Skip to main content

View Diary: It's true! Americans want conviction, not appeasement (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why would anyone have a preference either way? (12+ / 0-)

    I have a preference for certain outcomes, and whether I support standing on conviction or seeking common ground is a totally contingent consideration.  

    Romney '12: Ron Paul, without the freedom!

    by Rich in PA on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:43:36 PM PDT

    •  Agreed. It's a ridiculous question (8+ / 0-)

      to suggest that it's either stand for your convictions or seek common ground, but one cannot possibly have a strong personal conviction that seeking common ground is a way to achieve progress towards one's objectives and long-term goals. No, it's just "appeasement" and the opposite of having core values. Wrong.

      •  but you're disagreeing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, daeros

        If your core conviction is process, you're not outcome-oriented: you're process oriented.

        •  Core conviction is process? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          Wow, I can't even conceive of that.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:07:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  President Obama's core conviciton is compromise (7+ / 0-)

            I had the honor of meeting President Obama when he ran for the Senate in Illinois in 2004. He was addressing my local county Democratic Party executive committee meeting when he was running in the primary. When I say that his core conviction is compromise I am not being critical of him. He believes that the genius of American politics is the art of the compromise ala Henry Clay.

            The president told us at the time that he held policy positions that were at odds with a lot of our positions, like on gun control (we want stronger gun control laws, he tended to side with downstaters worried about loss of gun rights and hunting, etc). He also had a good working relationship with Republican leaders in Springfield and cited several examples where he brought along some Republican votes on legislation. Remember also that a leading Republican in Illinois appeared in a commercial for Obama in the 2008 primary. I also think that he did not understand the difference between Republicans at the state level and Republicans at the national level.

            The president honestly believes that the best solutions come from compromise. The president also believed that Republicans would deal with him in good faith. I hope he does not still believe this. And I am sure that he has been deeply hurt at a personal level by the antics of the Republican obstructionists.

            I believe that these Republicans really believe what they say and that they eat their own dog food . And they truly believe that government is evil. And that the government that governs least governs best. This explains their obstructionism. They also believe in Plato's Gold Lie, ie telling lies in a good cause is acceptable. So they see their obstructionism as standing firm for their convictions. And I hope that the president finally understands this.

            •  Ah, just a different notion of what constitutes (0+ / 0-)

              a core conviction, but, yes, your point is completely defensible.

              I view compromise as merely a means, but I can see that a conviction, say, that the President is the leader of all Americans -- a damned diverse group -- would require a firm belief in compromise.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:00:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, the core conviction is the desired outcomes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, qofdisks, daeros

          and in my view this is not inconsistent with a core belief in seeking common ground and cooperation as the best means to achieving progress toward those goals

          The poll question sets up a false dichotomy, in my opinion.

          It's funny to me in a way... I remember back in my early feminist days when we used to talk about how it would be so much better if women were in a majority of positions of power, because of their supposed natural tendency to cooperate more and be less competitive and combat-oriented. It was widely believed that this was the key to success in creating peace and prosperity. It was a strong core conviction, I seem to recall. I guess times have changed.

    •  Because . . . (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, TracieLynn, shaharazade, daeros

      people like to have a definite sense of where politicians stand on issues.  So they prefer someone who stands up for his/her convictions.  This really isn't new.  We saw it with Reagan and we saw it with Dubya.  There were lots of people who disagreed with their stands on the issues, but they appreciated the fact that they knew (or thought they knew) precisely where those two men stood.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 24, 2012 at 01:56:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see what you are saying (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, qofdisks, shaharazade

      and I think Kos is probably reading too much into this poll, but the results do illustrate that Americans tend to prefer that their POTUS be a leader rather than a mediator.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site