Quotes of the Day

I ran across a speech that former President Bill Clinton gave last week at Georgetown University.  Mr. Clinton does not hide his politics by any means.  In fact, his speech was a pretty direct effort to support the Democratic party in the November elections.  However, the excerpt I watched contained the first quote, which I think is an excellent assessment of how people operate, whether on the Left or the Right or somewhere in between.  The question I ask of you is, "which method do you, personally, use?"

"We believe in a politics...dominated by evidence and argument. There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology on the right or the left. If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another. But like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning. And you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy."

"The problem with ideology is if you got an ideology, you already got your mind made up, you know all the answers, and that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time, so you tend to govern by assertion and attack. The problem with that is that discourages thinking and gives you bad results."

— Bill Clinton, October 18, 2006

I also appreciated this one:

"I long for the day when Republicans and Democrats will sit around and have these raucous, exciting arguments and actually love learning from one another, and when we create the common good out of a dynamic center."

If you're interested in the entire speech, you can watch it on the Georgetown University web site, read the transcript, or see a longer excerpt on YouTube.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ggulick's picture

Theology and Ideology

In my Systematic Theology class, we recently talked about the influence that ideology can have on theology as well. The only way to neutralize the effect that ideology can have on Theology is for each of the participants in a conversation to acknowledge their ideologies and lay them on the table for others to interrogate.

This is just a reminder of the intelligence of former president Clinton! :)

Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com

"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Eric's picture

Re: Theology and Ideology

The surest indication of that intelligence in this particular speech was that in his discussion of philosophy and ideology, his manner of delivery indicated that he considers both sides guilty of indulging in ideology.

It is a sad commentary on party politics that I now look back on President Clinton's administration and consider it as having been more Centrist than I did originally.

-- Eric


This is my .sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
ggulick's picture

Next Term

If the Democrats are able to control both houses of Congress, or possibly even one, after the next election, we will see what kind of administration the Bush administration really is. Clinton only had 2 years in which the Republicans did not control both houses of congress. Yet, he was able to get A LOT done. He was willing to work with those on the other side of the aisle to make progress. With what I have seen so far, I doubt the Bush administration will be the same. We are either going to see nothing get done, or we are going to see the Bush administration attempt to expand executive authority to levels that the founding fathers never imagined.

Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com

"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Eric's picture

Re: Next Term

The amazing thing is, part of what made George W. Bush such a good governor of Texas was exactly that: his ability to work across the aisle and build bridges.  It was one of the things that I looked forward to after he won in 2000.  It's also one of the things I am most disappointed in with his administration six years later.

I agree that it will be interesting, but I don't look to either major party for solutions anymore.  They are both part of the problem. 

-- Eric


This is my .sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
ggulick's picture

Is that fair?

>>I agree that it will be interesting, but I don't look to either major party for solutions anymore. They are both part of the problem. <<

I don't think that is an entirely fair statement. The democrats have had virtually no power for the past 6 years. So I don't think you can blame them for the current problem.

With that being said, however, I am disappointed in the fact that the Democrats have been unable to come up with a concrete vision of what they stand FOR. We all know what they are against, but we need to know how they would solve the problems.

With that being said, I also have to admit that I am starting to get extremely ANGRY with the Republican party and the way they are characterizing democrats. I heard at least half a dozen sound bites over the weekend in which either Bush or other Republicans said something along the lines of "The Democrats want to raise your taxes and surrender to the terrorists." That is no more true than if I were to say that George W. Bush wants to draft your sons so they can be killed in a war in either North Korea or Iran. The republicans are getting desperate and some are starting to show their true colors.

Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com

"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Eric's picture

Re: Is that fair?

I blame both the Democrats and the Republics for the current problem because of the way they wield power.  The current problem has nothing to do with policies recently enacted, or even the current administration.  The problem has been festering now for decades, and it lies at the roots of the two-party system as it exists in the United States.

There's way more to say on this than will fit comfortably in this space, but I'll put it this way: the two major parties are both ideologically driven, and they protect that ideology by penalizing those who don't stick to the party line and by ensuring that only the party shills have an opportunity to affect the party platform.  They are also united in the protection of their power by erecting as many barriers to independent, nonpartisan, and third-party candidates as possible.

-- Eric


This is my .sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.