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.
Have you ever studied IR? Or Psychology?
Political scientists don't claim to be de facto scientists. We know our theories are only generalizations. (If you want to get technical, even physics deals only with generalizations). But these theories help us understand how nations behave, which in turn enhances our decision making.
Your Kim Jong Ill analogy is flawed in that you can't gain experience when you're sheltered from the consequence of your own errors, fail to take responsibility for them, or aren't concerned with enhancing anyone's welfare except your own. On the other hand, Deng Xiao Ping and Gorbachev are communist leaders who broke with ideology as a result of experience. In general, American politicians are well aware of the consequences of their own errors.
On September 02 2008 12:50 oneofthem wrote: cute thing is, neither of those would be called experience as far as the american usage of the word goes.
When I said I had to go, I really had to go. Anyway, the point was, I would trust someone who has studied the subject over someone who had no idea about it. Second, if my original post was a strawman, it was because you can't articulate your ideas clearly. I still don't understand what "reasoned decision making" is supposed to mean practically. Your writing is seriously baffling at times. Like "political scene at the top", what is that exactly? Considering your response, clearly I misunderstood. Stop talking in an abstract vacuum and maybe we can have better debate. I hate when people babble nonsense and start calling strawmen when others don't have the energy to sift through their passive-voice sentences and self-invented jargon. Effective communication is your responsibility.
To clear things up some:
I believe experience matters in selecting a president. While I think ideology should come first, because a president's political objectives are determined by his ideology, I believe experience plays an important role in determining how successfully those objectives are completed. When it comes to selecting leaders with similar ideologies however, I think experience plays an important role. That's why I think the selection of Palin was a poor decision -- because she must be ready to take over McCain's role, and because it deprives McCain of a confidante who can give him feedback on his decision making. (My support of Obama has to do with ideology, and that's not a debate I want to go into)
You'd be right that the invasion of Iraq and, hypothetically, Iran would be ideological. So would the implementation of major legislation, like Health Care or Social Security reform. Those are political decisions. What isn't political is the execution of these plans.
Let's use one of your earlier posts as a transition:
so you mean he's improving his handling of foreign policy ever since he began acquiring experience?
Yes. His strategy in Iraq has shifted significantly. He's learned that democracy alone isn't enough to preserve stability. He's learned that micromanaging his commanders is a bad thing. He's learned that Iraq is not a conventional war, and how to fight a counterinsurgency. He's learned the differences between and grievances of the different ethnicities in Iraq and their political objectives. It's true he doesn't devise these strategies himself, but he's learned the difference between someone who knows what they're doing (Petraeus) vs someone who doesn't (Rumsfeld). If -- god forbid -- we invaded Iran, I would argue we would have a much easier time maintaining stability there.
You say you would trust someone who listens to the "foreign policy community" w/e the fuck that means. You seem to have this naive idea that there is some group of people who get together on weekends and talk foreign policy, and have a consensus on what to do. You'd be almost right, except that there are multiple groups, and none of them agree with each other. Some of them are right. Most of them are wrong. Experience helps a president select which ones he should listen to.
In general, you are correct that ideology is probably the most important factor in choosing a candidate. You're wrong when you argue that experience makes no difference at all. That reflects a very naive understanding of the presidency, and makes me wonder if you've ever been in a leadership role at all. While different presidents have different approaches to how hands-on with the execution of policy, there is no question experience improves the quality of their decision making. Ultimately, I probably can't convince you of my argument until -- ironically -- you gain some experience in leadership and government yourself. There's just too much nuance you can't grasp without hands on experience.
I don't get it. What you're citing as "learned" through experience, I could have told you with absolutely no experience as a commander. In fact, I did tell many people exactly what would happen. The Iraqi gov't would capitulate within weeks, and the actual military would go to ground and lead an insurgency, which would then be complicated by a vast array of foreign powers sending their own agents in to foment rebellion and factional warfare. I've got no way to prove it to you now, but I honestly called it, and quite a few others did too. It wasn't hard to see.
And honestly, micromanaging commanders is a bad thing? Rly? "Learned the differences and grievances of the different ethnicities?" Come on, any jack ass with a modicum of learning about the Mid-East region would understand the political environment in Iraq. Sunni/Shiite is not a new conflict. Neither is the concept that ayatollahs and mullahs play an influential role in the Muslim world. Give me a break.
Experience does matter. But it matters far, FAR less than innate talent, intelligence, and temperament. I'd place temperament and intelligence far above any other trait when it comes to leadership. Using "experience" as a qualification is absurd to me. Everyone started as a baby. What, a kid shouldn't go to school because he doesn't have experience in it? That means he'll do poorly in school? Temperament and intelligence play a far bigger role in determining how well a person will deal with a certain job than "experience." Experience is an indirect filter that implies, IMPLIES that a person has done something a certain amount of time, so will probably be able to do it again. Except, oftentimes there are multiple factors influencing why a person has managed to do something, and it's impossible to use pure experience as a qualifier. A teacher could have 30 years of teaching experience. Does that mean they're good? No. It means they have 2 years of experience, replicated 15x. That's typically what that means.
On September 02 2008 12:33 a-game wrote: 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
Did anyone hear about the supposed conspiricy by Palin to cover up her daughter's pregnancy?
Experience does matter. But it matters far, FAR less than innate talent, intelligence
How exactly do you measure talent and intelligence in the field of leadership? I can think of one way, but you probably don't like the answer.
I think you may even be proving the wrong point when bringing up the Iraqi situation. The administration, Harvard MBA and all, were picking "rebuilders" based on loyaly and ideology moreso than experience. Had they picked based on experience, things might very well have fared better.
In a meritocracy, one would assume that those who have stood the longest should be damn good at what they do. This is what ahrara_ and I are saying. You say running a business does not compare to being an executive in government, but you (and I) have absolutely no knowledge to base that off of. We're both rationalizing based off very poor sources of information.
I only lean towards my side because others have explained how the proper delegation of power and other practices used in the business world could apply, but neither of us are firsthand experts on the matter.
On September 02 2008 12:33 a-game wrote: 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
Did anyone hear about the supposed conspiricy by Palin to cover up her daughter's pregnancy?
well i guess Palin's family IS following the bush policy. no birth control, no abortion. pretty much the bush policy followed to the very letter.
But better to start that drilling today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
Take that as you want. Certainly not what McCain has said.
Major General Craig E. Campbell is the adjutant general for the State of Alaska, commander of the Alaska National Guard and the commissioner of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. He is responsible to provide Army and Air National Guard military forces, a State Defense Force, and a Navy Militia that are fully prepared to protect Alaska from any threat, disaster, or emergency. He is also responsible to ensure that Alaska’s National Guard forces are ready to deploy worldwide and accomplish military missions in support of the national defense strategy.
Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government's handling of Hurricane Katrina. "I hate criticisms towards the President," he said, "because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."
wtf
Even ignoring the garbage about Bush, that is fucking insane and not even consistent with protestantism.
She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”
She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”
“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God.”
EPT
