PatsFanInVa

My "Above the Fray" post, intended with equanimity and coolheadedness. Let's see how long we all keep to that spirit.

1. We have a new president, and his agenda is different from the old president's.

2. Said president inherited a number of "legacy" challenges, both short-term and long-term.

2a. A financial collapse of historic proportions, and its economic sequelae
2b. Two simultaneous wars on the ground in Asia
2c. The heightened energy dilemma, heightened because (2c1) the environmental impact is now more stark and (2c2) we have recently been made aware, at the pump, how downright inconvenient fossil fuels can be when they cost too much.
2d. The aforementioned environmental crisis, in the form of anthropogenic global warming.

I'm taking 2a-2d to be facts of political life. They're not points of debate among the vast majority, and so, unless one is a vehement adherent of an alternative thesis (ergo, would not be president in the first place,) these are all clearly action items.

3. The scale of these challenges are bigger than previous election outcomes, in which one could argue (for example) that he disliked taxes more than the next guy, or that one is more likely to personally embody "family values."

4. When do we declare the policies "failed"? How much time do they take to work?

5. Is evaluation even a goal? I.e., if we declare policies failed prior to a reasonable time-frame, are we declaring them failures on ideological grounds alone?

5a. Given 5, is it not disingenuous to trot out particulars as "proof" of said failure, knowing evaluation cannot be undertaken in that short term? Is that not akin to being down 3-0 midway through the 1st quarter, trotting out a single drive-chart, and "analyzing" why the team lost the game?

5b. If one claims an evaluation, after having established that short-term evaluations of long-term programs during those programs' infancy is premature, in the presence of opposition leaders who publicly declare they desire that the president fail (thereby, wishing pain on their own countrymen for the sake of their ideology,) what argument would one make that the exercise has merit?

Discuss.

efin98

Right off the bat this breaks down to one month to get new policies in order, another two to work out the finer details of the policy(with Congress and with the new department heads) two more months to hobnob with neighboring countries and major allies(financial, political, military in no particular order. During that time he needs to work on a fiscal year's budget that is to his liking taking out the "bad" parts and putting his personal preferences.

Five months time, which would put it at the end of the fiscal year.

Three years until this is over...first year paying our way out, another paying it off, another to reap the benefits of growth.

Two years time. Three with withdrawal(s). All depends on local country's actual willingness to get on their feet by themselves.

A decade or more....long after (s)he's out of office. Best he can do is set in motion legislation to get "renewable" energy and nuclear energy going to drop down needs for one fossil fuel and get in motion other forms of cars that don't rely on that fossil fuel so much.

Won't do much as it's too hot of an issue. Best (s)he can do is get the public onboard to eliminate major parts of the crisis.


Those issues are pushed aside in favor of current issues stated above and the reaction by the President will make/break his/her chances for reelection. Assuming things go well the President is reelected, if not then (s)he goes the way of George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter("one and done")

IF they are delayed or failing due to inaction by Congress by choice or if there is little to no compromise by the President to ensure that the policies are carried out in the first place.

We declare based on the results. If things aren't going smoothly and if there is no reason why they aren't being acted upon except partisan issues then it's failure. If they are improving but slow we have to hold off judgment until we have a fuller picture.

If those particulars are solid goals set in stone that have not been reached by no unavoidable problems it may be justified in calling them failures...same goes for if there is little to no forward momentum on programs that have been put in place to try to forward said programs.

But it is usually too early to jump to the conclusion.

If past experiences in the lack of movement project that it will fail the argument has merit. If projections are off on multiple programs both short and long term or that there is a widespread problem with the projections the argument has merit.

Doesn't make it right, just justified.

__________________
"As long as we have Belichick, I always think that we're going to be just fine."...Tom Brady, in reference to his coach.

“It is what it is, but it ain’t what you think.”...Brandon Spikes

mcgraw_wv

HE'S A MUSLIM!

Just thought I would save you the effort Harry... You may now actually answer the question with real thought since I took care of the name calling and obligatory remarks for you