November 3rd, 2004
 senji
|
2004/11/03 19:10:00 - "Reality-based" viewpoint
|
People like  pjc50 like talking about people with "reality-based" viewpoints. People like this tend not to vote for people like Bush because he lies, and possibly cheats at elections. People like this read about stuff, follow the news and are keyed into developments. I don't like this term. Reality isn't something solid; it is what you make it. I prefer to call these people "information-based".
How else might we catagorise people? My first thought was "virtue-based". Virtue-based people would vote for people who did things for what they thought were the right reasons, regardless of the outcome. People like this make up some of the core members of the group who oppose "sleaze" in government.
On the other side we have "results-based" people. These people believe that the end does justify the means. People like this may support Bush on the basis that he removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq; but will reserve eventual judgement on Gulf War II until they see how Iraq ends up.
Then I start moving into hazier zones. You have the "don't cares" who believe that it doesn't make a difference to them who is in government, the "traditionalists" who have voted one way or another for 100 years, the "media-based" people who do what the Daily Mail or Fox News tell them to.
Then again, on all sides, you have the idealists. There must be some people out there who actually believe in the trickle-down theory of the economy, and support Big Business; just as there are people who believe in a stable communist state.
I'm not going to try ranking these groups into any kind of hierarchy. I'm an "information-based" person, so I tend to think that that way is best; but some of the other approaches I've mentioned make a certain sort of sense to me, and I can see why they might appeal.
On a related note; here's to Clinton/Leech '08...
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](https://imgprx.livejournal.net/d918eeb9a916ee0337b730d428d493086658cf04/QNxmzjBSK0XaKTWtKt-kXUqxhl7pDL-l2wLAjfq6-FaunAYXiIHzD5hcsThyn91Qtm3w4Wz2kStAJzeAnGzmoaBjuZRBSyUBGA-wNDMElBLLQc7yNamvCb0-t2z-1auY) thoughtful
Entry Tags: pjc50, politics
|
 andrewwyld
![[userpic]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/13172575/714978)
|
2004/11/03 11:42:06
|
I like to think of my viewpoint as computation-based: I like people who think, even if they think what seem to me to be odd things. I believe that people who scrutinize their own beliefs are far more likely to admit they were wrong and change their ideas, and I also think that failure to admit error is the single biggest problem in politics. Everyone makes errors, but only those who can learn from their errors benefit from them, and those who cannot acknowledge their errors cannot learn.
Incidentally, for second choice I'd go with non-cobol-based.
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/03 13:30:28
|
|
|
 ilanin
![[userpic]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/16492846/2132496)
|
2004/11/04 04:41:06
|
Edwards/Obama, preferably. But there isn't much chance of that...
|
senji
![[userpic]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/20643168/856324)
|
2004/11/04 08:07:44
|
I picked Leech mainly because she has an interesting history. I think a female VPC to go with a female Presidential Candidate would be a good thing from the point of view of people not saying that the VP is actually going to be the real power behind the throne and other gender politics of that kind.
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/04 08:15:21
|
|
|
senji
![[userpic]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/24431875/856324)
|
2004/11/04 08:17:31
|
Yes. I just feel that this is likely to backfire politically :(
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/04 08:19:06
|
|
|
senji
|
2004/11/04 08:20:34
|
It makes a lot of the plausible attacks more blatent; I feel.
Still, that's up to the DNC :)
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/04 08:23:05
|
|
|
senji
|
2004/11/04 08:24:51
|
That doesn't get us Hillary as president, unless we murder her running-mate.
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/04 08:36:52
|
|
|
senji
|
2004/11/04 08:46:37
|
It's not as if I'm actually threatening to kill Hillary Rodham Clinton's running-mate.
|
(Anonymous)
|
2004/11/04 08:51:09
|
|
|
senji
|
2004/11/04 08:53:03
|
I assert extraterritoriality :).
|
ilanin
|
2004/11/04 09:02:36
|
Which is a good thing, in many ways. For a start, the list:
Presidents of the US
1988: Bush
1992: Clinton
1996: Clinton
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: Clinton
Does nothing to imply that the US is a land of oppurtunity where anyone can become President. Secondly, she wouldn't be a very good President, and is almost certainly unelectable anyway. I reiterate a preference for Edwards/Obama.
|
senji
![[userpic]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/6367537/856324)
|
2005/07/05 15:37:48
|
Not that the US is, in practice, a land of opportunity where anyone can become President.
|
 mooism
|
2004/11/04 06:28:23 - Etymology
|
The term “reality-based” comes from a loyal Bush administration insider, who used it to describe critics of Bush’s policies. He described the Bush administration itself as “faith-based”.
|
senji
|
2004/11/04 06:50:09 - Re: Etymology
|
Well, there we go.
I still think it's a bad term! :)
|
|
|
|
|
