Piece on the Simpson Bowles vote from Brooks

[dbroncos78087]

The media in general should be a wonderful thing, all of that information available 24/7 with just a mouse click. Problem is, at least as I see it, is that we haven't yet harnessed a constructive use for all of that information and the people that control the content of the media know this. Instead of just being a clearinghouse that can be used to form opinion, the media has it's own agenda, as does every other group that possesses enough power to propagate it's own existence.

Once these power structures attain this level, their usefulness to society on the whole is diminished. That's where we are at present. These are not new or original ideas on my part but in light of the current discussion worthy of note.

We probably have to take a step back, catch our breath and decide as a society how to process this information and then we can move forward with a little more purpose. Right now, all that I see the media doing is pandering to the causes of divide in this nation and not serving as the conduit that could be bringing objective information to the masses that would help form real solutions to the very serious problems that plague our nation.

You are absolutely spot on (if I'm reading you correctly) that the notion of constructive action and respect for our fellow man start at the individual level. Until we bring an end to the dishonesty we display towards each other, none of this is likely to change at all.....

I don't have much hope for political changes until something massive changes. We need something that draws everyone's attention to politics and shines a massive light onto the entire situation. The Civil Rights Era did a great job of doing that. No one could go around and not be aware of what was going on around them, regardless of how wrapped up they were in their own world. The Great Depression did that too and I think one of the benefits of this recession is that it has done a pretty good job of waking people up out of their comas. It hasn't been as strong as past instances have but its a start.

We can't rebuild the system to be a productive force until we take it apart at the base. We can kick one or two congressmen out of office and replace them with the same types but that doesn't fix anything. We don't have anyone going out there with a unifying message saying how they will take ideas from both sides and fit them into place. No one will criticize their own candidate because if you do then your candidate is now too extreme for even his own party. Its why Obama doesn't get called out by the left and its why Romney doesn't get called out by the right.

[Rageaholic]

No one will criticize their own candidate because if you do then your candidate is now too extreme for even his own party.

I don't understand this part. If I criticize Obama, then he's too extreme?

[dbroncos78087]

I don't understand this part. If I criticize Obama, then he's too extreme?

If someone on the left criticizes Obama then it will be used to say "oh he is too extreme for his own party".

Just like when someone like John Boehner speaks out about someone else in his party it gets played up as "X is too extreme for John Boehner". Which is why people are less likely to do it and have an open dialogue.

[flips333]

I don't have much hope for political changes until something massive changes. We need something that draws everyone's attention to politics and shines a massive light onto the entire situation. The Civil Rights Era did a great job of doing that. No one could go around and not be aware of what was going on around them, regardless of how wrapped up they were in their own world. The Great Depression did that too and I think one of the benefits of this recession is that it has done a pretty good job of waking people up out of their comas. It hasn't been as strong as past instances have but its a start.

We can't rebuild the system to be a productive force until we take it apart at the base. We can kick one or two congressmen out of office and replace them with the same types but that doesn't fix anything. We don't have anyone going out there with a unifying message saying how they will take ideas from both sides and fit them into place. No one will criticize their own candidate because if you do then your candidate is now too extreme for even his own party. Its why Obama doesn't get called out by the left and its why Romney doesn't get called out by the right.

I think often times when there is criticism it's actually the other way around... that the Obama's and the Romney's of this world are not extreme enough. They should all drink more mountain dew.

[flips333]

I think people like the idea of bipartisan but not the actual nuts and bolts. Also in recent memory, bipartisan bills and concepts have been some of the scariest things that I can think of. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Before the massive SOPA/PIPA protests they were both very bipartisan. The newer cyber security bills are pretty bipartisan. There are others but I'm kind of tired, so suffice to say bipartisan just means that different political parties buy into the idea. It is by no means a measure of a law's worthiness.

I did not respond to this the way I thought I did so I am going to try again. Bipartisanship that is easy where everyone agrees and acts quickly is usually not a good thing... but bipartisanship that is a painstaking process of give and take, of sacrifice of ideals for something workable often is.

(I would point to Obamacare... which WAS the compromise position offered by republicans in the 90s. Had Clinton taken that and run with it this fight wouldnt exist, and we would probably all know at least one person who would still be alive because of it.)

[Rageaholic]

I think often times when there is criticism it's actually the other way around... that the Obama's and the Romney's of this world are not extreme enough. They should all drink more mountain dew.

Yeah, I sort of think this too. Usually, pundits like Krugman are screaming at Obama for being TOO moderate.

[dbroncos78087]

I think often times when there is criticism it's actually the other way around... that the Obama's and the Romney's of this world are not extreme enough. They should all drink more mountain dew.

From what I see, 9 times out of 10 it is "X is too extreme for their own party". There are some who want to be constructive to their own ideas and beliefs (such as Krugman) who are willing to do so anyways. But most people care too much about the letter behind the name and not the ideas behind the man.

[flips333]

From what I see, 9 times out of 10 it is "X is too extreme for their own party". There are some who want to be constructive to their own ideas and beliefs (such as Krugman) who are willing to do so anyways. But most people care too much about the letter behind the name and not the ideas behind the man.

I think this might be selection bias as I work in academia.