|
On September 02 2008 11:16 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:15 ahrara_ wrote:On September 02 2008 11:07 oneofthem wrote:
if "running the government" is more of a matter of management skill than ideology and studied decisionmaking, the experience argument may hold a joking chance. at any rate, unless there are elections for administrative aides, talks of experience are bloody fluff of the worst kind. ?!?! you don't think if bush had more experience with foreign policy he wouldn't have made retarded decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq like de-baathification and refusing to get involved in nationbuilding? If he were involved in dealing with the issues, he would understand better what is involved in planning something like that. You assume all the president has to do is sign bills and tell who to conduct what war. Planning and strategy also play a role. handling the details are passed down, but the overall planning lies with the oval office. so you mean he's improving his handling of foreign policy ever since he began acquiring experience? let's see, how many wars do you have to fight to gain a +5% achievement to your diplomacy? as for your question, did you notice i said studied decisionmaking. you think bush's actions in iraq is more a matter of experience than ideology and the people surrounding him and the history sculpting him?
i think it's a question of ideology derived from lack of experience. there have been countless complaints at the start of the war that the people sent to manage the war in iraq were ideologues with little experience. when they replaced these people with people who knew what they were doing, i.e. petraeus, the situation got better. Bush does the appointing in these cases. Experience helps him weed out the newbs. By your argumentation, I am just as qualified to be president if I happen to have the right ideology.
How does studied decision making not mean the same thing as experience? Doesn't making good decisions require you to have an understanding that's best derived from experience? Or do you think you can learn how to do something well just by "studying" it? If you agree with that last statement, I'm afraid I have to say you have a very naive understanding of the world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident.
studied decisionmaking is a cultivated habit, and an ability. you have to have experience of not only situations but ideas. take a guy schooled in say medieval theology and give him 100 years of experience, he would not produce anything worthwhile. this ability is a substantial quality of the candidate's so called character. strictly speaking, we could call some of this experience of ideas "experience", but that would be silly in america. nobody cares about whether the guy they vote for knows socialism from communism. or something esoteric like that.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident.
Ideology may be a strong influencing factor in the initial decision, but it has no place in the execution of the order which is where having management experience would be helpful. The Iraq war was a series of incorrect decisions plagued by poor management and thus poor execution, but liberal agendas can suffer the exact same fate.
|
On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident.
I'm starting to see why people get frustrated arguing with you. The decision to goto war is driven by ideology, yes. But the effective conduct of that war is dependent on experience. I think I've said this like ten times already.
I think I'm going to just cut off my post there because I think the less I say the less room you have to go on tangents and pretend I didn't say anything.
|
On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
studied decisionmaking is a cultivated habit, and an ability. you have to have experience of not only situations but ideas. take a guy schooled in say medieval theology and give him 100 years of experience, he would not produce anything worthwhile. this ability is a substantial quality of the candidate's so called character. strictly speaking, we could call some of this experience of ideas "experience", but that would be silly in america. nobody cares about whether the guy they vote for knows socialism from communism. or something esoteric like that.
I don't need to know what communism and socialism or neoconservatism is to fight a war effectively. Ideology does not influence the conduct of war. Just because I'm a neoconservative doesn't mean I have to choose bad commanders and people who don't know what they're doing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident. Ideology may be a strong influencing factor in the initial decision, but it has no place in the execution of the order which is where having management experience would be helpful. The Iraq war was a series of incorrect decisions plagued by poor management and thus poor execution, but liberal agendas can suffer the exact same fate.
well, by that account, experience involves far more than "being in executive office." the point is that there are viable skills in the term "experience," and we are better off talking about specific skillsets or valuable traits than a blanket experience.
at any rate, you are setting up the iraq war as an example of an administrative failure. granted that it is the case, my point is twofold. not all government failures are of the administrative kind, and the president herself is not the sole carrier of this administrative ability. the entire mechanism of government ought to be evaluated, including the people who were assigned to execute orders and why they were placed in such positions of power.
in any case, i have no faith in the administrative experience of the conservative movement, which is remarkably young and its history largely consists of fighting the political wars.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident. Ideology may be a strong influencing factor in the initial decision, but it has no place in the execution of the order which is where having management experience would be helpful. The Iraq war was a series of incorrect decisions plagued by poor management and thus poor execution, but liberal agendas can suffer the exact same fate. well, by that account, experience involves far more than "being in executive office." the point is that there are viable skills in the term "experience," and we are better off talking about specific skillsets or valuable traits than a blanket experience. at any rate, you are setting up the iraq war as an example of an administrative failure. granted that it is the case, my point is twofold. not all government failures are of the administrative kind, and the president herself is not the sole carrier of this administrative ability. the entire mechanism of government ought to be evaluated, including the people who were assigned to execute orders and why they were placed in such positions of power.
This is how management works, however. If you've ever studied business management of someone like Deming or Drucker, it's about how the management is ultimately responsible for the majority of failures and how power has to be correctly delegated from the top. Choosing the right people is the duty of the administrator.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:37 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident. I'm starting to see why people get frustrated arguing with you. The decision to goto war is driven by ideology, yes. But the effective conduct of that war is dependent on experience. I think I've said this like ten times already. I think I'm going to just cut off my post there because I think the less I say the less room you have to go on tangents and pretend I didn't say anything.
what are you on about. the decision to go into iraq is the issue here. for you to argue that administrative flaws are the worst problems here, you should at least say that had the war been successfully carried out, the decision to go in would be forgivable. without this, you fail to engage the issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:48 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:43 oneofthem wrote:On September 02 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident. Ideology may be a strong influencing factor in the initial decision, but it has no place in the execution of the order which is where having management experience would be helpful. The Iraq war was a series of incorrect decisions plagued by poor management and thus poor execution, but liberal agendas can suffer the exact same fate. well, by that account, experience involves far more than "being in executive office." the point is that there are viable skills in the term "experience," and we are better off talking about specific skillsets or valuable traits than a blanket experience. at any rate, you are setting up the iraq war as an example of an administrative failure. granted that it is the case, my point is twofold. not all government failures are of the administrative kind, and the president herself is not the sole carrier of this administrative ability. the entire mechanism of government ought to be evaluated, including the people who were assigned to execute orders and why they were placed in such positions of power. This is how management works, however. If you've ever studied business management of someone like Deming or Drucker, it's about how the management is ultimately responsible for the majority of failures and how power has to be correctly delegated from the top. Choosing the right people is the duty of the administrator.
but government posts are qualified by both "skill" and ideology to the decisionmakers. i am simply making the point that while the error on the former are persistent and important, the latter does play a part in shaping overall government directives. for instance, the difference between an aggressive EPA and a lax one is not a question of efficiency. business is ideologically unified, imagine a business that is torn between profit and say community interest, then it would have the same problems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:40 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
studied decisionmaking is a cultivated habit, and an ability. you have to have experience of not only situations but ideas. take a guy schooled in say medieval theology and give him 100 years of experience, he would not produce anything worthwhile. this ability is a substantial quality of the candidate's so called character. strictly speaking, we could call some of this experience of ideas "experience", but that would be silly in america. nobody cares about whether the guy they vote for knows socialism from communism. or something esoteric like that. I don't need to know what communism and socialism or neoconservatism is to fight a war effectively. Ideology does not influence the conduct of war. Just because I'm a neoconservative doesn't mean I have to choose bad commanders and people who don't know what they're doing.
but you do need basic knowledge of how the political scene at the top looks to avoid being mislead by experts and effectively using advice. it is impossible for me to imagine someone like bush, for example, taking in balanced advice from across the spectrum of ideology.
|
On September 02 2008 11:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:37 ahrara_ wrote:On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
no, it is a question of ideology derived from the structure of the conservative movement. how many neocons were salivating for the opportunity of iraq, and how the echo chamber of a crusading movement reinforces such audacity, this si no accident. I'm starting to see why people get frustrated arguing with you. The decision to goto war is driven by ideology, yes. But the effective conduct of that war is dependent on experience. I think I've said this like ten times already. I think I'm going to just cut off my post there because I think the less I say the less room you have to go on tangents and pretend I didn't say anything. what are you on about. the decision to go into iraq is the issue here. for you to argue that administrative flaws are the worst problems here, you should at least say that had the war been successfully carried out, the decision to go in would be forgivable. without this, you fail to engage the issue.
what? we've gone on this theoretical tangent, so let's bring this back down to earth:
We are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our success in these two regions is dependent on the management of our next president. I have argued, and you seem to agree, that experience is important for successful management of these conflicts, and that ideology is irrelevant in the conduct of war. In that sense, wouldn't you agree that Palin, who has no experience at all, would be less likely to make good decisions and resolve these conflicts successfully?
What it seems you are saying is that ideology is more important than experience. I would agree with you on this. That's why I supported Obama over Hillary. But objectively, I can say that Obama will be less successful in the realization of his ideology than Hillary would be, if Hillary shared Obama's ideology.
Moreover, experience often overrides ideology. Not always, but people like McCain who have violated republican orthodoxy many times because of personal experiences is a good example.
|
On September 02 2008 11:53 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:40 ahrara_ wrote:On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
studied decisionmaking is a cultivated habit, and an ability. you have to have experience of not only situations but ideas. take a guy schooled in say medieval theology and give him 100 years of experience, he would not produce anything worthwhile. this ability is a substantial quality of the candidate's so called character. strictly speaking, we could call some of this experience of ideas "experience", but that would be silly in america. nobody cares about whether the guy they vote for knows socialism from communism. or something esoteric like that. I don't need to know what communism and socialism or neoconservatism is to fight a war effectively. Ideology does not influence the conduct of war. Just because I'm a neoconservative doesn't mean I have to choose bad commanders and people who don't know what they're doing. but you do need basic knowledge of how the political scene at the top looks to avoid being mislead by experts and effectively using advice. it is impossible for me to imagine someone like bush, for example, taking in balanced advice from across the spectrum of ideology.
which is exactly my point...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:22 ahrara_ wrote:
that's exactly what i'm saying.
who would you rather trust to conduct foreign policy -- a psychology major, or an international relations major?
neither. i trust a guy who will listen to the foreign policy community and other relevant studied bodies of opinion and come to a balanced decision.
while we are busily chasing strayed arguments, i call to your attention the original framing of the questions. position 1, experience in office means improved performances in office. i attack this position for two problems, the simplification of experience and office, and the disregard for greater currents like ideology.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:57 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:53 oneofthem wrote:On September 02 2008 11:40 ahrara_ wrote:On September 02 2008 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
studied decisionmaking is a cultivated habit, and an ability. you have to have experience of not only situations but ideas. take a guy schooled in say medieval theology and give him 100 years of experience, he would not produce anything worthwhile. this ability is a substantial quality of the candidate's so called character. strictly speaking, we could call some of this experience of ideas "experience", but that would be silly in america. nobody cares about whether the guy they vote for knows socialism from communism. or something esoteric like that. I don't need to know what communism and socialism or neoconservatism is to fight a war effectively. Ideology does not influence the conduct of war. Just because I'm a neoconservative doesn't mean I have to choose bad commanders and people who don't know what they're doing. but you do need basic knowledge of how the political scene at the top looks to avoid being mislead by experts and effectively using advice. it is impossible for me to imagine someone like bush, for example, taking in balanced advice from across the spectrum of ideology. which is exactly my point...
that woudl be your point if you think time spent in office would furnish one with such skills. as i have already said, the public understands this kind of thing not as experience but as skills under other names. if you dare call it widely read, they might even thump their noses at it.
|
i gotta go
but in response to
neither. i trust a guy who will listen to the foreign policy community and other relevant studied bodies of opinion and come to a balanced decision.
an international relations major would be more likely to know whose advice he can trust more.
honestly this debate is so muddled now my head hurts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
your first response is both attacking a strawman and in itself misleading. you said 'the overall decisionmaking passes from the oval office', this in regard to the iraq war most obviously refers to the decision to go in. yet you say this decision is a question of administrative failure. of course, to such a post i could only reply as i did.
|
On September 02 2008 11:15 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:07 oneofthem wrote:
if "running the government" is more of a matter of management skill than ideology and studied decisionmaking, the experience argument may hold a joking chance. at any rate, unless there are elections for administrative aides, talks of experience are bloody fluff of the worst kind. ?!?! you don't think if bush had more experience with foreign policy he wouldn't have made retarded decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq like de-baathification and refusing to get involved in nationbuilding? If he were involved in dealing with the issues, he would understand better what is involved in planning something like that. You assume all the president has to do is sign bills and tell who to conduct what war. Planning and strategy also play a role. handling the details are passed down, but the overall planning lies with the oval office.
By this logic, Kim Jong-Il's had a lifetime's experience of dealing with foreign countries telling him what to do right? He should be a veritable expert with all the practice he's had. N. Korea's such a skillfully led country... Truly a wonder in cultivating the "soft power" of diplomacy and foreign policy that a lifetime of leadership entails.
|
haha palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant? that seems like it would hurt her a bit among social conservatives.
this choice just keeps getting better and better. btw guys please don't feed oneofthem
|
On September 02 2008 11:22 ahrara_ wrote:
that's exactly what i'm saying.
who would you rather trust to conduct foreign policy -- a psychology major, or an international relations major?
I'd trust neither. Psychology is a pseudo-science, and International relations isn't even a science. It's still a field that's in its raw stages of infancy, while also being dominated by Western thought/standards. International relations talks about what has happened, it has very few theories (and nearly none of them testable) that really help that much in making future decisions.
Again, ideology plays a much bigger role in decision making. Yes, ideology is derived from a person/party's experiences, but that's more a chicken or the egg debate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
cute thing is, neither of those would be called experience as far as the american usage of the word goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
