A more truthful explanation. Politicians in the heat of campaign will cynically anything need to get elected. The hope is that people will forget... Or
People can be found to justify the abandonment of campaign promises. Worked for Bush. Doubly so for Obama.
Hows that for the end justifying the means.
MagisterLudi: A more truthful explanation. Politicians in the heat of campaign
Well, we all know what would have happened if Bush nominated these people. If you want to talk about a case for hypocrisy LOL, that would be just about every post on this whole blog.
mmonarch: Well, we all know what would have happened if Bush
It's a shame you chose to read no further. Consequently (but predictably), you missed the entire point:
"The argument for "ends that justify the means" is often perversely associated with Niccolò Machiavelli, and the nightmarish implications his philosophy carries. But Obama is no champion of regicide and ruling through fear. His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own, self-imposed rules to the pursuit of practical ends. The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible."
Sadly, the greater portion of the comments and hate mail I've received regarding this piece are from people who didn't even read it. This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means". Rather, the ultimate point is that Obama should not have imposed such restrictive rules on himself in the first place. The "ends justifying the means" argument is almost always inherently ideological in nature, making the Obama case ironically backward. I seek here to point out this ironic reversal. Obama's hypocrisy on this matter seeks to shun blind, symbolic ideology for pragmatism's sake. The administration's argument is that these appointees are "uniquely qualified" and that this trumps embarrassing blemishes on their records. Only time will tell if this is a wise decision. I, for one, do not think the recent speed bumps merit such obloquy as they have received. Thank you, everyone else, for your comments.
hp_blogger_Stuart Whatley: It's a shame you chose to read no further. Consequently
Cognitive dissonance alert!
Quotes:
1."This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means'"
hmmm
"Yes, breaking one's own rules is hypocritical. But it is hypocrisy as the means to a practical end. "
"His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own...rules to the pursuit of practical ends."
But this is EXACTLY what Machiavelli refers to in The Prince.
MagisterLudi: Cognitive dissonance alert! Quotes: 1."This is in no way a
I'm in conflict here now as a "purist" Obama supporter.
I am beginning to wonder if this is an attempt to appease the Republicans . I can still hear the Hardball interview between Chris Matthews and some poor inept, in over his head Repuke on the day Ex President "Shrub" gave that speech on the floor of the Knesset and was attacking Obama's commitment to ending this "never should have been fought" war in Iraq. The poor pundit was calling Obama an appeaser and didn't know the definition. That didn't surprise me. What did whack me over the head in the article above though was a simple thought. There was promised a great change and right now based on the definition of the word appease, I'm beginning to wonder if he can pull the "Executive" Branch out the muck and quit kissing up to the failed Republican Brand that has failed this country.
Are his advisors too worried about how they will be perceived even before history is written? Because, I have to tell you that it isn't going to matter if there is noone to write the history of our country if it falls by the way-side. My message to Obama : "Don't blow it , dude."
Wesneeds: I'm in conflict here now as a "purist" Obama supporter.
Honest mistakes are one thing. Geitner's failure to go back and pay the taxes that were owed ethically but not legally (since too much time had passed) until called upon to do so for this nomination is a reflection of his values. We can expect those values to be reflected in his approach to his work. And, we should surely have enough evidence by now that sleazy, sloppy ethics lead to decisions that do not serve our country best.
We are a nation of over 300 million. I believe that there are people who uphold and practice the highest ethical standards and who have the practical experience and wisdom for all our highest positions of leadership. I'm tired of false choices for either practical people or ethical people. We can have both when we demand them.
VHammon: Honest mistakes are one thing. Geitner's failure to go back
See Ralph Nader in his documentary "An Unreasonable Man" to see where perfectionism leads. Nader actually had several of his people in the Carter administration (Joan Claybrook was one). Unfortunately, he couldn't set aside his insistence on immediate action, and literally did not speak with Claybrook for a couple of years. Howard Dean says of such people "They're unwilling to make the kind of compromises needed to govern." Nader's stubbornness is an asset and a detriment.
Meanwhile, check out Jimmy Carter's recent interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99875313) with Terri Gross for some really amazing modesty. He does not begrudge the loss of the presidency because he didn't bomb Iran. He's happy the hostages came back safe and no innocent Iranians suffered. Now think of Nixon / Cambodia, Reagan / Nicaragua, Bush 43 / Iraq... See the difference? Wow!
demockracy: See Ralph Nader in his documentary "An Unreasonable Man" to
"The Obama administration, at least in some of these cases, should be lauded, not excoriated, for ignoring its own rules"
Astonishingly misguided statement.
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."
Marshall McLuhan
MagisterLudi: "The Obama administration, at least in some of these cases,
If bailed out CEOs getting big bonuses is 'shameful' then so is Obama's easy disregard for his own rules. Someone should point that out to him. It's all part of the same system.
RButler: If bailed out CEOs getting big bonuses is 'shameful' then
It would seem to be the easiest thing in the world, for this administration and anyone else, when in doubt, FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES OR PROMISES. But, noooooooooooooooooooooooo!.
He's just another politician like some of us have been saying for over 2 years. He's being breaking his own rules in just 2 weeks and we've got 4 years to go. Wanna bet on him not breaking any more? I didn't think so. This is really a training program for his supporters----in making excuses. As they get better and better the broken promises will get bigger and bigger.
RButler: It would seem to be the easiest thing in the
To quote: "…The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible."
Are symbols used only as subterfuge then? Announce a bold policy to bar lobbyists right after the inauguration when everyone is listening, then break the rules when you know most folks are off to life-as-usual.
Not feasible to find enough non-lobbyists to appoint? As all bloggers and internet junkies know there are many people out there who have never worked for a lobbying firm who know a helluva lot more than the lobbyists do, because they are not merely interested in the well-being of a particular industry. They work primarily in the interests of the country. Obama could have used his own rule, which was lauded by many, to use as polticial cover to find people outside of the mainstream with which to incporporate real “change.â€
What is not practical about finding people who have real solutions, and not a desire to serve the same old special interests and mind-sets that have caused us so many problems? I guess it is not practical if your desire is to please the establishment in ways that benefit yourself.
This guy cannot be serious.
JeffKolakowski: To quote: "…The executive order barring lobbyists was an important
Please tell me you wrote this article as a satire...PLEASE!!!! You can not seriously be backing the notion that hypocrisy is good. Obama had to know he would be nominating these guys and that they were lobbyists. He should never have trumpeted a "no lobbyists" rule before immediately breaking it.
For a guy (and team) who did such a great job managing image during the campaign, Obama seems to have lost all track of appearance now that he's in office. Even if these nominees are good choices of the jobs, he has to recognize the appearance of impropriety, hypocrisy, and business as usual. Is anyone actually vetting these nominees at all?
GHO: Please tell me you wrote this article as a satire...PLEASE!!!!
If Obama is allowed to make standards, then violate them, why parade those standards in front of us and tell us you represent change? It is, in fact, worse than making no such standards since now he's made himself a liar. Why have rules at all if the ends justify the means and rule breaking doesn't matter. This is NOT "change" but the same old same old. Mayhaps Obama wasn't quite what everyone thought? A duplicitous politician? Never! Ha Ha Ha. Saw this one coming.
zippy01: If Obama is allowed to make standards, then violate them,
THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AND NOTHING IS CHANGING! ALL WE HAVE DONE IS REPLACE A BUNCH OF SELF SERVING, UNETHICAL REPUBLICANS WITH TAX EVADING, HYPOCRITAL DEMOCRATS. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHERE DID ALL THE STATESMEN GO?
DOES ANYBODT REALLY BELIEVE THAT A HIGHLY EDUCATED FINANCE GUY LIKE GEITNER COULD DO HIS OWN TAX PREP FOR YEARS, INCLUDING SCHEDULE C, AND THEN FAIL TO PAY SE TAXES? OR THAT DASCHLE COULD MAKE $200k AS A LOBBIEST AND NOT INCLUDE IT AS TAXABLE INCOME.
COME ON CITIZENS - WAKE UP - THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT TO PUT HIS FOOT DOWN AND REQUIRE HONEST, ETHICAL PEOPLE TO SURROUND HIM AT THIS TIME! A TRUE STATEMAN LIKE LINCOLN OR FDR WOULD DO IT - SO SHOULD OBAMA.
WE WANTED CHANGE - LET'S FORCE OUR NEW RPESIDENT TO GIVE IT TO US!
STATESMAN1: THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE
Waiting for people who are perfect might take forever ? Finding smart people who learn or atleast
admit mistakes seems to be the kind of government worker we need.
tonkamatthew: Waiting for people who are perfect might take forever ?
People can be found to justify the abandonment of campaign promises. Worked for Bush. Doubly so for Obama.
Hows that for the end justifying the means.
"The argument for "ends that justify the means" is often perversely associated with Niccolò Machiavelli, and the nightmarish implications his philosophy carries. But Obama is no champion of regicide and ruling through fear. His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own, self-imposed rules to the pursuit of practical ends. The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible."
Sadly, the greater portion of the comments and hate mail I've received regarding this piece are from people who didn't even read it. This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means". Rather, the ultimate point is that Obama should not have imposed such restrictive rules on himself in the first place. The "ends justifying the means" argument is almost always inherently ideological in nature, making the Obama case ironically backward. I seek here to point out this ironic reversal. Obama's hypocrisy on this matter seeks to shun blind, symbolic ideology for pragmatism's sake. The administration's argument is that these appointees are "uniquely qualified" and that this trumps embarrassing blemishes on their records. Only time will tell if this is a wise decision. I, for one, do not think the recent speed bumps merit such obloquy as they have received. Thank you, everyone else, for your comments.
Quotes:
1."This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means'"
hmmm
"Yes, breaking one's own rules is hypocritical. But it is hypocrisy as the means to a practical end. "
"His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own...rules to the pursuit of practical ends."
But this is EXACTLY what Machiavelli refers to in The Prince.
Why that's a horse of a different color.
I am beginning to wonder if this is an attempt to appease the Republicans . I can still hear the Hardball interview between Chris Matthews and some poor inept, in over his head Repuke on the day Ex President "Shrub" gave that speech on the floor of the Knesset and was attacking Obama's commitment to ending this "never should have been fought" war in Iraq. The poor pundit was calling Obama an appeaser and didn't know the definition. That didn't surprise me. What did whack me over the head in the article above though was a simple thought. There was promised a great change and right now based on the definition of the word appease, I'm beginning to wonder if he can pull the "Executive" Branch out the muck and quit kissing up to the failed Republican Brand that has failed this country.
Are his advisors too worried about how they will be perceived even before history is written? Because, I have to tell you that it isn't going to matter if there is noone to write the history of our country if it falls by the way-side. My message to Obama : "Don't blow it , dude."
We are a nation of over 300 million. I believe that there are people who uphold and practice the highest ethical standards and who have the practical experience and wisdom for all our highest positions of leadership. I'm tired of false choices for either practical people or ethical people. We can have both when we demand them.
Meanwhile, check out Jimmy Carter's recent interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99875313) with Terri Gross for some really amazing modesty. He does not begrudge the loss of the presidency because he didn't bomb Iran. He's happy the hostages came back safe and no innocent Iranians suffered. Now think of Nixon / Cambodia, Reagan / Nicaragua, Bush 43 / Iraq... See the difference? Wow!
Should we hold politicians taxes to the same standards we hold sexual predators?
That's ridiculous.
Astonishingly misguided statement.
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."
Marshall McLuhan
jaw,.. meet floor. WOW. just wow.
Change I cen believe in!!!!!
Uhhhhrack Faux-bama
He's just another politician like some of us have been saying for over 2 years. He's being breaking his own rules in just 2 weeks and we've got 4 years to go. Wanna bet on him not breaking any more? I didn't think so. This is really a training program for his supporters----in making excuses. As they get better and better the broken promises will get bigger and bigger.
Are symbols used only as subterfuge then? Announce a bold policy to bar lobbyists right after the inauguration when everyone is listening, then break the rules when you know most folks are off to life-as-usual.
Not feasible to find enough non-lobbyists to appoint? As all bloggers and internet junkies know there are many people out there who have never worked for a lobbying firm who know a helluva lot more than the lobbyists do, because they are not merely interested in the well-being of a particular industry. They work primarily in the interests of the country. Obama could have used his own rule, which was lauded by many, to use as polticial cover to find people outside of the mainstream with which to incporporate real “change.â€
What is not practical about finding people who have real solutions, and not a desire to serve the same old special interests and mind-sets that have caused us so many problems? I guess it is not practical if your desire is to please the establishment in ways that benefit yourself.
This guy cannot be serious.
For a guy (and team) who did such a great job managing image during the campaign, Obama seems to have lost all track of appearance now that he's in office. Even if these nominees are good choices of the jobs, he has to recognize the appearance of impropriety, hypocrisy, and business as usual. Is anyone actually vetting these nominees at all?
DOES ANYBODT REALLY BELIEVE THAT A HIGHLY EDUCATED FINANCE GUY LIKE GEITNER COULD DO HIS OWN TAX PREP FOR YEARS, INCLUDING SCHEDULE C, AND THEN FAIL TO PAY SE TAXES? OR THAT DASCHLE COULD MAKE $200k AS A LOBBIEST AND NOT INCLUDE IT AS TAXABLE INCOME.
COME ON CITIZENS - WAKE UP - THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT TO PUT HIS FOOT DOWN AND REQUIRE HONEST, ETHICAL PEOPLE TO SURROUND HIM AT THIS TIME! A TRUE STATEMAN LIKE LINCOLN OR FDR WOULD DO IT - SO SHOULD OBAMA.
WE WANTED CHANGE - LET'S FORCE OUR NEW RPESIDENT TO GIVE IT TO US!
admit mistakes seems to be the kind of government worker we need.