2 thoughts on “AS217: Politics with The Skepticrat”

1. Don’t pin your hopes on Elizabeth Warren for future elections…
   Warren is 66
   Clinton is 68
   Sanders is 74
   They all have a birthday between now and November. They are all essentially the same generation. We need to be looking to young activists now for our future leaders.

   Also, as far as crediting Kerry with many more accopmlishments than Clinton as Secretary of State… Dubya broke things and left a mess. Countries had markedly deminished trust for the US. Clinton did a lot of repair work that prepped the next secretary for success. She visited more countries than any other secretary. People poo-poo that effort as not accompishing anything, but it was a huge act of respect and relationship repair and development, and built trust. Happily, Kerry has taken those relationships and built on them.

   Reply

2. I much enjoy Noah and Heath’s podcasting, along with yours, they are among my regular listens. But I must say I was disappointed at their political thinking with regards to Clinton and Sanders. I’m fine with each of them, (Noah or Heath), or anyone else, deciding either Clinton or Sanders is the best candidate for the US and world time and situation. But I want to hear substantial reasons and thinking as part of the rationale.

   I felt the reasoning offered was less than adequate, it sounded a bit like capitulation to ‘a reality’ that may be ‘real’ but is to be resisted with as much democratic force as possible. The “reality” that enjoys so much consensus is – to me – so pervasively corrupt and ignorant of science based awareness of genuine human psycho-social longing and need, that at my age (71) I’ve decided I can’t “play along” anymore. At this time I intend to stick with Sanders all the way, perhaps even to the point of refusing to vote for a presidential candidate on the November ballot if his name isn’t there.

   Sanders’ record in politics reveals his willingness to work across the aisle. He describes an ideal and maintain the vision, but he’s willing and able to adjust rather than make no progress at all. He insists the progress can’t contain seeds that work against the vision – I agree with him on this.

   His finances speak to his world view – a goal to serve, promote, encourage, rather than garner wealth and personal attention, (i.e. he’s ‘mature’ in a way we seldom see among ‘leaders’!) The man demonstrates empathy – the real thing.

   Hillary can’t quite sustain commitment driven by empathy and compassion, it’s not among her primary motivators to my observation. I’ll go further and suggest one of her prime motivating drivers is egoic desire to achieve as an individual, or as a member of a set of individuals similarly motivated. The achievements that will most please her will involve wealth, prestige, and power. Not so with Sanders. He too has and will accomplish much, but one of his prime motivating drivers in politics appears to be something I’d describe as “service on behalf of meaningful psycho-social satisfactions that work for every single individual”.

   Clinton may ‘need’ to be high profile, Sanders seeks high profile because it’s necessary. As a personality his approach seems low profile. I have a strong preference for low profile high achievers who seem motivated by service rather than egoistic need: Alfred Adler, Buckminster Fuller and Noam Chomsky are on my list of exemplars. Elizabeth Warren also, (to get to politics and also women) but I want her to stay in the Senate for as long as she’s willing due to her immense service there.

   This nation and world could use someone like Sanders. He’s not perfect, but his vision for assuring thriving is shared by many. If we want to step off the merry-go-round of cultural and political insanity, he is, to me, the best opportunity in a good long while. If we reject this vision and intent because – for examples “the moneyed folk won’t let us” or “it can’t be done so why give it a go”, then needed change can’t happen, or will be so slow that many already suffering will experience no relief and more will join the “Dickensian” dystopia.

   I think in international affairs Sanders speaks with an uncommon level of wisdom.. He has repeated need to work with all nations in a conflict rather than join a select few to carry out regime change.. He does not reveal the arrogance of “American exceptionalism”, Hillary is decidedly hawkish and is inclined toward ‘American exceptionalism’. The language of each regarding international affairs reflects differences between them. I think we might be pleasantly surprised at how well Sanders is received by leaders and populations of many nations.

   I think Sanders may be judged naive, but he appears to me to have “just enough” finesse and knows how to use it as strategy without straying into a kind of deception that is meant to “destroy an opponent”. Clinton models her approach after the much more conventional and corrosive use of deception that may indeed be meant to destroy. (I’m still puzzled by the ‘berniebro’ phenomenon but find it curious that it seems to have disappeared as a ‘thing’ along with several other short-lived noisy accusations leveled by the Clinton camp at Sanders – accusations that on closer look dissipated. The clamor over ‘fake’ civil rights activist photos of Bernie’s activism is another – the photographer himself spoke up: “Hey, I took these photos and they’re of Bernie Sanders”!)

   It was interesting to hear one of your guests speak of viewing our selection as if we were hiring – which we are! I prefer Bernie as the candidate who best represents a vision and kind of thinking that fits species needs in a global 21st Century.

   Whew! There, got that said. I heard the podcast last evening and was distressed enough that I turned it off about half way through. I wanted to hear Noah and Heath cite specifics, ‘hard details’. If I’d not already heard most of their rationale from lots of people I’d not have been quite so disappointed. My disappointment is with the popularity of the notion that yet again we must let fear cause us to accept something most of us don’t actually believe to be valid or promising.

   Reply