Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"John McCain, with all he had going against him as the GOP candidate, still received 46% of the vote. That, more than anything else, suggests just how conservative the majority of Americans are."
First off how do you get a "majority" out of 46%?
Or it could suggest how incredibly narrow minded, incredibly incapable of critical thought, incredibly enamored of assbackwardsness, and incredibly easy to manipulate 46% of "teh conservatives" are. Ya think? I'd throw in that a significant portion are actually unrepetent fearful bigots/hypocrites but that would start a real nasty flamewar around here. Then again our side is only marginally better which is, I believe, a focus of many of GG's little missives.
The system is clearly broken and we have two choices. Tear it all down and start over or try to incrementally take it back and fix it. I vascillate from day to day about which path is more likely to work. Maybe neither because the masses are too uninterested or overworked to care. But for 46% there's always paradise in the afterlife so this all doesn't amount to much. For non-believers like me its the only chance. Might actually enjoy watching it all fall if it wasn't for all the human misery it would entail.
Any of you know these families:
Fletcher
Smith
Fisher
...uhhhh...ok that's all I can think of right now...but think about it...
....how long had the family/tribe been smithing/fletching/fishing till they owned the damned name--a while I bet...it's what humans do--pass on what worked for them to thier kids (and friends)...
Not that it's right or fair--it just is.
In a town hall forum, someone complained to Barack Obama about one of his positions. He responded by saying something like, "It's a democracy, you can run for public office and put your ideas into action."
While it's true that the nepotism described by GG in this post is bad, outsiders could run for office at a higher rate, and win, by campaigning against the insiders. I believe Howard Dean encouraged outsiders to run as DNC chairman, which probably differed from Clintonista Terry McAuliffe.
It wouldn't be too hard to record ip addresses when you choose your screen name--one IP address, one screen name. Still anonymous, but with accountability.
....Mark Udall and Tom Udall, sons of Morris Udall, U.S. Senator -- CarolynC
1) For the record, I think Tom Udall is the son of Stewart
Udall, not "Mo" Udall. The point that the Udalls are a political
dynasty going back ~50 years is correct, however.
Another very famous dynasty that we haven't mentioned is the
notorious Long family of Huey Long fame, from Louisiana. Boy,
howdy, didn't they do their state a whole lot of good! (Not.)
2) Bernbart, your blithe assertion that nepotism in American politics goes back a long way in time does not, in any way, make it a good thing. Nor does it touch on Glenn's hypothesis that nepotism is increasingly accepted and increasingly detrimental to our interests. As pedinska can (attempt if she will) to explain, there is no such thing as a "public service gene". There are many cultural reasons why the offspring of elected officials are more likely to go into politics themselves -- but they are determined by access, connections and experience, not DNA.
3) The Princessification of middle class girl children is a real
cultural problem, but it's also a real stretch to link it to
the skanky, adult-world nepotism that infects our political
culture. I don't think it has anything to do with hereditary
"gifting" of success in real life, quite the opposite. Drenching
little girls with princess toys & stories functions as a
way of setting them up for failure in real life; when you're no
longer "cute" and pretty and under 25, the imaginary princess tiara
disappears, and instead of focusing on how to get ahead in the
real world, you are hamstrung for a decade or more trying to
find where it went.
The princess-industrial toy industry screws girls. That's what its
there for, IMHO.
One has but to watch Jay Leno perform his jaywalking interviews to understand why democracy in this country may be doomed. The first few times I watched it, I thought it was a staged skit. Then the truth sank in that these ignoramuses were real. Are we sure we want to encourage everyone to vote?
There are basic human forces of psychology that lead to nepotism and the establishment of aristocracy: the (natural) desire of parents to help their children as much as possible, the ease with which family connections allow succeeding generations to climb the ladder, and the "brand name" phenomenon which allows political families to remain popular long after their brightest lights have left the stage.
I attended a relatively prestigious college and it was explained to me that, among the 100+ freshmen on my floor, exactly one had any chance to be elected to Congress and for him it was a lock. Because he was a Kennedy. Sure enough, when he graduated from college (after moving to Rhode Island), he was set up in a very safe district which is giving him a job for life.
What is disturbing about this is that there were at least 10 others on my freshman floor who were considerably brighter and more talented than this current representative, but the possibility that any of them could run for office without family connections was dismissed as ludicrous.
And no, this kind of nepotism isn't widespread in other industries, and that fact highlights the realization that the vast majority of elected politicians are simply placeholders, not subject to real evolutionary pressures that test their merit.
The example of Hollywood was cited, but even a super-powerful producer like Aaron Spelling can only get his daughter jobs, and cannot make her acting abilities lucrative.
My conclusion from this observation is that the industries where nepotism is the worse are those industries where failure is tolerated the most. Meritocracy only works where failure is punished by the evolutionary pressures of whatever arena is in question. In political punditry, there is virtually no evolutionary pressure, as pundits who espouse ludicrously stupid ideas are never held accountable for their stupidity. Either that, or they are simply empty talking heads.
I don't know if the aristocracy is growing or not. After all, we've had the Tafts, the Cabots, the Lodges, etc. for quite a long time. But I do wish there would be a little less family name worship.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
