Who has been good at making decisions in modern history? It may be possible that all governing officials are liberal then, with nary a conservative left anywhere.
==
All that is left is pseudo-conservatism. Trump and his cabinet certainly do not represent conservatism if that is what you imply.
The rest have been pseudo-conservative as far as I can see.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c507.htm
====
They’re only lost credibility among those who didn’t find them terribly credible in the first place. They’ve been wrong in equally big ways five times in US history for this particular issue, but they’ve been wrong many times for other issues as well.
They brush themselves off and carry on just fine, as Andy said.
===
It’s a sideways shift in power among the same class.
—
we’re in the middle of it so it seems fresh. A year from now, it won’t be remembered except by a few diehard reliving the glory they felt once.
For me, I expected a Republican win. It fits the pattern. The thing that surprised me is that it wasn’t a landslide victory.
The only time I was fooled is the last two months. The last two months I went against my normal “don’t trust polls because they’re usually wrong” (they’re usually wrong) and believed them.
But when Trump won, I had a moment of, “Oh, yeah that’s right, polls are wrong and media always plays favorites” and have moved on.
—-
The US Democrats had a quixote on their hands: How to get a repeat democratic victory after 8 years of a Democrat that the right has fought from day one. {Tea Party protests in 2008+, vowing to block every measure of his administration when they won the majority they vowed to win in 2010 and did)….
…and the media did an admirable job trying to go against the trend.
But a Republican was going to win. He should’ve won by a lot more, certainly the popular vote. But, well, we got an odd Republican this time around.
====
I generally avoid most media. If an article catches my eye, I read it and then try to find a more balanced view.
I have three sources – not unbiased but they have _some_ integrity (so long as it’s not on their favorite subjects) – Andy’s heard me mention them before:
Christian Science Monitor (their news, not opinion)
Al-Jazeera (their news, not opinion)
RT (their news, not opinion)
Each have their biases. CSM leans slightly right and white but mostly center. Al-Jazeera leans slightly left and non-white but is generally balanced. RT is hard right, pro-Russia but it’s easy to see through their unashamed bias to see an attempt at balanced journalism within it. [so long as they’re not talking about Russia of course… or conspiracy, which they also are prone to enjoying]
For US political gossip, I go to The Hill. They slam left and right pretty equally in there. Total gossip rag but fun.
====
They’re actually the best of them all. They’ve won awards for 100 yrs. For such a tiny news source, they’re quite literally on a mission to be unbiased and work hard at it.
=====
On Syria, though, NOBODY is unbiased. For me to get a fuller picture of Syria, I really had to look around and even now I’m not 100% certain of a few things.
=====
I’ve used up my quota for Washington Post and don’t feel like maneuvering around the JS / cookie block. But WP does like to stir up trouble and they’re not the greatest fans of Trump to say the least.
Yet, because of their location and prominence, they manage to land unlikely interviews frequently. So it’s good to keep an ear to them as they’re often the source for news that spreads quickly.
=====
She wasn’t worse. She was a typical politician who has been slammed by the right for a very, very long time. They weren’t going to let her win this time.
===
Early 1990s, I had a boss who had a radio show on. “Rush Limbaugh”, who was right at the start of pseudo-conservatism [as conservatism was dying by then. It’s completely dead now].
Every day, he’s mock the President’s wife. “Shillary”. I can still hear his tone of voice. Ugh. Couldn’t stand the guy.
As far as the Clinton crime stuff, a lot of that was pulled together by the Citizens United guy, major slime ball, back in 2008. He got the idea of “Clinton criminality” in people’s minds on the right to the point where it seems to be an unshakeable ‘fact’.
Media games.
=====
Classical liberalism and classical conservatism are both dead now and have been for a while.
Classical liberalism died in the late 60s/early 70s, and classical conservatism died in the late 80s/early 90s.
=====
I’m socially liberal. I _want_ to be economically conservative but it’s impractical except for upper middle class and up.
====
No. I’m fine with privatization of education, so long as it isn’t usurped by big $$ religious groups as the US is founded on secularism. But all-things-being-equal, privatization of education is fine. As long as there is education and financial transparency in the process, it’s fine.
—–
When I was 14 years old, I read Unschooling, “Why Johnny Can’t Read”, Summerhill and a few John Holt books.
It caused me to seek out a private school for high school to get the hell out of public school. While I didn’t find my educational oasis, I found something close enough.
So authoritarian? No. I don’t want one-education-for-all. That would be horrible.
—–
Any more assumptions you wish to make? Maybe you’ll get some right. But that one you got dead wrong.
=====
Left libertarian? Social anarchist? I dunno. What you’re describing to me is authoritarian.
I’m fine with a generic public school system existing as an option so that all citizens have access to education. I do believe that all citizens should have that right.
At the same time, it shouldn’t be so difficult for there to be alternative options available. The system as it stands was born broken, although Dewey was on the right track in the early 20th century: Good for his time anyway. Child centered, rational. But we lost that in the 1940s and have moved to a mechanized system that we haven’t left.
——-
Was he dead wrong? Experiential education was wrong? Open ended questioning was wrong?
A movement not directly linked to Dewey but is in the same vein is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_by_teaching – Sudbury school systems is an example of such, where the democratic process is in full swing.
I can’t say I entirely agree with all of these methods either but they’re in the right direction in my mind.
I don’t know about Lippman. I just did a quick Google to brush up and it seems that he feels that the public is fundamentally incompetent and that trained philosophers should be at the helm of government. At least that’s the impression I have.
=====
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]