Submitted by pinktwillshirt t3_y8xayt in Connecticut
Wyndeward t1_it2he64 wrote
Reply to comment by mkt853 in Why is Bob Stefanowski even running by pinktwillshirt
It might compel me to vote against him, but that is about it.
Bob Stefanowski and, to a lesser extent, Ned Lamont are symptoms of a larger problem we have to face as a nation.
Seriously, we have taken a system intended for citizen legislators and permitted it to morph into a "jobs program" for the rich and incompetent. The overwhelming majority of legislators are a) rich (even if they didn't start that way) and b) lawyers who write laws for other lawyers to benefit from. The World War II generation was perhaps the last "great" generation... starting with "pre-boomers," (the generation born before WW2, but too young to actually serve), things have slid off the plate at an ever-increasing rate, with politicians beholding more to party than the constituencies they are supposed to be representing. The pre-boomers *should* have known and done better. The boomers, whose lives were too soft because their parents had it so hard, at least had the excuse of ignorance in their defense. With each successive generation, things have gotten softer and weaker, by and large. Universities used to be about the free exchange of ideas where the sand and pebbles were separated from the ore. Now we have children are offended by opposing / contrary positions and, if the NY Times is to be believed, want to be physicians without having to do well in Organic Chemistry, getting their professor essentially fired for being "too hard."
One of the dumbest things in our political system is that, because things are so polarized, we treat things as being strictly binary. When Trumplestilskin was under investigation, there was a... well, counterargument isn't the right word, but will suffice for the moment, suggesting that they should be investigating the politicians who became millionaires while in office, as if this was an "either/or" equation. The fact of the matter is that we, as the electorate, should be doing *both* things, holding all their feet to the fire.
In full disclosure, I am Gen X, raised by pre-Boomers who paid attention to the lessons their parents taught them about the Depression and the war years. I have my own collection of neuroses, problems and issues to deal with that are completely divorced from those of my generation, but the great masses of people are far too comfortable being sheep led around by shepherds, rather than citizens who hold their representatives accountable for their actions. Even John McCain, who was one of the "Keating Five," was essentially give a pass by the Senate Ethics Committee. Being sheeple leads only to being shorn, if you are lucky.
Phantastic_Elastic t1_it2qn2t wrote
I think Lamont has done a remarkably competent job, and he's managed to do it while remaining civil and positive. Our political system has always favored wealthy and connected candidates. At least we should recognize when we luck out with a competent leader who isn't an evil schmuck.
bentdaisy t1_it5e3wj wrote
I agree. As far as politicians go, Lamont seems like one of the better ones. I’d be happy to see non-rich people who don’t grease the hands of the rich running, but our system is not set up for that to be possible. It’s not that I accept that—in fact, I’d actively promote candidates who come from the middle class.
Lamont seems to do a good job managing our finances (finally someone who can), stays out of people’s business as much as possible, and is one of the few governors to come with a positive rating with covid. I can’t honestly ask for much more in the current political environment.
Wyndeward t1_it33kw8 wrote
It originally favored the wealthy, in part, because they were educated and partly because they were the ones who set up this experiment in representative democracy. We were originally led by polymaths. We're now led by poltroons.
Look at the progression of Presidents. There are peaks and valleys, to be sure, but the trendline has been heading south. The first president had to be all but drafted and vigorously opposed expanding the power of his office, at least for the most part. Adams, bless his heart, had pretty good intentions but some fairly awful ideas. If I recall my history, Jefferson was the first one who really *wanted* the job and exceeded his authority, albeit for the good of the nation. Each successive president, with notable exceptions, has permitted the accumulation and centralization of power. To cite an example, the Department of Education, upgraded to a cabinet-level position in '79, was supposed to remedy problems. Instead, it has grown as a bureaucracy, spent an ever-increasing amount of money and for what? What is the trend-line of test scores? Education has been homogenized and dumbed down to the point where a high school diploma is almost worthless.
As for being an "evil schmuck," Stefanowski isn't "evil" per se... But plain old-fashioned stupidity can do a hell of a lot more damage than evil, if only because it is a hell of lot more common. Payday loans aren't evil, they are amoral -- no one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them borrow against future wages. If government really wanted to, they could revise the laws and regulations of the banking/lending industry and eliminate the business entirely, particularly in single party majority state like Connecticut... but they don't. What does that tell you?
Phantastic_Elastic t1_it3pnjd wrote
Your post about the declining quality of presidents is only valid if you can ignore stuff like genocide against native people, enslavement of blacks, segregation, etc. And the complexity of the role has grown exponentially since the 18th century. So no, I don't agree with your characterization. I would say generation x has been a particular disappointment to me, and that's speaking as a member of it. It's the most selfish and entitled of all of them. I also don't agree that payday loans aren't evil, and I wouldn't skip over contracting with the murderous Saudi regime either. I'm pretty sure Stefanowski will do evil if he's given the opportunity to, and I'm usually right about my gut feelings about people and politicians. And it's not even a gut feeling really ... He's already shown a willingness to do so.
Wyndeward t1_it3u2er wrote
There are a few weaknesses in your argument. Just as the Preamble talks about a "more perfect union," human nature has been being refined over the same period.
Slavery was inherited from the various colonial powers, primarily the English and the French, and individuals, both great and small, worked to end the practice as early as the start of the country, while even those who held slaves understood their own hypocrisy, such as Washington and Jefferson. Likewise, the repression and attempted extermination of the Native population had as much (if not more) to do with the greed of the electorate as that of the elected. Ironically, the original colonists thought the Native Americans were white men simply made ruddy from their exposure to the sun. I would also point out that the Natives played as much politics and silly buggers with the colonists, at least initially, as did the colonists with the Natives. The use of the Connecticut colonies as a buffer between the more aggressive Pequots and the weaker tribal nations further east by said weaker nations was just as mischievous as what the settlers did to the Natives or each other, early on. Likewise, the level of settlers friendship with the natives tended to be inversely related to the amount of gold they had.
People forget that the Native Americans had slavery, war and genocide long before the Europeans turned the North American continent into the religious equivalent of Australia. The Pequots, for example, wax poetic about "returning the land" land to the tribes that lived there before European settlers arrived, but look sheepish when you inquire how they came to live in such lands... by Pequot oral tradition, they more or less took the lands militarily, culturally obliterating the original inhabitants. Human nature is human nature, regardless of the color of one's skin. The fortunes of the African kingdom nation of Dahomey, for example, rose and fell based on the slave trade. Likewise, if you have ever seen the factor's stations in Africa, you would know that they could not have withstood the ire of the native populace, were that at least some of the tribes not fully complicit with the slave trade.
Generation X has been holding things together with duct tape and bailing wire for so long, while fully expecting to up in a puff of atomic smoke.
In what way, pray tell, are payday loans "evil?" There is no malicious intent on the part of the lender, nor do they force you to take out a loan. There is naught but greed, which is more or less amoral in nature. As for dealing with the Saudis, I would point out that most of the folks most in need of "green energy solutions" to deal with the transitions away from petrochemicals are not, shall we say, on the happy list of Amnesty International. Stupidity readily covers his willingness to do a deal with the Saudis and then run for governor.
Phantastic_Elastic t1_it444ui wrote
I've heard all these lousy excuses before, and I've heard them presented a lot more concisely. I don't like making excuses. My ancestors had little trouble differentiating right from wrong. I know when I do wrong. You wrote a lot of words there to excuse evil. Gen X are masters of excuses and moral relativism... It's odious. You probably know better too, but you would rather listen to yourself go on than actually deal with it. I'm not impressed. It takes one to know one.
Wyndeward t1_it47ehv wrote
You are confusing facts with excuses. I have excused nothing. I have merely pointed out that ignorance and stupidity, on any given day, are far more dangerous than evil. Real "evil," thank goodness, is relatively rare in this world, while stupidity is a lot like hydrogen. Evil is, to give a "for instance" that doesn't violate Godwin's Law, is Idi Amin Dada. Bob Stefanowski, while tall, which is about the best thing I can say about him, doesn't remotely rise to that level. He is a lender, not a loan shark. He doesn't use force to make loans, he doesn't use force to collect loans, he simply complies with the laws regulating his industry in this state -- laws that the politicians who claim he is "evil" have the power to correct / fix. Why don't they? If you truly believes he is "evil," then those politicians, to be frank, are complicit... or, as Burke would say, all that is required for Bob to be evil is the so-called good men who decry his business to do *EXACTLY* what they are doing... nothing.
Payday loans are the last refuge of the desperate, right up there with the lottery as a retirement scheme and playing day-trader with cash advances from your credit cards... (Yes, I had to explain that to someone some years ago, before the last housing bubble burst). That doesn't make them evil. Stupid as all hell, yes, but evil requires something more... it requires malice / malevolence... something more than plain, old-fashioned apathy and greed.
Quit pounding your shoe on the table.
ParsnipPizza2 t1_it4hv0i wrote
>It originally favored the wealthy, in part, because they were educated and partly because they were the ones who set up this experiment in representative democracy
And because they specifically formatted things to suppress the will of the people in favor of what the rich wanted.
Not kidding. Quite a number of the fabled Founders thought too much democracy was a bad thing and sought to establish a ruling class without quite going straight up monarchist.
Wyndeward t1_it4mrqt wrote
"Too much democracy" = mob rule.
In a truly "democratic" system, the majority rules, period. In a republic, there are protections, at least in theory. People don't know their rights anymore, mainly because we replaced civics with "social studies."
People think voting is a right. It isn't, it is a responsibility / duty.
TheOtherMark t1_it51tt6 wrote
> pre-Boomers
You are looking for the Silent Generation.
bentdaisy t1_it5dn9c wrote
The second I see the word “sheeple” I tune right out. People follow trends and opinions of others. Everyone does. the sheeple insult is thrown at those who have an opinion different from the author. It’s stupid, and it makes you look like a sheeple.
[deleted] t1_it2k7yp wrote
Finally….
Fdizzle_ t1_it324ir wrote
Definitely. The checks and balances are gone and we a left with voting party lines and not voting for policies. The policies which we all seem to lament from our politicians. Meanwhile congress at the federal level won’t bring a bill which the majority of people support related to congressional stock trading. I’m not sure what’s in the bill exactly but it does feel like the will of people isn’t being represented here. Which is funny cause the people blocking it are saying “democracy is on the ballot”.
Wyndeward t1_it38f66 wrote
When I was a kid, I recall that putting monies in a "blind trust" was something that politicians did, if for no other reason than to provide the appearance of propriety. (I was lucky that, as a kid, I got an education on saving money and investing from my parents...). Sometime between then and now, it is like the politicians stopped even trying to look upstanding. Insider trading is illegal unless you're elected. As a counter-example, which is about the only way I can illustrate this, Martha Stewart got the book thrown at her for insider trading not for what she did -- *ANYONE* who was told the stock was going to take a nose-dive would have done the same... she got the book thrown at her for two reasons. First, she lied about it. Second, as a former stockbroker, she knew better than to sell the stock and lie about it. The politicians get insider information from their day jobs and buy and sell as according said information.
Part of the problem is that folks are ignorant. Yes, we have democratic elections, but we are a republic, if we can keep it. One could argue that it has morphed into an oligarchy, but that is another issue for another time.
dumbthrow33 t1_it3mu5u wrote
You forgot the part where politicians sell insider stock trading tips to the highest bidder versus making the trades themselves to add another layer of insulation…
Wyndeward t1_it3o435 wrote
I didn't forget, although I doubt they are actually auctioning it off insider information to the highest bidder in the literal sense. The most egregious thing I am personally aware of in *this* vein was Harry Reid's self-dealing, using his brother as a proxy (land deals) and his "brilliant" ability to time the energy indexes when passing legislature dealing with the energy industry. All very legal, but of questionable ethical value. There are other examples one could come up with involving real estate / fraud (Trump) or cattle futures (Clinton), et al and ad nauseum, but when the political classes start making rules for you and me and exempting themselves, we have an ethical deficit as a bare minimum.
JPJ_1779 t1_it3b46x wrote
I don't know why you're being downvoted, that was a very well thought out and lucid analysis. People really suck. Just downvoting anything that doesn't remotely resemble the popular opinion like absolute lemmings.
TheOtherMark t1_it53hw6 wrote
Nominally I agreed with most of his points, except this:
> if the NY Times is to be believed, want to be physicians without having to do well in Organic Chemistry, getting their professor essentially fired for being "too hard."
That's a highly reductionist view of the story and doesn't have anything to do with politics, nor the features and characteristics of successive generations of people. Did this generation of students get weaker, or did the 84 year old professor lose his edge as he aged? Perhaps neither, perhaps it's more the incompatibility between teaching/learning methods over such a large generational gap.
I'm not here to settle the argument on why he was fired, just to say that you can't boil it down to such a simplistic reason.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments