Invisible Heart, by Russ Roberts of GMU. Here’s a taste:

Suppose you see an ad for anchovy ice cream. The ad promises “It’s delicious!” Convinced? Probably not. You take that word “delicious” with a grain of salt. Actually more than a grain. More like a pound. You realize that the seller of the ice cream is self-interested and just trying to make a sale.

I treat the rhetoric of politicians like ads for anchovy ice cream. Call me a cynic, but I assume they’re trying to make a sale.

So when Obama says on his web site that he’s tired of “divisive ideological politics,” I wonder: what other kind of politics is there? Promising politics without “divisive ideology” is like selling a sure fire way to be a millionaire , working from home using the Internet. Most of us know it’s too good to be true. But Obama is selling like hotcakes even though his promise is just as unrealistic.

We have such a yearning for a candidate with principles and ideals. We like to think our candidate is the good one, it’s the other guy’s favorite who’s the evil opportunist. But they always break our hearts, don’t they? Too many of us, I fear, are living in a fantasy world.

I was referring to Obama hypothetically working to end divisive politics in Congress, not this latest.

If a few nutbags want us to submit to the U.N. I’m in complete agreement with you and the linked John Bolton that such is not a great idea.

I’m not a big fan of the libs in Congress just because I’m not fond of the Republicans either.

The U.N. is dominated by third world and regional interests. Few of them have our best interests at heart, and only then by chance conjunction of mutual interests. We no longer have a Europe and an Asia beholden to us for winning WWII.

If anything, I would take your stance a step furthur, and be ever so slightly chauvanistic in our foreign policy.

Give the president fast track trade authority. Ask foreign countries to pay the way for their wars. Grab oil before the Chinese do, etc....I did not invent these ideas. Old fashioned hardnosed Goldwater era conservatism, semi-nationalism, which no longer constitutes either modern conservatism or liberalism.

“I’m only saying voters should not accept the “divisive ideology” mindset the author Bart quoted mentioned. It is not inevitable and it has definitely not always been the case.”

It is inevitable when far-left liberals put forth legislation and policy proposals to take this country down the path to socialism or fascism.  Such proposals have been put forth repeatedly in the past 10-20 years and continue today.  The most liberal - excuse me -"progressive" members of the House of Reprehensibles have proposed subjecting U.S. policy decisions to approval by the U.N. - essentially wiping out or subverting our Consitution, making it inferior to “international law.” As if we need approval from the thugs and persistent human rights violators currently running the U.N.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=04

Such ideology is highly divisive - I, for one, will staunchly oppose it.

What major European country has had multiple civil wars in that same period of time ?

Extreme ideological division is not normal now. It might have been in Jefferson’s time.

I believe Congress can and should heal itself. I believe folks should never accept the mindset that brutal battles over ideology are normal or to be expected.

I believe it was different during the Reagan era, and before.

Having said that, I think you are correct that complete accord is impractical and that periods of disruption and rancor may be nothing more nor less than democracy working itself out appropriately and effectively.

I’m only saying voters should not accept the “divisive ideology” mindset the author Bart quoted mentioned. It is not inevitable and it has definitely not always been the case.

“I don’t think this country is headed towards the middle, towards consensus, towards accomodation, towards comprimise. Headed towards confrontation for better or worse.”

I agree. 

And to think it all started here on Barticles…

Ha!  Pretty funny, idnit?  We, who almost never agree on anything, have reached consensus that the country is not heading towards consensus.  Do ya see the irony?  Do ya see it?  Irony?  Huh?  See?  It’s right there!

It is normal.  Jefferson expected there to be a revolution about once per generation, or approximately every 20 years.  It’s amazing the USA has lasted as long as it has without tearing itself completely apart.  The War Between the States was not an aberration - what is an aberration is that it was the only one we’ve had.  I guess it was horrific enough that we’ve been able to clench our teeths and bear not doing it again.

Yeah you make a point. However, I still contend I remember history differently, particularly the Reagan era. It was NEVER this bad. OK. Maybe the Hamilton-Burr duel was worse.

Or the Andrew Jackson era, although I think many of us admired his pluck and wish we had more like him.

Bush was quoted as saying in an interview with Tim Russert that he owned up to being divisive. He said it was due to his strong opinions. He could not comprimise because he believed so strongly in what he was doing.

If Clinton or Kerry said anything after the mike was supposedly turned off, it should come as no surprise. The Dems were riled up, to the extent that pasty-faced squeechy libs ever get riled over anything.

I don’t think this country is headed towards the middle, towards consensus, towards accomodation, towards comprimise. Headed towards confrontation for better or worse.

I hope I’m wrong. Of course all the candidates for office claim they are bipartisan. Perhaps they are. I honestly think division is one of Bush’s great legacies.

Hope I’m wrong on that score too.  Troubling to see you guys talk as if that is normal though. That was my original point, that it is not normal, and we should not accept it as a matter of course but as an aberration and a low point in history.

“Yes, my memory tells me politics was much more friendly and collegial before George Bush.”

Then I suggest you need to start taking gingko tablets, Ed - er, exuse me - Biscuit.  Your memory apparently is faulty. 

Do you not recall the things the Dems said about Reagan as he ran in 1980?  Or pick just about any other election year. 

I get the impression that you are slightly older (chronologically) than I am, but of the national elections that I recall, every one had all kinds of partisan histrionics, name-calling, finger-pointing, characterizing, mischaracterizing, etc., etc.  I think the public just has a short memory, or there is some sort of self-defense mechanism that secretes a hormone to numb that painful memory.  So each time it comes back around, the election cycle seems like it’s the worse one ever or much worse than they used to be. 

I don’t buy it.  Yes, modern politics is ugly, partisan, and divisive.  That’s what it’s called “politics.” Seems to me it’s pretty much always been so.  I don’t recall Dems and Reps ever holding hands and singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

I do recall Bill Clinton and John Kerry separately being caught on open mics that they didn’t know were open, referring to certain people as f***ing a**holes and scumbags and such.  There’s class and respectful, decent debate.

Do I get a vote ?  (evidently not)

Yes, my memory tells me politics was much more friendly and collegial before George Bush.

My memory regrettably does not extend back to the times of Adams and Madison, nor do I much believe the scenarios identical.

I stand by my original point if any even care to pay attention to it (doubtful). Namely, “divisive ideological politics” is a recent phenomenon.

Comparatively only. In fact, no period in history has ever been completely devoid of partisan wrangling and rancor, so let’s qualify that statement as within reason only.

Divisive because no one wants comprimise. Ideological because you see party touchpoints being held up as sacred and inviolable rather than as mere political theories.

Yes, you rant Greta, but you do it well, and it is election time after all.

Bill you are a genius. I couldn’t agree more. Personally I am so sick of the blame Bush for everything crowd. They are particularly irritating in the commentary in the All The News Thats Fit to Slant NY Times. Of course it is partisan, but it is more than that. There is a certain pseudo sophisticated un-Americanism that permeates the commentaries and also the articles that are the object of the comments. I call them the cynical chic chorus. They are busily congratulating each other on what they perceive as the humiliation of America by the Bush administration. I could be dead wrong but I don’t see a large western presence in the middle east at this particular time in history as a bad thing. History will tell the tale. The idea that past administrations all had noble and holy reasons to go to war is naive at best and downright dim witted at worst. Bush suffered from a huge swell of patriotism after 9/11 and buyers remorse after we didn’t tidy everything up with no collateral damage and cheering grateful crowds. This mess would have erupted whenever Hussein left power. His thuggery was the only thing that kept the various factions from erupting long before we deposed him. I must admit that someone in that administration should have known what would happen after the invasion. Anyway there we are fully deployed and doing what Americans do best, improvising. No one does it better. The rest of the world seems to think so. They always stop sneering at us long enough to come running for help when things get sticky…
Was that a rant? I’ve been practicing…

“Prior to George Bush ... politics was very civil and cordial.”

On what planet did this occur?  Oh, I see, diviseness and partisanship in politics is George Bush’s fault - along with tooth decay and plate tectonics.

Horse hockey. 

Go back and read some of the things the candidates and parties said about each other back in the time of John Adams, Thos. Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, etc.  Pretty outrageous stuff, actually.  Stuff that, if spoken by a private citizen about a private citizen, could be considered grounds for a claim of slander or libel.

Ed,

“Change” for the sake of change is silly. Obama is being picked on because he has yet to provide any specifics as to what his change will be. That and his army of squeeling groupies is embarrassing.

You could consider his changing positions daily on foreign policy. His new slogan should be “change you can’t keep up with”

As for the last 8 years...they havn’t been as bad as some would like to pretend. The war has had no effect on the overwhelming majority of Americans. Except for the soldiers and their families, no one has been asked to do anything....and many hyaven’t, unless moralizing and whining count...or exploiting setbacks to advance political agendas counts.

The inconvenience of taking shoes off at airports is certainly preferable to crashing into the ground. And it can be argued that much of the hassal is the result of extremist PC idiocy.

Katrina was a natural disaster that could have been far less destructive if leaders on BOTH sides had acted reponsibly both BEFORE nad after it hit.

The price of gas sucks but, what if we’d drilled offshore and in ANWAR 10 years ago? 5 years ago? And I can’t for the life of me understand why oil pumping countries in the mideast feel they can make us sweat as the price goes up. We have the best military in the world. Oh...right...we aren’t allowed to use it because somebody might get hurt.

And as for partisanship...good greif...it’s always been like this, from Jefferson to Lincoln to Nixon. I remember how much the left hated Reagan. It just doesn’t seem as bad because no one listened to them after the failures of the Great Society and Jimmy Carter.

Now we have a whole new generation who don’t remember those failures and have been taught by the toxic residue left over from that era (academics)

I guess we’re just gonna have to let them stick thier tougne in the socket. That’s the only way they’re going to learn.

Post Your Comments: