Comments on: Post-Debate Thoughts http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/ “... to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.” - George Orwell Fri, 15 May 2009 12:22:14 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John Schwenkler on why we need to have more than two candidates debatingSe « Nathancontramundi http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2094 John Schwenkler on why we need to have more than two candidates debatingSe « Nathancontramundi Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:17:03 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2094 [...] Posted on 16 October 2008 by nathancontramundi John, in the comment box of his post-debate post: [I]t seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of [...] [...] Posted on 16 October 2008 by nathancontramundi John, in the comment box of his post-debate post: [I]t seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of [...]

]]> By: Nathan P Origer http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2090 Nathan P Origer Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:14:26 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2090 I say that we follow the lead of Peter's homeland and adopt a multi-party parliamentary system! If nothing else, watching sessions might be more amusing than watching the House, <i>sans</i> Jim Traficant. I say that we follow the lead of Peter’s homeland and adopt a multi-party parliamentary system! If nothing else, watching sessions might be more amusing than watching the House, sans Jim Traficant.

]]> By: Peter W. http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2083 Peter W. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:30:40 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2083 Oops, there should be a "be" in that last sentence. Oops, there should be a “be” in that last sentence.

]]> By: Peter W. http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2082 Peter W. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:29:44 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2082 Yes that seems entirely reasonable. In fact I like that way of putting the case better than the original. Emphasizing that people who would never vote for someone like Barr might have something to gain from having him put pressure on the candidates they would consider voting for to get beyond the boilerplate might, practically speaking, the best way to get widespread support for the idea. Yes that seems entirely reasonable. In fact I like that way of putting the case better than the original. Emphasizing that people who would never vote for someone like Barr might have something to gain from having him put pressure on the candidates they would consider voting for to get beyond the boilerplate might, practically speaking, the best way to get widespread support for the idea.

]]> By: John http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2081 John Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:05:42 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2081 I agree, Peter, though it seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of their B.S. if they had to share space with candidates who were offering something different. Obama would never have pressed McCain about, e.g., how his supposed "constructionism" squares with the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold or how his claim to want to shrink the size of government is empty in the face of the fact that he wants to, well, grow it, nor would McCain ever have pressed Obama on how the right to privacy permits abortion but doesn't disallow domestic spying, etc. - but if they'd been up against a candidate who didn't feel bound by those same rules, then the rules would have begun to change, and they'd have been pressed to be much more transparent and articulate then they need to be when both they and their MSM questions are coming at things squarely from the mushy middle. Doesn't that seem reasonable? I agree, Peter, though it seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of their B.S. if they had to share space with candidates who were offering something different. Obama would never have pressed McCain about, e.g., how his supposed “constructionism” squares with the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold or how his claim to want to shrink the size of government is empty in the face of the fact that he wants to, well, grow it, nor would McCain ever have pressed Obama on how the right to privacy permits abortion but doesn’t disallow domestic spying, etc. – but if they’d been up against a candidate who didn’t feel bound by those same rules, then the rules would have begun to change, and they’d have been pressed to be much more transparent and articulate then they need to be when both they and their MSM questions are coming at things squarely from the mushy middle. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

]]> By: Peter W. http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2079 Peter W. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:24:36 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/post-debate-thoughts/#comment-2079 So I absolutely agree that the current political system in the U.S. is extremely unfavorable to third-party candidates like Barr. But the very factors that make a third-party candidate like Barr unelectable are the factors that give him the freedom to be clear and direct. He doesn't have to try to appeal to a wide variety of warring constituencies, so he can lay out a coherent and principled position. The intellectual fogginess and equivocation you see even the major candidates (including the obviously very smart ones like Obama) is not a bug but a feature of the system within which they are operating. Barr can be direct because he knows he can't win. That's not to slam Barr, just to point out it's not really fair to compare his performance with McCain's and Obama's in this way. So I absolutely agree that the current political system in the U.S. is extremely unfavorable to third-party candidates like Barr.

But the very factors that make a third-party candidate like Barr unelectable are the factors that give him the freedom to be clear and direct. He doesn’t have to try to appeal to a wide variety of warring constituencies, so he can lay out a coherent and principled position. The intellectual fogginess and equivocation you see even the major candidates (including the obviously very smart ones like Obama) is not a bug but a feature of the system within which they are operating. Barr can be direct because he knows he can’t win. That’s not to slam Barr, just to point out it’s not really fair to compare his performance with McCain’s and Obama’s in this way.

]]>