janelane wrote:

Bush is *not* the president we deserve.

I suspect the writer intended that sentence to provoke, and he seems to have succeeded. Your valid points about "what people deserve" notwithstanding, people look for many things in a President, and there are trade-offs all around. The contrast between Clinton and Bush made here is a case in point; some people liked Clinton because he listened, whereas other people reacted with "can't you form an opinion for yourself?" These Clinton-haters got in Bush a take-charge kind of guy who knew what he wanted and would go out and "get things done". Only later did they realize that occasionally the situation calls for a man of inaction, or at least one with a hint of hesitation, one who at least feels a moment of doubt at the crucial juncture, wondering whether it is better to shoot now or to wait and see. Such struggles tend not to trouble those with the presence of mind not to contemplate the consequences.

janelane wrote:

This editorial seems to me to be a perfect example of how out of touch NYT editors can be.

To clarify, this article is in the Sunday Magazine, not on the op-ed pages. The writer is an editor at the The Weekly Standard.

-janelane, I deserve better

Most definitely!

The classic irony on display is that the people (on all sides) seem not to know what they want, because even when they get what they asked for, the reality tends to disappoint them. Unintended consequences and all that.

After a challenging but successful engagement with Google, I would like to refer back to a bona fide Decius classic:

I've come to the conclusion that you actually want shifty, dishonest politicians elected by an apathetic populace. This means that things are working.

There are two reasons that people act: Carrots and Sticks. Lowering the barrier to entry might be a carrot, but the sticks are much more effective and come when the political situation makes it impossible for people to go about their lives without acting.

I'm confident that technology has improved the resources available to people if/when they choose to act. So far they don't need to, largely. Don't wish for times when they do. When people are involved and committed and political leaders are honest and have clear vision; that usually happens when things are really, really fucked up. Who are the U.S. Presidents we most admire? What was going on during their presidencies?

That was part of a discussion in a thread about an op-ed by Robert Wright, Creating a New Picture of War, Pixel by Pixel.

One wonders whether, in the two and a half years since that post, we have arrived at "those times" when the people choose to act.

From a recent Paul Krugman piece, in which he cherrypicks pithy, prescient soundbites from the pre-invasion era:

Like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.

So how long will the dogs now circle the car before they decide whether to kill it, keep it, or release it?

RE: The Vanishing