Are We Republicans?
Which candidate best fulfills your idea of a post-enlightenment society?
Barack's familial line is truly global. With a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, Barack grew up in Indonesia as a Muslim before converting to Christianity. His politics of inspiration are a boon to those who find strength through such a medium(but lets not forget that it is after all just rhetoric). He is honest, vulnerable, and human and he lets it show with an openly formless identity. He has a JD from Harvard but decided to do community organizing in Chicago instead of going to one of those top firms. He then rode an organic wave to his senatorial victory and his position today.
But Mitt Romney was the CEO of Bain consulting, established universal health care in Massachusetts without penalizing any party, and comes from a politically experienced upbringing. He has an MBA and JD from Harvard. He was the Valedictorian at BYU. He has lied over and over about his past positions, tried to weasel away questions about the Iraq War by saying they are "non sequitor" on national debates, cunningly uses semantics to make enhancing claims about his life and campaign, and has spent the most money of any candidate yet including 20 million dollars in Iowa and yet he lost.
Hilary Clinton is an organized, tough, very smart, thick-skinned, power-hungry serious bitch who was beautiful in her younger day. She is a feminist to the max - not even divorcing Bill Clinton so that she could maintain her own interests. Bill was merely the ferry to her future. I don't even know if she is actually a woman so I its hard to say what difference it would make to all the more soft(normal)woman out there if she were president. Would it make a difference? Probably.
These men and women truly are the best of the best of our society; each one is a very special, talented, and intelligent individual. This, unlike George W., who never did anything on his own in his entire life, and knew absolutely nothing about the complexities of foreign policy. But we know why he didn't know anything about foreign policy - the neocons didn't want him too.
Which one of the candidates listed above would create the post cold-war, post-enlightenment society that embodies the best of the human condition? Which candidate will correct our course, establish peace domestically and internationally, not through weapons of war but through genuine lasting peace and [add any other list of values that are post-enlightenment]
Obama, literally, seems to embody the cultural norms that we all share - tolerance, diversity, respect, disdain for false arrogance, kindness, a belief in the value of people, community, and individualism(in the sense that his campaign is really a movement around him).
But Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney's brain seems to function in a way that indicates his persona will be able to inject post-enlightenment ideals back into our national discourse and understand the nature of the world in a post-enlightenment way. The evidence for this is contained within his lies. His lies indicate more than he is just a lier, they are smoking-gun evidence that he is playing a rational game. Because Romney, ever since his days as a finance chief, and ever since he has been involved in politics, has been using extreme semantics to defend himself, even against video that captures him saying contractory statements. He has been successful. He is so clearly a robot - a calculating machine - a risk-reward device - an insanely rational former human being stacked with immense knowledge turned into a computer, a calculating computer and a very very fast and accurate on too.
We need both these things. Obama's cultural understanding combined with Mitt Romney's rational game playing. Obama's politics of inspiration, diversity, and nuance with Mitt Romney's calculating power-hungry genius. Both men have the ability to grasp complexity and this is exactly what Bush does not have. Obama's heart and values. Mitt Romney's brain.
I would therefore, would love to see a Barack, Romney ticket in this spirit or an alteration of the election process to allow for such a thing.
Barack's familial line is truly global. With a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, Barack grew up in Indonesia as a Muslim before converting to Christianity. His politics of inspiration are a boon to those who find strength through such a medium(but lets not forget that it is after all just rhetoric). He is honest, vulnerable, and human and he lets it show with an openly formless identity. He has a JD from Harvard but decided to do community organizing in Chicago instead of going to one of those top firms. He then rode an organic wave to his senatorial victory and his position today.
But Mitt Romney was the CEO of Bain consulting, established universal health care in Massachusetts without penalizing any party, and comes from a politically experienced upbringing. He has an MBA and JD from Harvard. He was the Valedictorian at BYU. He has lied over and over about his past positions, tried to weasel away questions about the Iraq War by saying they are "non sequitor" on national debates, cunningly uses semantics to make enhancing claims about his life and campaign, and has spent the most money of any candidate yet including 20 million dollars in Iowa and yet he lost.
Hilary Clinton is an organized, tough, very smart, thick-skinned, power-hungry serious bitch who was beautiful in her younger day. She is a feminist to the max - not even divorcing Bill Clinton so that she could maintain her own interests. Bill was merely the ferry to her future. I don't even know if she is actually a woman so I its hard to say what difference it would make to all the more soft(normal)woman out there if she were president. Would it make a difference? Probably.
These men and women truly are the best of the best of our society; each one is a very special, talented, and intelligent individual. This, unlike George W., who never did anything on his own in his entire life, and knew absolutely nothing about the complexities of foreign policy. But we know why he didn't know anything about foreign policy - the neocons didn't want him too.
Which one of the candidates listed above would create the post cold-war, post-enlightenment society that embodies the best of the human condition? Which candidate will correct our course, establish peace domestically and internationally, not through weapons of war but through genuine lasting peace and [add any other list of values that are post-enlightenment]
Obama, literally, seems to embody the cultural norms that we all share - tolerance, diversity, respect, disdain for false arrogance, kindness, a belief in the value of people, community, and individualism(in the sense that his campaign is really a movement around him).
But Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney's brain seems to function in a way that indicates his persona will be able to inject post-enlightenment ideals back into our national discourse and understand the nature of the world in a post-enlightenment way. The evidence for this is contained within his lies. His lies indicate more than he is just a lier, they are smoking-gun evidence that he is playing a rational game. Because Romney, ever since his days as a finance chief, and ever since he has been involved in politics, has been using extreme semantics to defend himself, even against video that captures him saying contractory statements. He has been successful. He is so clearly a robot - a calculating machine - a risk-reward device - an insanely rational former human being stacked with immense knowledge turned into a computer, a calculating computer and a very very fast and accurate on too.
We need both these things. Obama's cultural understanding combined with Mitt Romney's rational game playing. Obama's politics of inspiration, diversity, and nuance with Mitt Romney's calculating power-hungry genius. Both men have the ability to grasp complexity and this is exactly what Bush does not have. Obama's heart and values. Mitt Romney's brain.
I would therefore, would love to see a Barack, Romney ticket in this spirit or an alteration of the election process to allow for such a thing.
posted by John Liberty at 12:24 PM
5 Comments:
I don't know what you're talking about at this point
really?
romney and obama have admirable traits that i think would work well together.
and i also believe that presidencies are often defined by presidents' personal characteristics. i think the traits in obama and romney could together, result in well-crafted policy.
so what dont you get
Post a Comment
<< Home