RJ and politics?

[thisguy]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

What post are you referring to? Would like to check it out...

He's talking about George RR Martin. It's all on this thread.

[thisguy]

The appropriateness of various forms of government depends to a great extent on the economic and cultural conditions of the society to be governed. Very poor societies, those that lack enough wealth or have a very unequal distribution of wealth such that few people have enough time to keep themselves educated about matters of state, are poor candidates for democracy or democratic republics. Societies that have a "cultural imperative" directed externally to the society, such as a military, or who are driven to create and acquire material wealth above other social concerns are likewise poorly served by democracy. Very wealthy societies with complex economics and cultures are poorly served by monarchies or dictatorships, as no one individual, no matter how much of a genius and how moral (s)he may be, can master and competently judge everything about such a society. Societies whose cultural imperative is loose and internally directed, such as those motivated to eliminate poverty among those individuals that make it up, or to promote certain conceptions of "equal rights" among their members, are poorly served by oligarchies or plutarchies, all the more so when that society is wealthy and regardless of the overall distribution of wealth.

 

That said, democratic forms of government have one advantage the others do not, regardless of economic or cultural conditions. The people governed by a democratic form of government get the government they deserve, and everything bad the government does can be pinned directly back on the people in that society who tolerate it, whether they understand their complicity or not.

 

And don't read too much into Plato's supposed advocacy for dictatorship led by a "philosopher-king." Plato's Republic is not about government, it's about the organization of the human soul, in an attempt to answer the question of whether it's better to be just/good/virtuous and thought to be unjust/bad/immoral by everybody, or better to be bad and thought to be good by everybody. In other works, Plato has better things to say about democracies, especially in comparison to the corrupt oligarchies or tyrannies that ruled in neighboring city-states. Democracies are actually better at avoiding corruption than the other forms in general, because the most insidious form of corruption is not intentional, but corruption that creeps in unnoticed by those who are corrupted. It takes an outside perspective to recognize that kind of corruption, and democracy at least provides a voice for that perspective, even if that voice can be drowned out or ignored.

 

Good stuff. I don't entirely agree but it's a great answer.

[Terez]

does anyone know if RJ if hinted at what political party he supported?

 

I suppose I can answer this question better than anyone else, since I made the interview database. His comments generally indicate that he was a somewhat moderate conservative, or perhaps more of a Dixiecrat type. Harriet on the other hand seems to be an old-school liberal; she co-founded the Charleston Planned Parenthood with her cousin Harriet Simons Williams (of Maria's husband's family). There used to be a good article about their reasons for doing that; I can't find it anywhere, so this is the best I can do.

• The monarchist quote: "You should know that I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I am a monarchist." You can see how he feels about that in the way that he portrays the Andoran monarchy, which is clearly his idea of an exemplary one. He believes that a good ruler takes care of the poor and follows the law of the land.
  
• In 1994, he said that we are "a country that has a tradition of the common man born in the log cabin and rising to the White House. You know, anybody can be President. And in recent years, anybody has been." Doesn't seem to speak too highly of Clinton and Bush Sr. at least.
  
• On stem cell technology: "They will harvest a good quantity of my bone marrow stem cells from my blood. These aren't the stem cells that have Bush and Cheney in a swivet..." He seems disparaging of the swivet, doesn't he?
  
• He commented jokingly on the 2000 election fiasco. In the same report he confirmed that he does vote.
  
• He wasn't incredibly religious—he made some somewhat disparaging comments about organized religion, and Harriet confirmed that he didn't think very highly of organized religion—but I think he was at least someone deistic in his thought process.
  
• There are undertones of Southern thinking in his writing, especially as it relates to slavery apologist arguments. (i.e. Tuon's cultural brainwashing, and the lack of a racial element.)
  
• He didn't believe that women were suited for combat, which is a generally conservative viewpoint. He also said that Shannon Faulkner shouldn't have been allowed into the Citadel because she lied on her application (as if she would have been accepted otherwise).
  
• He didn't openly have a problem with gay people, which is considered liberal in the US, but he was clearly more at ease with lesbians.
  
• He predicted 9/11, almost exactly a year before it happened; read the rest of that report for his views on foreign policy and general military considerations.
  
• He apparently believed in the dangers of climate change, though he obviously had an issue with Kyoto and the like.
  

There are probably some other clues in the interviews but I can't think of them at the moment; it's been a long day. And I just linked lots of stuff.

[thisguy]

does anyone know if RJ if hinted at what political party he supported?

 

I suppose I can answer this question better than anyone else, since I made the interview database. His comments generally indicate that he was a somewhat moderate conservative, or perhaps more of a Dixiecrat type. Harriet on the other hand seems to be an old-school liberal; she co-founded the Charleston Planned Parenthood with her cousin Harriet Simons Williams (of Maria's husband's family). There used to be a good article about their reasons for doing that; I can't find it anywhere, so this is the best I can do.

• The monarchist quote: "You should know that I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I am a monarchist." You can see how he feels about that in the way that he portrays the Andoran monarchy, which is clearly his idea of an exemplary one. He believes that a good ruler takes care of the poor and follows the law of the land.
  
• In 1994, he said that we are "a country that has a tradition of the common man born in the log cabin and rising to the White House. You know, anybody can be President. And in recent years, anybody has been." Doesn't seem to speak too highly of Clinton and Bush Sr. at least.
  
• On stem cell technology: "They will harvest a good quantity of my bone marrow stem cells from my blood. These aren't the stem cells that have Bush and Cheney in a swivet..." He seems disparaging of the swivet, doesn't he?
  
• He commented jokingly on the 2000 election fiasco. In the same report he confirmed that he does vote.
  
• He wasn't incredibly religious—he made some somewhat disparaging comments about organized religion, and Harriet confirmed that he didn't think very highly of organized religion—but I think he was at least someone deistic in his thought process.
  
• There are undertones of Southern thinking in his writing, especially as it relates to slavery apologist arguments. (i.e. Tuon's cultural brainwashing, and the lack of a racial element.)
  
• He didn't believe that women were suited for combat, which is a generally conservative viewpoint. He also said that Shannon Faulkner shouldn't have been allowed into the Citadel because she lied on her application (as if she would have been accepted otherwise).
  
• He didn't openly have a problem with gay people, which is considered liberal in the US, but he was clearly more at ease with lesbians.
  
• He predicted 9/11, almost exactly a year before it happened; read the rest of that report for his views on foreign policy and general military considerations.
  
• He apparently believed in the dangers of climate change, though he obviously had an issue with Kyoto and the like.
  

There are probably some other clues in the interviews but I can't think of them at the moment; it's been a long day. And I just linked lots of stuff.

Wow. Thanks for that.

[Terez]

No problem. Also, I should have said that Harriet seems to be an old-school social liberal. There are no indications of her fiscal political views, and I wouldn't be surprised either way on that. She was raised as a blue-blood Charlestonian in the wealthiest neighborhood in the city, on the tip of the peninsula. She was a day student at a prestigious local boarding school (Ashley Hall, alumni including Madeleine L'Engle and Barbara Bush). She went to Wellesley and then transferred to Harvard-Radcliffe in her second year. If she's a fiscal liberal, then it's a miracle, but miracles do happen. It's worth noting that she wasn't precisely wealthy growing up; her mother took out a serious mortgage to save the family home, and there doesn't seem to have been any inheritance to work with. She had a very hard time as a single mother after she divorced her first husband. So maybe not a miracle if she considers herself a liberal. (PS: fiscal liberals are more common among wealthy northerners; in the South, wealth and liberalism don't generally mix at all.)

[thisguy]

No problem. Also, I should have said that Harriet seems to be an old-school social liberal. There are no indications of her fiscal political views, and I wouldn't be surprised either way on that. She was raised as a blue-blood Charlestonian in the wealthiest neighborhood in the city, on the tip of the peninsula. She was a day student at a prestigious local boarding school (Ashley Hall, alumni including Madeleine L'Engle and Barbara Bush). She went to Wellesley and then transferred to Harvard-Radcliffe in her second year. If she's a fiscal liberal, then it's a miracle, but miracles do happen. It's worth noting that she wasn't precisely wealthy growing up; her mother took out a serious mortgage to save the family home, and there doesn't seem to have been any inheritance to work with. She had a very hard time as a single mother after she divorced her first husband. So maybe not a miracle if she considers herself a liberal. (PS: fiscal liberals are more common among wealthy northerners; in the South, wealth and liberalism don't generally mix at all.)

Politically, I find the South really interesting. I didn't know that fiscal liberals are usually wealthy in the south. I am surprised at the hardline fiscal conservative nature of many poor southerners. Interesting stuff. Thanks again, T. ;)

[Terez]

No problem. Also, I should have said that Harriet seems to be an old-school social liberal. There are no indications of her fiscal political views, and I wouldn't be surprised either way on that. She was raised as a blue-blood Charlestonian in the wealthiest neighborhood in the city, on the tip of the peninsula. She was a day student at a prestigious local boarding school (Ashley Hall, alumni including Madeleine L'Engle and Barbara Bush). She went to Wellesley and then transferred to Harvard-Radcliffe in her second year. If she's a fiscal liberal, then it's a miracle, but miracles do happen. It's worth noting that she wasn't precisely wealthy growing up; her mother took out a serious mortgage to save the family home, and there doesn't seem to have been any inheritance to work with. She had a very hard time as a single mother after she divorced her first husband. So maybe not a miracle if she considers herself a liberal. (PS: fiscal liberals are more common among wealthy northerners; in the South, wealth and liberalism don't generally mix at all.)

Politically, I find the South really interesting. I didn't know that fiscal liberals are usually wealthy in the south.

 

No, no...it's the other way around. Or rather, it's like this: minorities vote Dem and nearly everyone else votes GOP. If you were to break it down by issue, you'd find many more complexities. For example, in general black southerners are very religious and would likely support abortion bans and anti-homosexuality laws. That's why our marriage amendment in Mississippi passed by such a huge margin - because black people mostly voted with white people on that one. Only 14% voted against it (including me). But the state hasn't elected a true liberal in I don't know how long, at the state level.

 

We had a Dixiecrat Congressman (my district, the southernmost) who just got voted out in favor of a Tea Party type last election, but Dixiecrats are not your average Democrat. According to GOP southerners, Dixiecrats are socially conservative and fiscally liberal (not in the Adam Smith sense of the word 'liberal', but in the US politics sense). Sometimes that's true, but usually it's not; it's amazing that Dixiecrats have lasted so long because Southern GOPers usually don't trust them even when they vote with the GOP nearly 100% of the time. Even our GOP Senators, for example, supported embryonic stem cell research (the aforementioned swivet-making issue)—and these weren't freshmen but Senators with serious seniority (Trent Lott and Thad Cochran). It happens sometimes, but if a Dixiecrat misses one crucial platform vote he gets outed by a Tea Partier with half a brain.

 

I am surprised at the hardline fiscal conservative nature of many poor southerners. Interesting stuff. Thanks again, T. ;)

 

It's called the Southern Strategy. It still works, even though we all have black friends now.

[Terez]

Also, Harriet was a child during WWII; unlike RJ she's old enough to remember it. When I say 'old-school liberal' I think FDR. The politics of the New Deal reverberated through both parties for a few decades, and you might say that FDR began the change in the Democratic party that didn't cement until the Civil Rights era ended. It's about time for another upheaval, and it will be interesting to see what comes of this one. The Southerners elected the hell out of FDR. We loved him, because most of us were poor and we needed that government intervention more than anyone else. Then the black people up and decided it was time for us to treat them like human beings, and all hell broke loose. The Southern Strategy was meant to take advantage of that, and its continuing effects range from the unconscious to the dog-whistle to the overt. GOP policy has shifted on issues of race to always stay just one or two steps behind political correctness—offensive but not clearly obscene, except in retrospect. Right now GOP policy on race generally tends to things like not supporting affirmative action.

 

The oddest thing about US politics is the way that social issues and fiscal issues are all wrapped up together in a bundle. Parliamentary systems do it too, but in the US we pretty much have two choices. It defies logic.

[Suttree]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

What post are you referring to? Would like to check it out...

He's talking about George RR Martin. It's all on this thread.

 

I didn't see GRRM's anti republican rant in this thread?

 

As an aside I really don't understand people having an issue with him using his celebrity to speak out on his political beliefs. If anything most people seem to have an issue with celebrities, athletes and the like not doing that more. They are the ones that could really jump start a public discussion after all and get more people involved. Think Muhammed Ali during the Vietnam War. I applaud him for risking a backlash to speak out on what he believes in. It is a fairly damning statement on our times that people would view that as a negative.

[thisguy]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

What post are you referring to? Would like to check it out...

He's talking about George RR Martin. It's all on this thread.

 

I didn't see GRRM's anti republican rant in this thread?

 

As an aside I really don't understand people having an issue with him using his celebrity to speak out on his political beliefs. If anything most people seem to have an issue with celebrities, athletes and the like not doing that more. They are the ones that could really jump start a public discussion after all and get more people involved. Think Muhammed Ali during the Vietnam War. I applaud him for risking a backlash to speak out on what he believes in. It is a fairly damning statement on our times that people would view that as a negative.

That's a good point (Ali and people speaking up). But, I have met many people who seem to dislike protestors, even when they agree or mostly agree with them. Which is extremely unfortunate. You know why the US puts protestors a block or two from what they're protesting and behind some gates (or whatever those things they march around are called)? Because, peaceful protest has only worked historically when it disturbs the flow of commerce enough. We are a consumer society, I believe, before anything else now.

[Southpaw89]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

What post are you referring to? Would like to check it out...

He's talking about George RR Martin. It's all on this thread.

 

I didn't see GRRM's anti republican rant in this thread?

 

As an aside I really don't understand people having an issue with him using his celebrity to speak out on his political beliefs. If anything most people seem to have an issue with celebrities, athletes and the like not doing that more. They are the ones that could really jump start a public discussion after all and get more people involved. Think Muhammed Ali during the Vietnam War. I applaud him for risking a backlash to speak out on what he believes in. It is a fairly damning statement on our times that people would view that as a negative.

 

 

well his blog post basically bashed Republicans as a whole calling them all racists for what's going on and as a registered Republican I took offense to it because neither me nor my friends are racist whatsoever so I didn't appreciate GRRM coming out and bashing everyone. That's mainly what bothered me. As to your post Terez, that's pretty interesting. I agree with the RJ leaning towards the conservative route for the reasons you said plus his family military background which seems to lean conservative (for the most part). Interesting stuff

[Terez]

As to your post Terez, that's pretty interesting. I agree with the RJ leaning towards the conservative route for the reasons you said plus his family military background which seems to lean conservative (for the most part).

 

I tend to see him more as an entrenched conservative with a fully Southern upbringing who began to lean more liberal in his later years. Though apparently he smoked a lot of pot during the Vietnam years. My dad is as hardcore GOP as they come, and he did too. (While dodging the draft as a philosophy major.) My dad is also a hardcore evangelical Southern Baptist, though, which puts him in a different league than RJ altogether. RJ was Episcopalian (I gather it was only in the most technical sense) and his younger brother appears to be Methodist (judging by his now-atheist son's tweets). Smoking pot (especially in the 60s and 70s) is one of those issues that does not really conform to the party lines in the Deep South. Nominally, it conforms, just as marriage amendments nominally conform, but single-issue votes can be eye-openers sometimes. (See also Personhood in MS.)

[thisguy]

Also, Harriet was a child during WWII; unlike RJ she's old enough to remember it. When I say 'old-school liberal' I think FDR. The politics of the New Deal reverberated through both parties for a few decades, and you might say that FDR began the change in the Democratic party that didn't cement until the Civil Rights era ended. It's about time for another upheaval, and it will be interesting to see what comes of this one. The Southerners elected the hell out of FDR. We loved him, because most of us were poor and we needed that government intervention more than anyone else. Then the black people up and decided it was time for us to treat them like human beings, and all hell broke loose. The Southern Strategy was meant to take advantage of that, and its continuing effects range from the unconscious to the dog-whistle to the overt. GOP policy has shifted on issues of race to always stay just one or two steps behind political correctness—offensive but not clearly obscene, except in retrospect. Right now GOP policy on race generally tends to things like not supporting affirmative action.

 

The oddest thing about US politics is the way that social issues and fiscal issues are all wrapped up together in a bundle. Parliamentary systems do it too, but in the US we pretty much have two choices. It defies logic.

BAM! That last statement says it all. Interesting to hear the Southern perspective. It always fascinates me.

[Vardar]

Who is GRRM?

 

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

Yes, they had direct democracy, we have the republic which is representative democracy. But, the point still stands. If you don't know about economics, war, roads, health care, etc - how can you choose the right person to represent you. And, looking at many politicians, they don't know about a lot of this stuff themselves.

 

Well the really sad part is the information is out there for people to learn. They can educate themselves if they wish, but they'd rather listen to ads on TV which lie to them. Allowing Poloticians to lie on TV/Radio ads is the biggest issue with the system and why it'll never be fixed. You'd think people would be smart enough to understand mudslinging is lying, and yet in this day and age they all still do it because it gets votes. How sad is that.

[UncleButcher1980]

Who is GRRM?

 

George R R Martin.

[thisguy]

Who is GRRM?

 

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

Yes, they had direct democracy, we have the republic which is representative democracy. But, the point still stands. If you don't know about economics, war, roads, health care, etc - how can you choose the right person to represent you. And, looking at many politicians, they don't know about a lot of this stuff themselves.

 

Well the really sad part is the information is out there for people to learn. They can educate themselves if they wish, but they'd rather listen to ads on TV which lie to them. Allowing Poloticians to lie on TV/Radio ads is the biggest issue with the system and why it'll never be fixed. You'd think people would be smart enough to understand mudslinging is lying, and yet in this day and age they all still do it because it gets votes. How sad is that.

That's true. It's a problem. I think lobbyists are a bigger problem, personally. An election where a President needs a billion dollars to win will never be an honest election, in my opinion.

[Vardar]

Who is GRRM?

 

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

Yes, they had direct democracy, we have the republic which is representative democracy. But, the point still stands. If you don't know about economics, war, roads, health care, etc - how can you choose the right person to represent you. And, looking at many politicians, they don't know about a lot of this stuff themselves.

 

Well the really sad part is the information is out there for people to learn. They can educate themselves if they wish, but they'd rather listen to ads on TV which lie to them. Allowing Poloticians to lie on TV/Radio ads is the biggest issue with the system and why it'll never be fixed. You'd think people would be smart enough to understand mudslinging is lying, and yet in this day and age they all still do it because it gets votes. How sad is that.

That's true. It's a problem. I think lobbyists are a bigger problem, personally. An election where a President needs a billion dollars to win will never be an honest election, in my opinion.

 

Any system where people can't afford to run for office or accept the office has issues. People complain about how much Congressmen get paid, but it's because they're too stupid to do basic math. More Congressmen lose money from taking that position, the issue is they get money from elsewhere, and/or are already wealthy. Only being represented by the rich is a major issue.

 

It's such an easy fix too. Congressmen quarters/barracks would be an easy start.

[thisguy]

Who is GRRM?

 

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

Yes, they had direct democracy, we have the republic which is representative democracy. But, the point still stands. If you don't know about economics, war, roads, health care, etc - how can you choose the right person to represent you. And, looking at many politicians, they don't know about a lot of this stuff themselves.

 

Well the really sad part is the information is out there for people to learn. They can educate themselves if they wish, but they'd rather listen to ads on TV which lie to them. Allowing Poloticians to lie on TV/Radio ads is the biggest issue with the system and why it'll never be fixed. You'd think people would be smart enough to understand mudslinging is lying, and yet in this day and age they all still do it because it gets votes. How sad is that.

That's true. It's a problem. I think lobbyists are a bigger problem, personally. An election where a President needs a billion dollars to win will never be an honest election, in my opinion.

 

Any system where people can't afford to run for office or accept the office has issues. People complain about how much Congressmen get paid, but it's because they're too stupid to do basic math. More Congressmen lose money from taking that position, the issue is they get money from elsewhere, and/or are already wealthy. Only being represented by the rich is a major issue.

 

It's such an easy fix too. Congressmen quarters/barracks would be an easy start.

I agree.

[nolirion]

The issue is always corruption , I am not an USA citizen , and I was astonished when I learned about the different lobby who have such an impact on your politics .

The problem is that you have to few regulation concerning your political campaign , to few regulation concerning the money in politics in general , and this is really bad not only because of the different scandal that hinder the state of your countries , but even the appearance of scandal make thousand loose faith in your representative and that is the real issue .

I could go on about the state of the public debate in the Usa , but truth be told I am not really proud of my country on the subject either .

 

 

Through the book you can only picture one thing about Rj's political belief , I don't think he was quite found of the perpetual fight over power in the ruling class , noble or Aes'Sedai , he made quite a point in picturing how Daes Dae'mar almost ruin the whole world . While picturing it as a tool created , by the Aes'Sedai , to , not control , but herd the rest of the world into their path .

I am half convinced the faillure of the Aes'Sedai that lurker talk about , was designed , not only as a tool to legitimized Rand , but as a metaphor for "pragmatism" in politics , notably the "lesser of two evil" policy .

[Terez]

His presentation of Daes Dae'mar is a little more complex than that, though. Most of the main characters have come to see it as a Game you have no choice but to play, so you might as well play it right. That includes Rand, even after his epiphany. It includes Moiraine and Thom. Even the Borderlanders play it, though they're not terribly practiced at it.

[nolirion]

Well Rand was forced to play it but Borderlanders don't really play it , I agree Daes' Dae'mar is more complex than what I describe , but it is a luxury , and noble , Aes'Sedai , and politician in general , tend to forget the cost of that luxury .

Borderlander typically wedge a constant war , they don't have the luxury to play Daes' Dae'mar they do their duty , they know the game they simply ignore it , I don't remember who explained it in the book , it was a Borderlander .

Well obviously not all Borderlander ignore it but most do .

[Terez]

That explains why they abandoned their duty to march their armies south, eh?

[nolirion]

On the contrary , first I believe it was Rand Ta'veren nature who drove them south , they had to check the dragon ? false or true , in case of a trolloc invasion they would need the supply of the south to fight off .

That plus the prophecy they had a thousand reason to "abandon" their duty , but without the Ta'veren effect it don't make sense .

[Vardar]

That explains why they abandoned their duty to march their armies south, eh?

 

Even Igntar owned up to playing it in book 2. Hurin as well.

 

They may hate it, but they knew what had to be done when it had to be.

[nolirion]

Well yes , I don't say otherwise , but they don't do it on a regular basis , as a mean to govern their nation .

They use it as you would use the custom of a foreign countries when in visit , as they say when in Rome do as the Romans