Member Rara Avis
Do you REALLY think Obama is doing what he has done because he is so much smarter than the majority of voters who disagree with him ...
Yea, and I stopped beating my wife, too. You're asking loaded questions, Mike, and apparently expecting me to walk right into them.
Obama doesn't have to be smarter than the majority of voters who disagree with him unless we first acknowledge there really IS a majority who disagree with him. I don't think that's the case, at least not on any of the issues you've mentioned so far. Your question, therefore, makes little sense.
In the abstract, however . . .
Thomas Jefferson believed the average person was ill-equipped to handle the complexities of politics. I tend to agree with that sentiment. People are short sighted and easily convinced by really silly propaganda that rarely stands up to even the slightest scrutiny. Apparently if you say "death panel" often enough, people start to believe it. People, by and large, have forgotten how to think for themselves.
The role of a good leader is to counter the silly propaganda and convince the people to support the leader's agenda. When the agenda is a good one, we end up with Winston Churchill. When it's a bad one, we get Adolph Hitler.
The role of a great leader is to convince the people to not only support his agenda, but to actually believe in it. It's important, however, to convince through persuasion and oratory, as we saw abundantly during the first 100 years of American history and sporadically since, not through brute force and lies. Aluminum tube centrifuges don't cut it.
When we don't have good leaders, when we go too long without finding a great leader, the people . . . end up getting pretty much what
they we deserve.
None of which is to suggest that the people should be (or can be) ignored. Politician have to listen to them, and I think most do. Leaders, however, have to lead them. Essentially, the leaders have to tell the people what to say to the politicians.
Can you honestly look at Pelosi's actions since she took over the House and say all that she has done, she has done for the good of the country....or for the good of Pelosi and the party?
First, Mike, let me say that I don't particularly like Nancy Pelosi, but I also don't really follow "all that she has done" in Congress. At best, I get the highlights. Why? Because she doesn't represent me in Washington. Pelosi represents a relatively small number of people in Northern California. They voted for her, while I can't vote either for her or against her.
Second, let me reiterate feelings I've expressed in the forums a few times in the past. In our current political atmosphere, "For the good of Pelosi and the party" has become very difficult to separate from the good of the country. Nixon wasn't out to destroy this country; he just believed HE could do more good for the country than anyone else. That kind of attitude leads too many politicians to do what ever it takes to get and stay in office. It's certainly not an attitude that is limited to Pelosi or even just one political party.
However, it is exactly that same attitude that makes our politicians listen to the voters. But the voters first have to speak up and, lately, the Tea Party seems to be the only group willing to do that. Personally, I think it's very clear that both parties have at least been listening to what the Tea Party has to say?
I think I'll take a pass on your sound bites, Mike. There's actually a few good points in them, but the good points are buried beneath histrionics and partisan back stabbing. Responding to someone else's propaganda is a waste of time if only because there's SO much of it out there.