… which is it? Depends on your party affiliation, I guess. Of course, we American pragmatists will be watching closely. Or will it all end here?
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Re “pragmatism”…in his extensive studies of decision-making, Prof Dietrich Doerner ran various simulations to see what kind of mentalities worked vs what kind failed. Regarding the subjects participating in a simulation of a clothing factory:
The unsuccessful ones tend to use unqualified expressions: constantly, every time, without exception, absolutely, etc…while the successful “factory managers” tend toward qualified expressions: now and then, in general, specifically, perhaps,…
He obtained similar results in other simulations, including one in which the subject acted as commanders of forest-fire-fighting units:
The subjects who fail at this game, Doerner finds, are those who apply rigid, context-insensitive rules…such as “always keep the units widely deployed” or “always keep the units concentrated” rather than making these decisions flexibly. He identifies “methodism,” which he defines as “the unthinking application of a sequence of actions we have once learned,” as a key threat to effective decision-making. (The term is borrowed from the great military writer Clausewitz.)
There is nothing pragmatic about a president up at 3am waiting for the phone to ring
Is Hillary an insomniac? It makes sense if you have to keep an eye on Bill.
Clinton/Obama looks formidable on paper on March 5th, but long-term projections have been less than accurate during this wild and wooly season. I’ll just say that in listening to John McCain’s speech last night I heard a man who possesses unshakeable core values, and though he has faltered on immigration, campaign finance, and appears succeptible to at least some of the global warming tripe (which has the potential to be one of the biggest boondoggle black-hole money grabs of all time if not stamped out by a Republican administration), he nevertheless sounds like a leader. He’s not ashamed of America (“We MAKE history!”). There is no nonsense about “taking back” America, whatever the hell that means. He understands classical liberal values. He understands our enemies and that we must not lose to them on any level, on any front. He’s getting my vote for those reasons.
Labels can be burdensome, yet they also help to define the process as a whole, especially for young voters new to politics. I am not a down-the-line conservative by any stretch. Although I voted, I was essentially apolitical before the 2000 election and 9/11 woke me up to where the party I had been voting for (the Dems) stood. They stood for appeasement and self-loathing (I was aghast to hear not just politicians, but some of my friends saying that we “had it coming.” WTF?, I thought at the time….still do.)
I believe in freedom and liberty of the individual, American exceptionalism, limited government that serves the people and does not hinder or interfere with them, a strong National Defense, and the Constitution as it is written – not twisted to fit any definition that suits the interpreter’s fleeting desire. Harry Truman or JFK would not recognize the modern Democratic Party, and in fact, they would likely be forced out like Joe Lieberman – the only current one with any stones to speak of.
The pic of Abbie Hoffman at the ’68 Convention reminded of yet another reason to like The Who – when Pete Townshend nailed him in the back of the head with his guitar at Woodstock for hijacking the microphone during their set to babble his “revolutionary” B.S. – even in a lawless hippie paradise order must sometimes be restored! We should deploy him to Berkeley. Stat.