Unfitness to Govern

Sanity is a useful tool in governing, so consider these two items:

• Obama Sees John Boehner As Possible Partner
• Obama Plans to Freeze Pay for Most Federal Workers

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)}
 

Edmund Burke and the Jews.

An article entitled Name Game: How Traditional Is The Conservative Movement?
recently appears The Jewish Daily Forward.

The issue is well summed up in two quotations from the article:

When [Judy] Gold mentions her Conservative affiliation in her act, “you can see people’s heads exploding” because they think she means that she’s politically conservative — something the lesbian single mother of two is decidedly not.

and

This growing misunderstanding of the name “Conservative movement” is proving a problem for rabbis, as well.
“Twenty years ago, when I introduced myself as a Conservative rabbi, people understood. But now they think I’m defining my political or theological stance as opposed to just labeling my denomination,” said Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin, director of the Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network. “This is a real issue. Now I simply introduce myself as a rabbi, not a Conservative rabbi, and that’s harsh.”

Ordinarily I would say that this is a matter of no interest to anyone on the outside. 

But what appalls me is what it says about political language.

Historically, the definition of conservative in Anglo-Saxon polities has been traced to the 18th Century British politician and political philosopher, Edmund Burke.  For the record, he was acknowledged as a leading influence by William Buckley and Russel Kirk).

It was characterized by an opposition to government  based on abstract (ideological) ideas, a preference for what could be described as 'organic' change, and a care to respect political liberties (which led him to support the American colonists petitions of grievance and relief to Catholics).

It has not, historically, ever implied a particular economic strategy (though Burke was an 18th Century liberal --- that is supported what we would call a free market), no a doctrine.

The choice of the name Conservative for the "middle" movement of Jews in America (between Reform and Orthodox) was chosen to encompass this idea.  That is the movement wanted to conserve that which was of value from the past, modifying with care and over time practice.

Let's not address the place in Jewish thought of this "conservative" position -- besides mentioning the fact that I agree with it.

Instead, I contend this  position is consistent with the historical meaning of "conservative." One which I in fact subscribe to.

That reactionary positions -- that is ideologically driven (as opposed to pragmatic) free marketism, coupled an expressed desire to dramatically reverse that last 100 years of history -- are called conservative is a debasement of political language.