Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,365
|
Post by Tiny on Jul 12, 2020 13:14:31 GMT -5
I don't find them thought provoking because its obvious to anyone who has studied Trump at all, is nothing short of him getting a bad case of Covid that could kill him is going to change his mind on how he handles the coronavirus. He is the elite the RW talking heads thought they were warning us about. He's America's abuser. He's President because he wants unconditional praise and likes. Like an wife abuser he really does not care if he hurts you, steals from you or kills you as long as he gets what he wants. So the main solutions are peaceful overthrow through the election or the other kind. Ignore Trump. He's not the subject here. The question is about the American people, and looking to leadership (in general) for the answers. Our reliance on leadership to solve this FOR us. When leadership fails, especially this badly, how long do we WAIT for new leadership to step in, step up, with a solution? Why do we continue to think within our (broken) political system, as if that's the ONLY way things can be done here? Why do we wait to be LED to a solution, instead of collectively working toward a solution as a people?
Why wouldn't we look to leadership to use it's access to knowledge, money, power to LEAD in getting people to collectively work toward a solution? It's been my experience that most problems are solved by a GROUP of people working together under some leadership. The Leadership provides resources and helps get the GROUP working on the problem the stuff it needs. OK, generally one white guy usually takes credit for having "solved the problem" single handedly... but in reality there was usually a group(s) or team(s) of people (men and women) working on the problem. That's a snarky comment based on what I learned as a kid. Only white guys made discoveries, inventions, whatever and they ALWAYS did it alone. I'm pretty sure we know that not quite how it happens. Without someone in charge - it's often impossible to get the resources necessary to solve the problem. There's too many competing "visions" or resources aren't available when needed.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,042
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 12, 2020 13:27:46 GMT -5
Ignore Trump. He's not the subject here. The question is about the American people, and looking to leadership (in general) for the answers. Our reliance on leadership to solve this FOR us. When leadership fails, especially this badly, how long do we WAIT for new leadership to step in, step up, with a solution? Why do we continue to think within our (broken) political system, as if that's the ONLY way things can be done here? Why do we wait to be LED to a solution, instead of collectively working toward a solution as a people?
Why wouldn't we look to leadership to use it's access to knowledge, money, power to LEAD in getting people to collectively work toward a solution? It's been my experience that most problems are solved by a GROUP of people working together under some leadership. The Leadership provides resources and helps get the GROUP working on the problem the stuff it needs. OK, generally one white guy usually takes credit for having "solved the problem" single handedly... but in reality there was usually a group(s) or team(s) of people (men and women) working on the problem. That's a snarky comment based on what I learned as a kid. Only white guys made discoveries, inventions, whatever and they ALWAYS did it alone. I'm pretty sure we know that not quite how it happens. Without someone in charge - it's often impossible to get the resources necessary to solve the problem. There's too many competing "visions" or resources aren't available when needed. Ok, we've selected the leaders we currently have, to do the "leader" job. But they (or some of them) are not doing it. Not providing resources, help, stuff the group needs. Now what? Why do we KEEP looking to those same "leaders" to lead, when they clearly are not leading? Why would a subset of people wish to retain them as leaders-who-don't-lead? And if enough of the people DO wish to choose new leaders in their place, why use the same methodology that got us the current leaders-who-don't-lead? And why wait to change, in a time-sensitive pandemic?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 12, 2020 13:33:52 GMT -5
Why wouldn't we look to leadership to use it's access to knowledge, money, power to LEAD in getting people to collectively work toward a solution? It's been my experience that most problems are solved by a GROUP of people working together under some leadership. The Leadership provides resources and helps get the GROUP working on the problem the stuff it needs. OK, generally one white guy usually takes credit for having "solved the problem" single handedly... but in reality there was usually a group(s) or team(s) of people (men and women) working on the problem. That's a snarky comment based on what I learned as a kid. Only white guys made discoveries, inventions, whatever and they ALWAYS did it alone. I'm pretty sure we know that not quite how it happens. Without someone in charge - it's often impossible to get the resources necessary to solve the problem. There's too many competing "visions" or resources aren't available when needed. Ok, we've selected the leaders we currently have, to do the "leader" job. But they (or some of them) are not doing it. Not providing resources, help, stuff the group needs. Now what? Why do we KEEP looking to those same "leaders" to lead, when they clearly are not leading? Why would a subset of people wish to retain them as leaders-who-don't-lead? And if enough of the people DO wish to choose new leaders in their place, why use the same methodology that got us the current leaders-who-don't-lead? And why wait to change, in a time-sensitive pandemic? Because we have let politics devolve into an us vs them game, and have allowed gerrymandering to the extent that the only contest is in the primary. We then vote for someone on our "team" regardless of how inept or corrupt they are. If we want better representation, then we need to be willing to hear the truth, and not be swayed by negative advertising. We get the representation that "we" deserve. Reasonable centrists are vilified from both end of the spectrum for not being pure enough, and compromise is a 4 letter word. There is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to vote people out and demand better leadership. But when over 40% of us do not vote, the most die hard are left to control the narrative.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,042
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 12, 2020 13:57:23 GMT -5
Ok, we've selected the leaders we currently have, to do the "leader" job. But they (or some of them) are not doing it. Not providing resources, help, stuff the group needs. Now what? Why do we KEEP looking to those same "leaders" to lead, when they clearly are not leading? Why would a subset of people wish to retain them as leaders-who-don't-lead? And if enough of the people DO wish to choose new leaders in their place, why use the same methodology that got us the current leaders-who-don't-lead? And why wait to change, in a time-sensitive pandemic? Because we have let politics devolve into an us vs them game, and have allowed gerrymandering to the extent that the only contest is in the primary. We then vote for someone on our "team" regardless of how inept or corrupt they are. If we want better representation, then we need to be willing to hear the truth, and not be swayed by negative advertising. We get the representation that "we" deserve. Reasonable centrists are vilified from both end of the spectrum for not being pure enough, and compromise is a 4 letter word. There is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to vote people out and demand better leadership. But when over 40% of us do not vote, the most die hard are left to control the narrative. That is precisely the title of the thread: America has resolved itself to trying to solve the pandemic BY VOTING in November. Is this really a logical response to a pandemic? And given our partisan divide, us vs them, is it even useful anymore? We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 12, 2020 14:09:01 GMT -5
Because we have let politics devolve into an us vs them game, and have allowed gerrymandering to the extent that the only contest is in the primary. We then vote for someone on our "team" regardless of how inept or corrupt they are. If we want better representation, then we need to be willing to hear the truth, and not be swayed by negative advertising. We get the representation that "we" deserve. Reasonable centrists are vilified from both end of the spectrum for not being pure enough, and compromise is a 4 letter word. There is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to vote people out and demand better leadership. But when over 40% of us do not vote, the most die hard are left to control the narrative. That is precisely the title of the thread: America has resolved itself to trying to solve the pandemic BY VOTING in November. Is this really a logical response to a pandemic? And given our partisan divide, US vs them, is it even useful anymore? We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group. We do not even agree on facts anymore. There is no way to organize a response in a country this size without a coherent response from our leaders. Since this is a national crisis, local actions will only do so much, because we are at the mercy of those who do the least, feel this is not so bad, or are unwilling to sacrifice. Case in point: PPE was in short supply early n the pandemic; it is now becoming an issue again. Given the amount of the need, it requires mobilization of a large number of people to meet the demand. Expecting individual manufacturers to fill the void is dumb. We have elected a party that no longer believes there is any role in society except to allow corporations to make money. We allowed this to happen, we will now suffer the consequences. If we were invaded by another country, how long should individuals be expected to hold back the force before the national government responded. We have an invader, and it is called COVID-19. We are not treating it as the disaster it is. You are looking for an effective and responsible government. If the last 3.5 years have taught us anything, it is that the republican senate has abdicated all responsibility at being a co-equal branch of government, and they have let trump run roughshod over the constitution. Only problem with that is that he is incapable of actually being an effective leader, which is what we need. And you are right, we will continue to drift, because the emperor has no clothes, and there is not a child to say that.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 12, 2020 14:30:53 GMT -5
How can I solve a pandemic? Its not within an individual's wheelhouse. I can isolate. I can protect my family the best I can. I can minimize my own risk. I can wait it out. But Leadership is Necessary to solve a pandemic. If people with expertise say that wearing a mask, social distancing, and excellent hand sanitation are good ways to deal with the pandemic and each individual took it upon themselves to follow that advice, then it would not be Necessary to have a Leader say you should follow this advice. The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 12, 2020 14:32:06 GMT -5
Because we have let politics devolve into an us vs them game, and have allowed gerrymandering to the extent that the only contest is in the primary. We then vote for someone on our "team" regardless of how inept or corrupt they are. If we want better representation, then we need to be willing to hear the truth, and not be swayed by negative advertising. We get the representation that "we" deserve. Reasonable centrists are vilified from both end of the spectrum for not being pure enough, and compromise is a 4 letter word. There is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to vote people out and demand better leadership. But when over 40% of us do not vote, the most die hard are left to control the narrative. That is precisely the title of the thread: America has resolved itself to trying to solve the pandemic BY VOTING in November. Is this really a logical response to a pandemic? And given our partisan divide, us vs them, is it even useful anymore? We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group.Under normal conditions, a president hires a cabinet that provides the experience that he does not have in order to give him the most accurate data as to how to solve a problem. For 200+ years, we have been dependent upon this process. It has worked fairly well until recently. Maybe the answers were not 100% correct, but the rationale making the decision was largely intact. What's going on now is that despite the best advice that the president does have in the government with regards to public health, he has CHOSEN to ignore it, denigrate it, and insist that he knows best. As a result, there are more people than ever before that are suspicious of public health - despite the fact that for the most part this branch is probably one of the most altruistic branches of the government. There is absolutely NOTHING in it for them about being right and everything about being wrong. Ironically enough, this president saw fit to decimate this branch in the year leading up to this pandemic, which could have possibly minimized the impact upon this pandemic on the US. This in itself left the US flat footed more than it should have. Because you have this divide between the president and the public health branch of his government, it trickles down to the state level. You have states that have chosen to follow the best recommendations of the CDC, then you have states that have chosen to follow the president. Therein lies the divide. Add to this that you have a disease that is essentially a country-wide version of 'whack-a-mole' that has characteristics that make it difficult to track (long incubation, asymptomatic carriers, varied disease progress, and a virus that is tending not to track like 95% of the rest of the viral diseases out there) and it has exacerbated the problem. Then you add to this that you have a federal government that acts out of spite to states that step into the leadership role and try to handle the disease on a local level. How exactly do you deal with a president and his administration that acts out of spite? How do you handle an administration that refuses a test that is available to the world? How do you handle a government entity that doles out PPE and equipment to favored states? How do you handle a government entity that hijacks PPE and supplies in the name of the government out of spite? These are not natural reactions for a government that is looking out for the American interest. These are the reactions of a government that has been lead by a president that is leading by ego. He gets butt hurt by a state that does not suck up sufficiently and uses the power of the federal government to penalize the states that are trying to do the best for that state's residents. My head hurts just writing this out, and my heart aches for what we have chosen to lead us (notice, I say what - not who. I do not think our president is a normal person who has the best interest of the country that HE has chosen to lead). And I am sure that the writers of the Constitution are spinning in their crypts. This country has dealt with inept presidents. We have also dealt with corrupt presidents. Can we recover from a corrupt president who has been allowed to run amok?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 12, 2020 14:40:33 GMT -5
Congratulations to the USA for successfully flattening the curve! It is now vertical.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 12, 2020 14:42:40 GMT -5
Fauci is leading as much as he can. If he was fired, he would have no influence. Actually, if he was fired he would have far more influence. Right now, he is in a conundrum. Does he maintain his job of being the head of the NIAID with immediate access to all info coming in, but be hamstrung by the president in allowing him to provide this information, or does he say F this and go on as many talk shows and news reports? He gets fired, but at this point it actually might give him more leverage with the public if he was fired. However, losing access to information is a very hard penalty. Fauci is well known enough by the scientific/medical community, and has been since the 1980s. His standing is such that he can walk into ANY place in the world and write his own ticket if he so desires. His influence is tremendous, just on his reputation. He's been a bit more.... free in his interviews. I've only seen him on ones that are friendly to him and not top on what trump watches. I'm recalling an interview on the daily show months ago and thinking wow he's much less hesitant without trump there.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 14:50:08 GMT -5
If people with expertise say that wearing a mask, social distancing, and excellent hand sanitation are good ways to deal with the pandemic and each individual took it upon themselves to follow that advice, then it would not be Necessary to have a Leader say you should follow this advice. The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension. I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 12, 2020 15:01:39 GMT -5
The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension. I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. You are clearly more intelligent and read more critically than the majority of the population, sorry to say. It is the reason we are in this predicament.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 15:03:36 GMT -5
... We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group. Back to the OP: America is so deeply authoritarian, that mainstream culture views all problems and solutions through the lens of leadership ... The italicized above is through the lens of leadership. The underlined isn't.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 15:06:13 GMT -5
I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. You are clearly more intelligent and read more critically than the majority of the population, sorry to say. It is the reason we are in this predicament. I think the whole premise suggested in the OP is utopian.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 12, 2020 15:12:16 GMT -5
You are clearly more intelligent and read more critically than the majority of the population, sorry to say. It is the reason we are in this predicament. I think the whole premise suggested in the OP is utopian. I think unrealistic. We are too big, and the world is now too complex for individuals to be able to act in a national crisis. We do have the ability to demand better leadership, but we collectively refuse to use that power. hence we are where we are today
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 12, 2020 15:12:43 GMT -5
The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension. I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. You may not, but we DO need a leader that does not complicate an already very complicated problem by throwing his weight around.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,042
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 12, 2020 15:15:51 GMT -5
That is precisely the title of the thread: America has resolved itself to trying to solve the pandemic BY VOTING in November. Is this really a logical response to a pandemic? And given our partisan divide, us vs them, is it even useful anymore? We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group.Under normal conditions, a president hires a cabinet that provides the experience that he does not have in order to give him the most accurate data as to how to solve a problem. For 200+ years, we have been dependent upon this process. It has worked fairly well until recently. Maybe the answers were not 100% correct, but the rationale making the decision was largely intact. What's going on now is that despite the best advice that the president does have in the government with regards to public health, he has CHOSEN to ignore it, denigrate it, and insist that he knows best. As a result, there are more people than ever before that are suspicious of public health - despite the fact that for the most part this branch is probably one of the most altruistic branches of the government. There is absolutely NOTHING in it for them about being right and everything about being wrong. Ironically enough, this president saw fit to decimate this branch in the year leading up to this pandemic, which could have possibly minimized the impact upon this pandemic on the US. This in itself left the US flat footed more than it should have. Because you have this divide between the president and the public health branch of his government, it trickles down to the state level. You have states that have chosen to follow the best recommendations of the CDC, then you have states that have chosen to follow the president. Therein lies the divide. Add to this that you have a disease that is essentially a country-wide version of 'whack-a-mole' that has characteristics that make it difficult to track (long incubation, asymptomatic carriers, varied disease progress, and a virus that is tending not to track like 95% of the rest of the viral diseases out there) and it has exacerbated the problem. Then you add to this that you have a federal government that acts out of spite to states that step into the leadership role and try to handle the disease on a local level. How exactly do you deal with a president and his administration that acts out of spite? How do you handle an administration that refuses a test that is available to the world? How do you handle a government entity that doles out PPE and equipment to favored states? How do you handle a government entity that hijacks PPE and supplies in the name of the government out of spite?These are not natural reactions for a government that is looking out for the American interest. These are the reactions of a government that has been lead by a president that is leading by ego. He gets butt hurt by a state that does not suck up sufficiently and uses the power of the federal government to penalize the states that are trying to do the best for that state's residents. My head hurts just writing this out, and my heart aches for what we have chosen to lead us (notice, I say what - not who. I do not think our president is a normal person who has the best interest of the country that HE has chosen to lead). And I am sure that the writers of the Constitution are spinning in their crypts. This country has dealt with inept presidents. We have also dealt with corrupt presidents. Can we recover from a corrupt president who has been allowed to run amok? Lots of good stuff here. I'm going to comment just on the part I made bold. In the beginning of the lockdown, I was encouraged by governors like Cuomo taking the reins in their own jurisdictions when it was clear federal leadership was nonexistent. The infighting over PPE and resources was maddening. I applauded when states came together to form compacts for buying resources instead of stupidly competing against one another. I hoped it was a trend for the future, that these multistate groups could continue working together post-pandemic, especially if it shook up some of the entrenched political power struggles. Cuomo has tried to be diplomatic when it was useful and needed (stroking Trump's ego) and praised/thanked/gave credit as deserved. He refrained from making things political - the threat is the virus, that's the target. He also pulled no punches, labelled things stupid that WERE stupid. He relentlessly cajoled NYers to do the right thing to fight the virus, for the good of each other. Local leaders at all levels under him in my region followed his lead and worked with him, because of the common threat we faced in the virus. There's still a contingent that fight Cuomo tooth and nail politically, but not during this. Other governors and some at other levels of government like big city mayors have done similar excellent leading. The question remains - why isn't this happening in more parts of the country? Why are citizens in states with leaders-who-don't-lead not pushing back, demanding change? If those leaders are actually doing what the people there want, does that mean they value going out to bars (etc) over life (their own, or others')?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,365
|
Post by Tiny on Jul 12, 2020 15:21:36 GMT -5
Why wouldn't we look to leadership to use it's access to knowledge, money, power to LEAD in getting people to collectively work toward a solution? It's been my experience that most problems are solved by a GROUP of people working together under some leadership. The Leadership provides resources and helps get the GROUP working on the problem the stuff it needs. OK, generally one white guy usually takes credit for having "solved the problem" single handedly... but in reality there was usually a group(s) or team(s) of people (men and women) working on the problem. That's a snarky comment based on what I learned as a kid. Only white guys made discoveries, inventions, whatever and they ALWAYS did it alone. I'm pretty sure we know that not quite how it happens. Without someone in charge - it's often impossible to get the resources necessary to solve the problem. There's too many competing "visions" or resources aren't available when needed. Ok, we've selected the leaders we currently have, to do the "leader" job. But they (or some of them) are not doing it. Not providing resources, help, stuff the group needs. Now what? Why do we KEEP looking to those same "leaders" to lead, when they clearly are not leading? Why would a subset of people wish to retain them as leaders-who-don't-lead? And if enough of the people DO wish to choose new leaders in their place, why use the same methodology that got us the current leaders-who-don't-lead? And why wait to change, in a time-sensitive pandemic? Because our Country/Government is set up that way? We elect our leaders. The only way to get new leaders is to elect them. As for the current leaders - we can either "ignore" them and say nothing and wait until they are voted out of office. OR we can raise our voices and air our grievances OR we can raise our voice in praise. I think that there's some hope that the "squeaking wheel" thing will effect the decisions of those we've elected. That's why we keep looking for our leaders to lead even when they don't (or when they lead someplace we don't want to go). I guess we could always over throw the government (I think there's some political group that wants that...) I think what has happened is that there is the thought that "what ever government does doesn't really effect me (until I realize it's effected me) so what does it matter WHO I vote for - the end result is the same - it doesn't really seem to effect me. " has trickled down into every one's brain. I swear I assumed people voted for Trump because of something like "Boaty Mcboatface" phenomena - people thought it would be amusing to have Trump ("You're Fired!!") as President. We don't really "know" what government does for us anymore... Our democratic government was set up with the ideal that people would run for office and people would vote for the candidate that would actually LEAD the country forward. Not someone who was in it for their own fun and profit (and I'm NOT just talking about Trump. Most elected officials (past and present - at local and federal levels) have their own agendas which may or may not be the same as the people who elected them. )
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 15:22:07 GMT -5
That is precisely the title of the thread: America has resolved itself to trying to solve the pandemic BY VOTING in November. Is this really a logical response to a pandemic? And given our partisan divide, us vs them, is it even useful anymore? We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group.Under normal conditions, a president hires a cabinet that provides the experience that he does not have in order to give him the most accurate data as to how to solve a problem. For 200+ years, we have been dependent upon this process. It has worked fairly well until recently. Maybe the answers were not 100% correct, but the rationale making the decision was largely intact. What's going on now is that despite the best advice that the president does have in the government with regards to public health, he has CHOSEN to ignore it, denigrate it, and insist that he knows best. As a result, there are more people than ever before that are suspicious of public health - despite the fact that for the most part this branch is probably one of the most altruistic branches of the government. There is absolutely NOTHING in it for them about being right and everything about being wrong. Ironically enough, this president saw fit to decimate this branch in the year leading up to this pandemic, which could have possibly minimized the impact upon this pandemic on the US. This in itself left the US flat footed more than it should have. Because you have this divide between the president and the public health branch of his government, it trickles down to the state level. You have states that have chosen to follow the best recommendations of the CDC, then you have states that have chosen to follow the president. Therein lies the divide. Add to this that you have a disease that is essentially a country-wide version of 'whack-a-mole' that has characteristics that make it difficult to track (long incubation, asymptomatic carriers, varied disease progress, and a virus that is tending not to track like 95% of the rest of the viral diseases out there) and it has exacerbated the problem. Then you add to this that you have a federal government that acts out of spite to states that step into the leadership role and try to handle the disease on a local level. How exactly do you deal with a president and his administration that acts out of spite? How do you handle an administration that refuses a test that is available to the world? How do you handle a government entity that doles out PPE and equipment to favored states? How do you handle a government entity that hijacks PPE and supplies in the name of the government out of spite? These are not natural reactions for a government that is looking out for the American interest. These are the reactions of a government that has been lead by a president that is leading by ego. He gets butt hurt by a state that does not suck up sufficiently and uses the power of the federal government to penalize the states that are trying to do the best for that state's residents. My head hurts just writing this out, and my heart aches for what we have chosen to lead us (notice, I say what - not who. I do not think our president is a normal person who has the best interest of the country that HE has chosen to lead). And I am sure that the writers of the Constitution are spinning in their crypts. This country has dealt with inept presidents. We have also dealt with corrupt presidents. Can we recover from a corrupt president who has been allowed to run amok? Prefixed with full acknowledgement I am an elitist. We have direct primaries and moved away from any type of "super delegates" in the nominating process for major party presidential candidates. This week saw the Electoral College declared a rubber stamp for the popular vote. There remains no protection from the common rabble.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 12, 2020 15:26:14 GMT -5
Under normal conditions, a president hires a cabinet that provides the experience that he does not have in order to give him the most accurate data as to how to solve a problem. For 200+ years, we have been dependent upon this process. It has worked fairly well until recently. Maybe the answers were not 100% correct, but the rationale making the decision was largely intact. What's going on now is that despite the best advice that the president does have in the government with regards to public health, he has CHOSEN to ignore it, denigrate it, and insist that he knows best. As a result, there are more people than ever before that are suspicious of public health - despite the fact that for the most part this branch is probably one of the most altruistic branches of the government. There is absolutely NOTHING in it for them about being right and everything about being wrong. Ironically enough, this president saw fit to decimate this branch in the year leading up to this pandemic, which could have possibly minimized the impact upon this pandemic on the US. This in itself left the US flat footed more than it should have. Because you have this divide between the president and the public health branch of his government, it trickles down to the state level. You have states that have chosen to follow the best recommendations of the CDC, then you have states that have chosen to follow the president. Therein lies the divide. Add to this that you have a disease that is essentially a country-wide version of 'whack-a-mole' that has characteristics that make it difficult to track (long incubation, asymptomatic carriers, varied disease progress, and a virus that is tending not to track like 95% of the rest of the viral diseases out there) and it has exacerbated the problem. Then you add to this that you have a federal government that acts out of spite to states that step into the leadership role and try to handle the disease on a local level. How exactly do you deal with a president and his administration that acts out of spite? How do you handle an administration that refuses a test that is available to the world? How do you handle a government entity that doles out PPE and equipment to favored states? How do you handle a government entity that hijacks PPE and supplies in the name of the government out of spite?These are not natural reactions for a government that is looking out for the American interest. These are the reactions of a government that has been lead by a president that is leading by ego. He gets butt hurt by a state that does not suck up sufficiently and uses the power of the federal government to penalize the states that are trying to do the best for that state's residents. My head hurts just writing this out, and my heart aches for what we have chosen to lead us (notice, I say what - not who. I do not think our president is a normal person who has the best interest of the country that HE has chosen to lead). And I am sure that the writers of the Constitution are spinning in their crypts. This country has dealt with inept presidents. We have also dealt with corrupt presidents. Can we recover from a corrupt president who has been allowed to run amok? Lots of good stuff here. I'm going to comment just on the part I made bold. In the beginning of the lockdown, I was encouraged by governors like Cuomo taking the reins in their own jurisdictions when it was clear federal leadership was nonexistent. The infighting over PPE and resources was maddening. I applauded when states came together to form compacts for buying resources instead of stupidly competing against one another. I hoped it was a trend for the future, that these multistate groups could continue working together post-pandemic, especially if it shook up some of the entrenched political power struggles. Cuomo has tried to be diplomatic when it was useful and needed (stroking Trump's ego) and praised/thanked/gave credit as deserved. He refrained from making things political - the threat is the virus, that's the target. He also pulled no punches, labelled things stupid that WERE stupid. He relentlessly cajoled NYers to do the right thing to fight the virus, for the good of each other. Local leaders at all levels under him in my region followed his lead and worked with him, because of the common threat we faced in the virus. There's still a contingent that fight Cuomo tooth and nail politically, but not during this. Other governors and some at other levels of government like big city mayors have done similar excellent leading. The question remains - why isn't this happening in more parts of the country? Why are citizens in states with leaders-who-don't-lead not pushing back, demanding change? If those leaders are actually doing what the people there want, does that mean they value going out to bars (etc) over life (their own, or others')? Because the governors are following trump's lead in those state, and they are states that support the president. The people of those states are generally supporters of the president, and likely watch Fox news, so they are hearing a skewed version of reality. In addition, they did not have the first hand experience of how horrific this is as we do in the NE. So, they saw reality different. Since trump continues to contradict experts, and is pushing hard against any restrictions, they still are not willing to do what is necessary. Now, we will see how willing they are to expose their children as the president wishes to start school, and how they will feel when it affects their medical care due to cancellation of elective surgeries, and restrictions at hospitals and doctors offices, as well as when deaths rise, as they are inevitably going to do. Finally, we need a rational national response because people will cross state lines and travel to areas where the pandemic is raging, potentially bringing it back home. We could ping pong like that for months given the divide in the country.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 12, 2020 15:29:17 GMT -5
Under normal conditions, a president hires a cabinet that provides the experience that he does not have in order to give him the most accurate data as to how to solve a problem. For 200+ years, we have been dependent upon this process. It has worked fairly well until recently. Maybe the answers were not 100% correct, but the rationale making the decision was largely intact. What's going on now is that despite the best advice that the president does have in the government with regards to public health, he has CHOSEN to ignore it, denigrate it, and insist that he knows best. As a result, there are more people than ever before that are suspicious of public health - despite the fact that for the most part this branch is probably one of the most altruistic branches of the government. There is absolutely NOTHING in it for them about being right and everything about being wrong. Ironically enough, this president saw fit to decimate this branch in the year leading up to this pandemic, which could have possibly minimized the impact upon this pandemic on the US. This in itself left the US flat footed more than it should have. Because you have this divide between the president and the public health branch of his government, it trickles down to the state level. You have states that have chosen to follow the best recommendations of the CDC, then you have states that have chosen to follow the president. Therein lies the divide. Add to this that you have a disease that is essentially a country-wide version of 'whack-a-mole' that has characteristics that make it difficult to track (long incubation, asymptomatic carriers, varied disease progress, and a virus that is tending not to track like 95% of the rest of the viral diseases out there) and it has exacerbated the problem. Then you add to this that you have a federal government that acts out of spite to states that step into the leadership role and try to handle the disease on a local level. How exactly do you deal with a president and his administration that acts out of spite? How do you handle an administration that refuses a test that is available to the world? How do you handle a government entity that doles out PPE and equipment to favored states? How do you handle a government entity that hijacks PPE and supplies in the name of the government out of spite?These are not natural reactions for a government that is looking out for the American interest. These are the reactions of a government that has been lead by a president that is leading by ego. He gets butt hurt by a state that does not suck up sufficiently and uses the power of the federal government to penalize the states that are trying to do the best for that state's residents. My head hurts just writing this out, and my heart aches for what we have chosen to lead us (notice, I say what - not who. I do not think our president is a normal person who has the best interest of the country that HE has chosen to lead). And I am sure that the writers of the Constitution are spinning in their crypts. This country has dealt with inept presidents. We have also dealt with corrupt presidents. Can we recover from a corrupt president who has been allowed to run amok? Lots of good stuff here. I'm going to comment just on the part I made bold. In the beginning of the lockdown, I was encouraged by governors like Cuomo taking the reins in their own jurisdictions when it was clear federal leadership was nonexistent. The infighting over PPE and resources was maddening. I applauded when states came together to form compacts for buying resources instead of stupidly competing against one another. I hoped it was a trend for the future, that these multistate groups could continue working together post-pandemic, especially if it shook up some of the entrenched political power struggles. Cuomo has tried to be diplomatic when it was useful and needed (stroking Trump's ego) and praised/thanked/gave credit as deserved. He refrained from making things political - the threat is the virus, that's the target. He also pulled no punches, labelled things stupid that WERE stupid. He relentlessly cajoled NYers to do the right thing to fight the virus, for the good of each other. Local leaders at all levels under him in my region followed his lead and worked with him, because of the common threat we faced in the virus. There's still a contingent that fight Cuomo tooth and nail politically, but not during this. Other governors and some at other levels of government like big city mayors have done similar excellent leading. The question remains - why isn't this happening in more parts of the country? Why are citizens in states with leaders-who-don't-lead not pushing back, demanding change?If those leaders are actually doing what the people there want, does that mean they value going out to bars (etc) over life (their own, or others')? Because there is an equally large contingent that is open up the country at all costs and screw the elderly and the healthcare professionals that have to deal with the fall out. I am in WA, and while our case load is growing (I think that last night we were testing 5.8% positive), we are opening at the same time. As long as we do not go much higher, I think we'll be ok. But we have a mask mandate, and from what I have seen there is 100% compliance whenever we have gone out. That does not mean that there's not a huge group of people bitching about this on some of the local facebook groups, but at least they are complying. But this morning, I was looking at the GOP candidates for Governor to replace Inslee. I really do not like Inslee, but I do like how he has handled this crisis for WA. Most of the GOP candidates are against the mandate and are chomping at the bit for the opening to go faster. We are doing it right, and I think we have the right balance going on here. Cases are increasing as more things are opening, but it's not overwhelming healthcare. But my sister still thinks that this whole thing is a hoax and that the government is conflating the issue. I've tried explaining the issue to her, but she reads that Medicare gives a set amount for covid and thinks that anyone who comes into the hospital is going to get diagnosed with covid, regardless of diagnosis (despite me telling her that this set amount is likely much lower than they'd get for another condition). I just can't anymore with her, and have stopped engaging......it's better for my blood pressure.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,365
|
Post by Tiny on Jul 12, 2020 15:33:13 GMT -5
Just another thing: We are the UNITED STATES of America. Which implies that the States together (maybe even working together) create "America". Together we are stronger than as individuals.
Not to mention we have that snazzy Latin motto : E Pluibus Unum - Out of many, one. (too bad it gets over shadowed by "in God we Trust" -- cause you know God is so very unifying. Not. )
How is that not powerful? Out of many, one. A single force. A single entity. Everyone working together to create something bigger and better. I don't think we are looking for the Federal Government to solve the pandemic problem. I think we are waiting for it to LEAD (not order or force) the States to come together into a unified force - to a solve the pandemic problem.
Lately we seem more "every State for itself" or "every man for himself".
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 12, 2020 15:41:44 GMT -5
Just another thing: We are the UNITED STATES of America. Which implies that the States together (maybe even working together) create "America". Together we are stronger than as individuals. Not to mention we have that snazzy Latin motto : E Pluibus Unum - Out of many, one. (too bad it gets over shadowed by "in God we Trust" -- cause you know God is so very unifying. Not. ) How is that not powerful? Out of many, one. A single force. A single entity. Everyone working together to create something bigger and better. I don't think we are looking for the Federal Government to solve the pandemic problem. I think we are waiting for it to LEAD (not order or force) the States to come together into a unified force - to a solve the pandemic problem. Lately we seem more "every State for itself" or "every man for himself". This has become more of necessity though. If we do not have help at the top of the food chain, then we must help ourselves and maintain/provide our own resources because we know that the further up the food chain is undependable.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,042
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 12, 2020 15:55:22 GMT -5
... We are arguing about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, not solving the imminent threat of the pandemic. If this were any random group (not the current political climate and rules) and a selected or appointed leader didn't do anything useful towards leading in a crisis, what would you expect to happen? I'd expect the leadership void to somehow get filled - individuals step up and begin trying to help/organize/protect/whatever, a new leader gets selected, the old leader gets pushed aside or simply ignored. That, or if the group simply continues to drift w/o leadership, the crisis weakens or destroys the group. Back to the OP: America is so deeply authoritarian, that mainstream culture views all problems and solutions through the lens of leadership ... The italicized above is through the lens of leadership. The underlined isn't. Very true. I thought the Twitter author (bolded) made an interesting point, one I hadn't put my finger on before, THAT America is so deeply authoritarian... it seemed everyone said an authoritarian response like China's wouldn't work here, because we don't do authoritarian in American. The bolded/italicized parts are my thoughts of possible options. Maybe my views have altered over the years of living in this rural area, where individuals step up to change the things that are important to us locally. Examples: DH joined a volunteer fire dept, because he knew they needed members; the Friends group fundraise and fought off a movement to defund the library to keep the village library operating; when school budget constraints cut sports budgets a sports booster group formed to fundraise to keep teams playing; the music teacher petitioned to replace canned music at graduation ceremonies with a volunteer orchestra. Small stuff, maybe, but it feels very different from how involved people were in the suburb I grew up in (same region of the state). I guess that's my base question - when did "rugged individual" Americans become followers waiting for a leader to tell them how to survive? Maybe it is related to your earlier observation that it's about bearing responsibility (or avoiding it). Lemmings following one another off the cliff?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 16:10:58 GMT -5
I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. You may not, but we DO need a leader that does not complicate an already very complicated problem by throwing his weight around. I would agree that having such a person with official authority in place is a problem and having a different person with official authority would put us in better shape.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 12, 2020 16:21:37 GMT -5
Back to the OP: America is so deeply authoritarian, that mainstream culture views all problems and solutions through the lens of leadership ... The italicized above is through the lens of leadership. The underlined isn't. Very true. I thought the Twitter author (bolded) made an interesting point, one I hadn't put my finger on before, THAT America is so deeply authoritarian... it seemed everyone said an authoritarian response like China's wouldn't work here, because we don't do authoritarian in American. The bolded/italicized parts are my thoughts of possible options. Maybe my views have altered over the years of living in this rural area, where individuals step up to change the things that are important to us locally. Examples: DH joined a volunteer fire dept, because he knew they needed members; the Friends group fundraise and fought off a movement to defund the library to keep the village library operating; when school budget constraints cut sports budgets a sports booster group formed to fundraise to keep teams playing; the music teacher petitioned to replace canned music at graduation ceremonies with a volunteer orchestra. Small stuff, maybe, but it feels very different from how involved people were in the suburb I grew up in (same region of the state). I guess that's my base question - when did "rugged individual" Americans become followers waiting for a leader to tell them how to survive? Maybe it is related to your earlier observation that it's about bearing responsibility (or avoiding it). Lemmings following one another off the cliff? Your middle paragraph illustrate very well the place between Authoritarianism and Rugged Individualism, i.e. groups of people acting collaboratively.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 12, 2020 21:24:00 GMT -5
The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension. I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. This may be the second glass of wine talking...but the first response in my head is: And you'd think a whole bunch of grown ass men would know to properly wipe their asses, but I've heard way too much about skidmarks in their underwear.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 18:53:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 21:46:58 GMT -5
I don't find them thought provoking because its obvious to anyone who has studied Trump at all, is nothing short of him getting a bad case of Covid that could kill him is going to change his mind on how he handles the coronavirus. He is the elite the RW talking heads thought they were warning us about. He's America's abuser. He's President because he wants unconditional praise and likes. Like an wife abuser he really does not care if he hurts you, steals from you or kills you as long as he gets what he wants. So the main solutions are peaceful overthrow through the election or the other kind. Ignore Trump. He's not the subject here. The question is about the American people, and looking to leadership (in general) for the answers. Our reliance on leadership to solve this FOR us. When leadership fails, especially this badly, how long do we WAIT for new leadership to step in, step up, with a solution? Why do we continue to think within our (broken) political system, as if that's the ONLY way things can be done here? Why do we wait to be LED to a solution, instead of collectively working toward a solution as a people? One of the doctors on TV the other day mentioned that this fall our country could quite easily become every person for themselves and we could see major failures of government and other systems if our country doesn't come up with a plan soon and follow it. He suggested people read the CDC guidelines and make plans to protect themselves and their families despite what they may hear from state and other leaders. I 100% agree. At 100K infections per day, it still takes over a year to infect the population. What happens to supply chains? Trucking? And every other business out there when large numbers of people are sick, recovering, or dead?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 18:53:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 21:50:51 GMT -5
Individually, we can't solve a pandemic. But more individuals doing the right things (like isolating, minimizing risk, etc) gets us closer to solving it. It would seem to be in everyone's best interest, right? Why aren't more individuals willing to do that, though? What is a higher priority to them, than survival?Apparently, it's going out to eat, going to bars, going to Disney World, going to Home Depot every week, etc... And, let us not forget church... I think those of us who have some survivalist in us are stocking up on things and preparing for things to get worse. I think some people will be shocked when fall rolls around. It's only going to get worse. How can it not? And, they will still proclaim their right to gather at church or get their hair colored... So, on and on the pandemic will rage.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jul 12, 2020 22:46:33 GMT -5
And also most of them do not think this is an issue of survival. They've played the odds in their heads and they believe its a non-issue for them. And because they believe its a non-issue for them, they don't want to wear masks and play nice for society. Then you have the fatigue factor. Many people find it hard to stay vigilant and so just go to a mentally lax state. I asked a person stopping by for a sample to step back and not crowd the desk. His response was "Oh, are we still playing pandemic?"
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,347
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jul 13, 2020 2:49:49 GMT -5
The problem is the leaders undermining those with expertise. If the leaders were silent, sure, but the leaders making masks a political statement makes people choose between a leader they trust or an expert that talks about things beyond their comprehension. I don't need a "leader" to be an intermediary between me and those with expertise and experience. And I don't need to comprehend an expert to trust them on highly technical issues. Neither do I. Still it would have been nice if we had a leader who explained the situation to everyone as clearly as Angela Merkel did more than a month ago. You know using scientific facts and explaining them. Of course that would also require a populace that is willing to listen to experts. And here a large portion has decided that science and facts are the equivalent or less than their FOX news-based opinions and anyone who dares doubt that is an anti-American elitist.
|
|