in particular -- may have led to voting against the part in power.

Let me see if I get the idea, instead of standing firm for something, and getting credit for having principles, consistency and passion, we can show we don't have principles and still not get help from our enemies.

The first obligation of any political party and its leaders is to acquire effective control of events. Since being 'nice' doesn't work, a sane course might include not being nice....
"A prince must imitate the fox and the lion... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves....If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but ... they are bad"
--The Prince
This gave James Macgregor Burns the title of his biography of FDR, The Lion and The Fox.  We appear to have neither.
*Reactionary is seeking radical change to restore a perceived past 'good'.
 Conservatism, seeks to conserve virtues of the present and  "make 

 [only] necessary  changes [forward or back] without getting swept away 
 by  abstractions" (Edmund Burke)