Text 3840, 66 rader
Skriven 2010-01-27 16:05:57 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Change in government (was: Fox stoops even lower)
=========================================================
Hello Robert,

On Wednesday January 27 2010 07:39, you wrote to me:

 MV>> Nothing wrong with new blood, but replacing the entire board of
 MV>> directors only happens when the business is not doing very well.
 MV>> IOW, in a crisis. You do not change a winning team. Normal
 MV>> procedure is to change at most half of the board at one time.

 RB> I agree that four years isn't much time to change things,

Especially if the next toast master can reverse the changes. Which is likely to
happen as you say signatures alternate.

 RB> but under normal circumstances, and given a reasonably apt president,
 RB> a re-election is possible and in eight years

Hmmm, you claimed that the majority of presidents after WWII were one term
presidents...

 RB> you can do a fair bit. If a president is not re-elected, that
 RB> naturally indicates that something's not working well

Then we must conclude that in many if not most cases after WWII something is
not working well...

 RB>  - but it doesn't necessarily mean that the president is at fault,
 RB> only that he's blamed for something.

The result is the same. he is not re-elected, the next one is probably of the
other party and the course changes again.

 RB>>> And it also reduces nepotism, what the Germans call "Filz"
 RB>>> (political "connections").

 MV>> True, but changing the course by 180 degrees every four years is
 MV>> bad for long term stability.

 RB> The political course is _never_ (with one exception as described)
 RB> changed anything like 180ø.

I suppose that depends on how you translate political change into angular
degrees.

 RB> Like Ward writes, gradual changes are the most that can reasonably be
 RB> expected.

Ok. Still if the signature alternates and the next undoes the changes of the
present one, how can one ever achieve anything?

 RB> The only time that can be different is when an acute crisis arises, as
 RB> was the case in 2001. If there had been no 9/11, Bush would presumably
 RB> gone down in history as a capable but not outstanding president
 RB> without any particular features.

I am not so sure about that. I saw the war monger in the eyes of Bush long
before 9/11. I think he *wanted* war. He wanted to finish what his father
didn't or couldn't. He wanted revenge for the assisination attempt on his
daddy. 9/11 was a welcome excuse. Had there been no 9/11, he would have found
another excuse. Just my 2cts.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)