Do you think Obama and the other presidents haven't had the same kind of system?
I'd say it's mostly a 20th century formation, with additional requirements, say after the War on Terrorism. The entire executive branch has gone through quite the transformation in that 100 year span.
I'd say TR thoroughly modernized the presidency. By the way, I don't see "modernization" as a good thing.
It certainly is. Public opinion has a strange effect on a negotiation process that is often unwieldy if you let it dominate. Your leaders need to be able to jostle for position, present alternatives and conduct an agreement without outside interference.
President Obama said recently his administration is the most transparent administration in [American] history. Do you agree or disagree?
It certainly is. Public opinion has a strange effect on a negotiation process that is often unwieldy if you let it dominate. Your leaders need to be able to jostle for position, present alternatives and conduct an agreement without outside interference.
The public is not "outside interference", but the whole reason for the negotiations in the first place. They should not be cut out of the process, but rather should have a clear view of all the goings on. What made his promise to this so powerful is that it's a further move towards the death of "private smoke filled rooms" deal-making politics.
President Obama said recently his administration is the most transparent administration in [American] history. Do you agree or disagree?
Do you think Obama and the other presidents haven't had the same kind of system?
In order to make that call, one would need a clear understanding of how transparent Zachary Taylor's administration was. I, for one, have no idea. More transparent than Bush? Certainly, but that's not difficult. More transparent than Jimmy Carter? Than Rutherford B. Hayes? Than Calvin Coolidge? Who knows. It's a meaningless boast.
Yeah, it can be. I'd rather have politicians be able to negotiate without having the fear of political blow back by knee jerk reactions from the media, and the public. Look how many good things haven't happened because of such blow back.
You didn't actually want to hold him to that, did you? It was something to get the angry Democrats on board. It's self-defeating, for any party, to conduct the entire process in front of the public.
Yeah, it can be. I'd rather have politicians be able to negotiate without having the fear of political blow back by knee jerk reactions from the media, and the public. Look how many good things haven't happened because of such blow back.
Transparency is your best protection against corruption. All things behind-the-curtain your greatest enabler of corruption.
So I'm gonna call your post grossly misinformed.
I don't see how on that one, actually. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were pretty serious swings. Not to say that this President is the most transparent, but he's certainly not the worst for transparency. I'd say he's fairly....well, typical for our day and age.
It's not black and white, yes transparency can be good, but some negotiations need to be done behind the curtain. For example, it is very likely we wouldn't be posting this right now, because nuclear war might have happened if the Cuban Missile Crisis couldn't be adverted with behind the scenes negotiations.
The exempt for classified material has already been stated. And let me say, I'm personally quite surprised to see you arguing for closed door politics. What's up with that?
I most certainly did. I bought it hook, line and sinker. And I stuck around to inspect what I expected. That's why I quickly turned from Obama voter and supporter to Obama hater. It's not as bad when someone lies to your face when you know it's a lie. But when you believe them and find out later, that's where I was.
And no, it's not self-defeating to hold public business in front of the public.
You have a point, but I suggest that this administration has carried backroom corruption to a level we have never before seen in Washington.
And we know that because there has been no major corruption scandal involving this adminstration, so it's clear that they are covering things up to a much greater extent than any other in history.
That's just an excuse to rule over an ignorant population. An extension of the old "we know what's best for you" routine. EVERY single political meeting that's not classified should be broadcast in full on one of the C-SPAN channels.
Speaking of "good things that never happenned", was it a good thing that Obama bargained away the public option in closed door meeting with insurance execs? Was it a good thing that Pelosi, et al continued to discuss the public option as it could happen even after she knew it was already bargained away? Is it a good thing that few if any knew what was in the bill they were voting on?
Hell, they weren't even transparent to each other in this process.
In order to make that call, one would need a clear understanding of how transparent Zachary Taylor's administration was. I, for one, have no idea. More transparent than Bush? Certainly, but that's not difficult. More transparent than Jimmy Carter? Than Rutherford B. Hayes? Than Calvin Coolidge? Who knows. It's a meaningless boast.
Why would you say he was more transparent than Bush? Honestly, I'm not seeing much substantial difference between the two here. At most, you can fault Obama for pushing the transparency angle in 04, but most people figured that was bull****, anyway
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?