Good read on the state of politics

[Djarum300]

Fox, Newsom and DeSantis: More smoke than fire – Jordan Peterson

www.jordanbpeterson.com

I want to talk about an anecdotal story first.

I've got a friend who fiercely believes that character is more important than policy or ideas when it comes to candidates.

It's one reason why he can't stand Trump, and somehow believes in both previous elections that the opposing candidates had better character than Donald Trump. Now first off, it's obvious that his analysis is based on what CNN has told us about each of these people, and we shouldn't believe anyone else on the matter when it comes to these politicians. He concedes that Hilary and Biden don't have perfect character, but are somehow have better character than Donald Trump. He believes that they are all pragmatists, and that their better character will drive better policy, even if that policy goes against what that candidate said they'd do. My friend believes this type of philosophy is even more true at the representative and local side of politics. He believes that both Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt are of poorer character than their opposition, even if the opposition has policies he might not agree with.

I rightly argued that history has shown us more times than not that character and policy and the effects of policy are fairly mutually exclusive. We've had politicians in the past who've had impeccable character but have written, signed, or executed very flawed policies that have seriously damaged communities, states, and even the entire country. My friend was having none of it.

My friend talks about how Trump has lied and cheated. Let's say for the argument that he is right, and lets say for the argument that Biden has impeccable character, that same friend is awfully worried now about what the Biden administration is doing about gun control. As I told friend, he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Why *shouldn't* we believe what a politician tells us they want to do, especially if its at the very heart of their platform?

The moral here is that character shouldn't be a factor in politics, and we aught to start believing the left when they say they are going to do something, possibly extreme.

Now what in the heck does that have to do with the above blog post by Jordan Peterson?

While I agree with most of Peterson's here, he is being very naive here or at the very least, he's over intellectualizing politics and over estimating the mental capacity of most Americans. Just like my friend is very naive when it comes to the character of our politicians.

More importantly Jordan asks:

Here are some real questions, that serious, thoughtful people might perhaps really want to have answered: By what principles do you govern? Why those principles, rather than the many others available? How do your principles differ, in your opinion, from those of your opponent? Would he agree or disagree with that characterization? What is your vision, generally, for the future that your leadership would bring about? And, more specifically, with regard to the important dimensions of human life: employment, entrepreneurship, education, energy, environment, family; with regard to civic responsibility, opportunity and duty?

I have been saying for years (back all ballreviews.com) the the debates only serve to compare and contrast policy but deginerate into mud slinging and dick measuring. Candidates rarely tell you *how* they plan on implementing their policies or even in detail how they are different than someone else's that's in the same party. The hosts of these debates are geared around ratings which drives over-sensationalism ( just look at Vivek last night ) and encourages nothing of real thought.

However, Just like character, principals aren't the only driving factor for candidates when they are actually in power. Time and time again, we've heard the principals and seen the principals of these candidates and yet they seem to either moderately differ to wildly differ from their own principals when it comes to actual policy. Even the "evil" Trump couldn't drain the swam and went against his own principals several times.

Rarely has character or *principles* soley driven policy.

It would have been much better not only to have had the contestants asked genuine questions, by people actually curious about the answers, but to invite them to articulate and share their visions for the remarkable, free, productive, honest and generous country that the US most truly is and could even better be.

I've been saying this for years. We have a small, very small portion of the country who listen to Rogan ( or insert long podcast interview here ) who are yearning for more when it comes to what these candidates have to say. What's their vision. Explain with details how they plan on implementing a solution to a known problem. What problems do they identify or prioritize.

Did anyone learn what would be different under DeSantis or Newsom/Biden/Harris, with regard to the energy that keeps our lights on, the environment that we will leave our grand-children, the families we all inhabit, or the educational and health systems that cost us ever more and in many ways deliver ever less?

This was not that debate, nor was it sold as such. It was sold as a comparison/contrast of two different ideologies for running a state at the executive level. Keep in mind, we've been told Newsom isn't running for president.

I would love to see a true vision presented by the would-be leaders of the US, as the problems that beset the overwhelmingly-admirable-by-comparison Americans are characteristic of those plaguing us everywhere in the free and democratic world.

I don't disagree, but again, everyday Americans can care less about what happens next week, or let alone 4 years. What they care about is if they can pay their bills. Are there jobs getting taken away by immigrants. Will they be offended because someone used the wrong pronoun ( yeah, a real thing). Can they get an abortion (again, a real thing).

If we ask ourselves why were are where we are as a country, it has nothing to do with 3 years ago thinking about the future and vision of that future. It was one immediate goal and that was either to keep Trump as President or not to. Biden just stayed in his basement.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Dear Djarum300:

I took the time to read Jordan Peterson's article and your own comments. Interesting, thought-provoking and generally in tune to my way of thinking.

 

[Scolai]

Regarding debates, they are never about policy or vision for the country. The debates are merely an attempt by each candidate on the stage to spit out sound bites that the media will pick up and repeat ad nauseam for days or weeks afterward. It's the publicity they are looking for.

To Djarum's point, Peterson is over-intellectualizing the matter. Sometimes, these candidates understand the psychology of voters better than the guy with a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.

 

[Djarum300]

OUr founding fathers in many regards understood this and this was why Senators were supposed to be voted by the states house/legislature. One of the worst amendments.

I think there is a large enough subset of people who think like Jordan Peterson. The problem is it's a popularity contest for the highest seat in our country with the most power.