Support NeoGAF

[collige]

From the title, I expected policy arguments. Instead, I got a biography and a half-baked non-defense of her foreign policy.

 

[captive]

From the title, I expected policy arguments. Instead, I got a biography and a half-baked non-defense of her foreign policy.

yea, you're right, article sucks. Close the thread mods, we'll go back to explaining why she shouldn't be in jail instead.

 

[Father_Brain]

I don't exactly see it as wrong. There is no way to shake the fact that Hillary Clinton is one of the most sharply educated woman on the planet in terms of politics.

You can disagree with any given doctor's diagnosis, and he might even be incorrect, but you still defer to doctors on the assumption that they are more educated than you with medicine because that's what their job is supposed to be, to be more educated than you on medical matters.

Granted, a doctor's job is far easier in many ways. Identify disease and subscribe the best proven cure. It's based in fact and science. A politicians job is one that is far, far less clear in what the solutions are because it is an ever changing system of people rather than physics. As a result, there is only so far even the best expert can see.

But the premise of the idea that one who is more educated and experienced is going to have more perspective on any given subject than a relative layman, even one that does his research, is not wrong and the fundamental reason we have experts in anything. So we can defer to them, even in the presence of our own well reasoned opinions. So yeah, it's not outrageous to point out that realistically speaking, Hillary probably has a better idea on what to do than most.

Nothing says "leftist" like blind deference to the assumed wisdom of an authority figure.

 

[Nafai1123]

From the title, I expected policy arguments. Instead, I got a biography and a half-baked non-defense of her foreign policy.

Just go here if you want policy.

 

[213372bu]

From the title, I expected policy arguments. Instead, I got a biography and a half-baked non-defense of her foreign policy.

Yeah, and the article was specifically addressed to people who were already voting for her anyways. It isn't even meant to swing over thrid-party voters, just to present non-arguments to people... so that they feel better about voting for her?

This wasn't well-written and meant for too specific of an audience that ultimately is already voting for that candidate. Weird.
--

yea, you're right, article sucks. Close the thread mods, we'll go back to explaining why she shouldn't be in jail instead.

Didn't you create this thread because you genuinely thought it was interesting despite not initially preferring her? Why are you getting so defensive and attacking/putting words in the mouths of people you shared this with?

He just thought the article wasn't effective

 

[Veelk]

She's certainly got a lot of skill as a politician. I don't think anything about politicians really makes them intellectuals though.

I'm speaking of expertise rather than academic intellectualism, but Hillary has both.

Are doctors and politicians really similar enough for this metaphor to work? I think the matter of interests makes them quite distinct.

The point I'm making is that the purpose of expertise in our society is so we don't have to study every subject imaginable to make effective arguments. It applies to doctors, politicians, chefs....if you know a professional dog walker, they will walk your dog better than you would. They know the right way to pace the dog according to their breed, size, fitness, they know where the best and most enjoyable routes are to take a dog around town, etc. The point is the same regardless of profession.

In the case of Hillary, as the article points out, she has a lifetime of pragmatism that helps achieve positive ends to the world and has a keen understanding of both policies and political systems. It's utterly fair to say she is an expert in her field.

I think people should cautiously respect expert communities. A single politician is not an expert community though.

That being said Hilary obviously respects the relevant expert communities more than Trump who essentially is running as an anti-intellectual.

Well, then you seem to agree with my basic premise that it is experts that should be deferred to. And Hillary does defer to expert communities. That's where she gets her advisors from. The making of a decision is up to her, so whatever happens she bears the responsibility, the point of the statement being made in the article is that she always thinks these things through with the full breathe of her knowledge an experience AND a team of advisors offering their knowledge and experience.

The basic sentiment of the quoted piece of the article is that everyone has a right to disagree with her, especially if it's well reasoned disagreement. But mere disagreement doesn't mean that you have to think Hillary doesn't have very good reasons to have made the decision she made. She's an expert working with experts to try and make the best decision possible. There is no reason to think she can't make a good case for most decisions she makes.

Nothing says "leftist" like blind deference to the assumed wisdom of an authority figure.

I do like my arguments from authority fallacy, but I see you fancy the strawman approach.

Read the actual article/my post. I'm not saying to abandon self reasoning. But it's not irrational to assume that someone educated and with intimate experience with various political systems around the world with a history of accomplishments in these areas probably has some idea of what she's doing and it's atleast worth working under the assumption that whatever decision she makes is one that a strong argument can be made for. Not that you have to assume it's correct, not that you have to agree with it....just that it was made with a lot of smart minds working at it.

 

[D.Lo]

The article is an entirely unconvincing argument. It's a limp love letter from a fully-bought-in supporter.

I've read much much better arguments on why she's good/not as bad as many claim. Clinton herself has made much better arguments.

From the title, I expected policy arguments. Instead, I got a biography and a half-baked non-defense of her foreign policy.

Yep.

 

[Father_Brain]

The article is an entirely unconvincing argument. It's a limp love letter from a fully-bought-in supporter.

I've read much much better arguments on why she's good/not as bad as many claim. Clinton herself has made much better arguments.

Yep.

Indeed. If you want to engage in YAS KWEEN SLAY BAE KHALEESI diva worship, fine, but please don't pretend there's anything leftist about it.

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm speaking of expertise rather than academic intellectualism, but Hillary has both.

I mean Hillary just isn't an academic intellectual though.

The point I'm making is that the purpose of expertise in our society is so we don't have to study every subject imaginable to make effective arguments. It applies to doctors, politicians, chefs....if you know a professional dog walker, they will walk your dog better than you would. They know the right way to pace the dog according to their breed, size, fitness, they know where the best and most enjoyable routes are to take a dog around town, etc. The point is the same regardless of profession.

In the case of Hillary, as the article points out, she has a lifetime of pragmatism that helps achieve positive ends to the world and has a keen understanding of both policies and political systems. It's utterly fair to say she is an expert in matters we don't know.

I think you are correct about the reason for the existence of expert communities, I just don't think that politicians really constitute expert community, most obviously because they don't pick the members of that community or operate based on shared assumptions.

Well, then you seem to agree with my basic premise that it is experts that should be deferred to. And Hillary does defer to expert communities. That's where she gets her advisors from. The making of a decision is up to her, so whatever happens she bears the responsibility, the point of the statement being made in the article is that she always thinks these things through with the full breathe of her knowledge an experience AND a team of advisors offering their knowledge and experience.

The basic sentiment of the quoted piece of the article is that everyone has a right to disagree with her, especially if it's well reasoned disagreement. But mere disagreement doesn't mean that you have to think Hillary doesn't have very good reasons to have made the decision she made. She's an expert working with experts to try and make the best decision possible. There is no reason to think she can't make a good case for most decisions she makes.

I do agree with the fairly bog standard interpretation of expert communities. And Hillary certainly does defer to them to some extent, though I think you're overplaying it by suggesting she always does. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that she's an expert in the anthropological and historical meaning of the word. I also disagree with the idea that there is a best decision. Best for who and why?

I do like my arguments from authority fallacy, but I see you fancy the strawman approach.

I mean don't worry about the argument from authority. We live in the real world, where we need to rely on expert communities. We have systems in place to make their existance meaningful and productive to some degree. Truth in the platonic sense is both unavailable to us and irrelevant.

But I fail to see how I used a strawman, and I think that's a rather unfair accusation as I'm engaging in the thread in good faith.

Read the actual article/my post. I'm not saying to abandon self reasoning. But it's not irrational to assume that someone educated and with intimate experience with various political systems around the world with a history of accomplishments in these areas probably has some idea of what she's doing and it's atleast worth working under the assumption that whatever decision she makes is one that a strong argument can be made for.

Again you're missing the key element of interest. I don't think too many people are calling Clinton incompetent. I don't think anyone is accusing of her of making decisions willy nilly. It's the idea that her understanding of best is quite possibly different from others.


Anyway I forgot my promise to myself not to talk politics on GAF anymore. The last time I did a guy stalked me on twitter forcing me to delete my account.

 

[Veelk]

I mean Hillary just isn't an academic intellectual though.

I think you are correct about the reason for the existence of expert communities, I just don't think that politicians really constitute expert community, most obviously because they don't pick the members of that community or operate based on shared assumptions.

I do agree with the fairly bog standard interpretation of expert communities. And Hillary certainly does defer to them to some extent, though I think you're overplaying it by suggesting she always does. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that she's an expert in the anthropological and historical meaning of the word. I also disagree with the idea that there is a best decision. Best for who and why?

In regards to politics not being a home exclusively for experts, I don't disagree. After all, there is a reason that Trump is able to run for the office of president. He's one of the least educated and experienced people for the job possible. Our system runs on the votes of the people, and that means factors that are outside of what should be qualifying for a candidate, such as charisma, come into play.

But Hillary has a track record that validates her expertise. She prepares and educates herself on the minutae of policies - and when I refer to academic intelligence, that's what I mean- and has worked in this field for several years so she understands not just the written rules but the unwritten ones. That's more or less how I define the word expert and she definitely qualifies. That's why I feel it's not unreasonable to not work under the assumption that her political decsions are atleast well reasoned ones.

Now, to answer your question, working toward whose best solutions, I would say it's toward the values she wants to enact. I mean, from her voting record and the policies she helped enact, we can see what her ultimate end goals are and I feel their mostly positive. You can disagree with her values, in which case, perhaps she's not the right candidate for you. And even if you do agree, I will not deny that she has made mistakes. Again, I feel she is an expert, not that she's infallible. But she is running on the farthest left platform she can and has a history of doing so, which leads me to believes she genuinely does want to accomplish the things she says she does. Oh she'll get her hands dirty and as a result have to at times work against the pure idealogy of those values, but those are necessary sacrifices to accomplish something greater. I don't view this as hypocritical, it's just pragmatic. Idealogical purity doesn't have staying power in a democracy, or else Bernie would have passed more legislation and accomplished more than she did in his years in office. So when I mean best solution, I refer to best possible end for those values.

I mean don't worry about the argument from authority. We live in the real world, where we need to rely on expert communities. We have systems in place to make their existance meaningful and productive to some degree. Truth in the platonic sense is both unavailable to us and irrelevant.

But I fail to see how I used a strawman, and I think that's a rather unfair accusation as I'm engaging in the thread in good faith.

Well,...I wasn't quoting you there. Didn't you see that you didn't write the post that I was responding to in that section of my reply? The quote was from Father_Brain

 

[darkace]

Clinton's the furthest left serious candidate since 1968. How this is even up for debate is beyond me.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't vote for capitalists unless it's necessary. I live in New Jersey, therefore, it is not necessary.

 

[Cocaloch]

But Hillary has a track record that validates her expertise. She prepares and educates herself on the minutae of policies - and when I refer to academic intelligence, that's what I mean- and has worked in this field for several years so she understands not just the written rules but the unwritten ones. That's more or less how I define the word expert and she definitely qualifies. That's why I feel it's not unreasonable to not work under the assumption that her political decsions are atleast well reasoned ones.

Well that's a way to define expert, but I feel like it's too loose to have much analytical value. To be clear I think you make a much better argument in suggesting that she is more likely to defer to experts (or for me expert communities).

Now, to answer your question, working toward whose best solutions, I would say it's toward the values she wants to enact. I mean, from her voting record and the policies she helped enact, we can see what her ultimate end goals are and I feel their mostly positive. You can disagree with her values, in which case, perhaps she's not the right candidate for you. And even if you do, I will not deny that she has made mistakes. Again, I feel she is an expert, not infallible. But she is running on the farthest left platform she can and has a history of doing so, which leads me to believes she genuinely does want to accomplish the things she says she does. So when I mean best solution, I refer to best possible end for those values.

Fair enough. I understand where you are coming from on that front. I was just pointing out there is not "best" in a vacuum, and as a result a lot of the reasonable arguments, so not the emails or my good personal friend Benjamin Gahzi, against her aren't resolved by pointing out her skill and experience. After all she lost to Obama.

Well,...I wasn't quoting you there. Didn't you see that you didn't write the post that I was responding to in that section of my reply? The quote was from Father_Brain

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that. I saw most of your comments were in response to my post so I read the rest while quoting your post. That's on me.

 

[sphagnum]

I think we need to make a distinction here between 'leftist', which almost universally implies socialist, and progressive, which is a label that can be used across the spectrum.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Pretty much every single DNC nominee from FDR to Mondale was more "left" than Hillary.

Liberals really have no right to call conservatives disjointed from reality if this is the kind of rubbish we're spewing

 

[Cocaloch]

I think we need to make a distinction here between 'leftist', which almost universally implies socialist, and progressive, which is a label that can be used across the spectrum.

As ever this is the root issue that leads to semantic problems in a lot of discussions about American politics involving people from elsewhere or academics.

 

[Abstrusity]

Yes but her deleted emails show that she bragged in her wall street speeches about having Sidney Blumenthal personally assassinate Benjamin Ghazi, and we know that she was a Goldwater Girl only a few years ago! Wake up, sheeple!

Seriously, though. If you are a liberal, or a democrat, and you aren't voting for Hillary, you're probably not either, you're an unwitting pawn in a media circus that is older than you are.

 

[Veelk]

Well that's a way to define expert, but I feel like it's too loose to have much analytical value. To be clear I think you make a much better argument in suggesting that she is more likely to defer to experts (or for me expert communities).

Well, the unfortunate thing about political science is that it's a soft science and one of the softest at that. Any people oriented fields will be. We're complex, dynamic systems for which there are few, if any, universal and unchanging laws. As a result, the solution is even less easily identifiable than in other places. In some ways, perhaps that can suggest there is less of a gap between the active politician and the layman than in a case of something more objective, like medicine. But I feel an argument can be just as easily made for the opposite being true, since the people in such situations will have an ability to read the unwritten arrangements and rules that laymen can't, no matter how much they read up on the facts of the situation. And the fact is there is no real way to model a situation, whether in words or images, that ever exactly matches the reality. So it's tough for me not to view Hillary as an expert, whose studied and participated in seemingly all dimensions of politics for decades. I don't have to agree with everything she does to acknowledge she is drawing from a greater wealth of knowledge and experience than I could have if I did nothing but study politics for the next 10 years.

As for Hillary's expert communities, given that these decisions are made in private, how are you certain when she chooses to take advice and when to trust in her own judgement? I feel you're making the underlying argument that Hillary would be better served listening to her advisors more and I have to wonder how do you know she doesn't?

Fair enough. I understand where you are coming from on that front. I was just pointing out there is not "best" in a vacuum, and as a result a lot of the reasonable arguments, so not the emails or my good personal friend Benjamin Gahzi, against her aren't resolved by pointing out her skill and experience. After all she lost to Obama.

I never argued she was a perfect candidate. Neither was Obama. I do think their both experts in their field though and out to achieve positive ends based on the values they exposed and have implemented in their history as politicians. To the end of being president, isn't that the basic metric you want to to measure any presidential candidate by?

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that. I saw most of your comments were in response to my post so I read the rest while quoting your post. That's on me.

No prob, I probably should have included his name in the quote.

 

[cryptosporidium]

She longs for liberal market capitalism, a world bound by free trade, laissez faire attitude on business, and interdependincies between nations. This is centrist if not center right for regards to how much regulation she wishes to have on the market. Id also like to point out that she is well educated having a BA in Poli Sci and a doctor of law.

Attaching social values to an economic spectrum is silly, its best to view it to the degree to which government owns the means of production. From socialism to anarchism (where there is no government force or even a social contract to begin with). things like fascism for example have no place on the spectrum and should only be used to describe hyper nationalist / chauvinistic nations. This is not the general consensus on the spectrum but its the one I follow and by Ganeesh I will have others follow to.

 

[gogosox82]

Hillary Clinton is the most far-left major party candidate this country has ever seen. Not sure what other argument any reasonable person needs.

Are you really arguing that Clinton is farther to left than FDR and Mondale? I get it, you like Clinton, but come one dude, I'm not sure she's more liberal than Obama.

 

[Cocaloch]

Well, the unfortunate thing about political science is that it's a soft science and one of the softest at that. Any people oriented fields will be. We're complex, dynamic systems for which there are few, if any, universal and unchanging laws. As a result, the solution is even less easily identifiable than in other places. In some ways, perhaps that can suggest there is less of a gap between the active politician and the layman than in a case of something more objective, like medicine. But I feel an argument can be just as easily made for the opposite being true, since the people in such situations will have an ability to read the unwritten arrangements and rules that laymen can't, no matter how much they read up on the facts of the situation. And the fact is there is no real way to model a situation, whether in words or images, that ever exactly matches the reality. So it's tough for me not to view Hillary as an expert, whose studied and participated in seemingly all dimensions of politics for decades. I don't have to agree with everything she does to acknowledge she is drawing from a greater wealth of knowledge and experience than I could have if I did nothing but study politics for the next 10 years.

I mean this is essentially just a semantic issue over what constitutes expert/expert community. Neither of us is more right than the other, but I think my definition is probably more useful generally to the study of expert communities and their relations to society. (I'm drawing on Latour and Shapin in particular here)

As for Hillary's expert communities, given that these decisions are made in private, how are you certain when she chooses to take advice and when to trust in her own judgement? I feel you're making the underlying argument that Hillary would be better served listening to her advisors more and I have to wonder how do you know she doesn't?

I'm not making much of a value judgement here, as I'm more interested in why people like candidates than politics itself, but I think it's fairly clear that conflicts of interest would make Hilary in certain situations ignore expert communities (which are not necessarily well represented by advisers). This isn't a huge issue in kind, after all in affects all politicians, but instead degree. That's a pretty sticky discussion that I don't have interest in exploring personally.

I never argued she was a perfect candidate. Neither was Obama. I do think their both experts in their field though and out to achieve positive ends based on the values they exposed and have implemented in their history as politicians.

I didn't think you had. I was just pointing out why people think what they think, and why I didn't think your counter to that would be particularly effective. I'm also not sure it's according to the values they espoused publicly or really if that matters very much.

To the end of being president, isn't that the basic metric you want to to measure any presidential candidate by?

You've hit on probably the most important question here. I don't have an answer, and I'm not confident there is one.

 

[Xe4]

She longs for liberal market capitalism, a world bound by free trade, laissez faire attitude on business, and interdependincies between nations. This is centrist if not center right for regards to how much regulation she wishes to have on the market. Id also like to point out that she is well educated having a BA in Poli Sci and a doctor of law.

Attaching social values to an economic spectrum is silly, its best to view it to the degree to which government owns the means of production. From socialism to anarchism (where there is no government force or even a social contract to begin with). things like fascism for example have no place on the spectrum and should only be used to describe hyper nationalist / chauvinistic nations. This is not the general consensus on the spectrum but its the one I follow and by Ganeesh I will have others follow to.

I don't think you understand what Liessez-Faire is, because Clinton certainly does not have that mindset.

And yes, she beleives in free trade, is a globalist, and a capaltilist, as is every other politician in amarica, and largely around the worls. There's a reason for this: both ecobomic globalism and capaltilism have been huge net positives to the world economy, an there is no other system that had been shown to work.

Shit, even countries such as Norway and Denmark beleive in well regulated free markets. I fail to see how that makes Clinton "Center Right". Despite how you would like it, far right politics very much have a place on our political spectrum, and that must be taken into account when discussing someone's political leanings.

 

[Abinash117]

Are you really arguing that Clinton is farther to left than FDR and Mondale? I get it, you like Clinton, but come one dude, I'm not sure she's more liberal than Obama.

There has been some evidence on that. It just that many focus more on her economic policies when it comes to trade and what some think she might do when it comes to foreign policy.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

Check some of the links in the article.

Ontheissues consider her a "Hardcore Liberal". Although their scale may not be great, but what is important is what she supported over the years.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

I say check through the information to understand. Also depending on which issue you care most about, a case can be made that she will most likely advance your agenda than Trump, albeit may not be has far as you would want. It is a reality of American politics and generally, we may, in a long time, ever get a really far-left candidate that will win.

 

[Cocaloch]

Shit, even countries such as Norway and Denmark beleive in well regulated free markets. I fail to see how that makes Clinton "Center Right". Despite how you would like it, far right politics very much have a place on our political spectrum, and that must be taken into account when discussing someone's political leanings.

The obvious answer is that the Norwegian and Danish political spheres are centrist and Hilary is clearly to their right.

Also this

There's a reason for this: both ecobomic globalism and capaltilism have been huge net positives to the world economy, an there is no other system that had been shown to work..

is an extremely simplistic and power-blind argument.

There are alternatives to liberalism. Like say the Social Democracy of Norway and Denmark.

 

[cryptosporidium]

I don't think you understand what Liessez-Faire is, because Clinton certainly does not have that mindset.

And yes, she beleives in free trade, is a globalist, and a capaltilist, as is every other politician in amarica, and largely around the worls. There's a reason for this: both ecobomic globalism and capaltilism have been huge net positives to the world economy, an there is no other system that had been shown to work.

Shit, even countries such as Norway and Denmark beleive in well regulated free markets. I fail to see how that makes Clinton "Center Right". Despite how you would like it, far right politics very much have a place on our political spectrum, and that must be taken into account when discussing someone's political leanings.

My point on her laissez faire attitude came from those wikileaks leaks, though those may not be the best source. She had said essentially that the market sorts itself out when commenting on wall street as I recall which is why I made the point that she doesnt wish to regulate the market to a to the extent that I would. If you have evidence to the contrary of the information I gathered from wikileaks I'll glady take that back.

I will agree that the world economy has improved thanks in part to globalism but I cannot say I am not swayed by things like world systems theory. I am skeptical of many things globalism sets out to achieve and if those things will in the end be for the best.

On another point, though I myself am a democratic socialist I do very much respect parts of conservatism if you were assuming I didnt. Canada has (had) a proud tradition of high toryism based in part to burke and canadian philosopher George Grant. conservatism, libertarianism, and anarchism are all parts of what I think of as right of center.

 

[Cocaloch]

I will agree that the world economy has improved thanks in part to globalism but I cannot say I am not swayed by things like world systems theory. I am skeptical of many things globalism sets out to achieve and if those things will in the end be for the best.

World systems theory is critical of globalism. That's kind of the entire point.

 

[cryptosporidium]

World systems theory is critical of globalism.

I know, I have yet to come to my own decision on whether I personally find globalism is best for the world. I take things such as that theory as a way to come to the best decision. I can see how I wasnt clear, sorry

 

[Cocaloch]

I know, I have yet to come to my own decision on whether I personally find globalism is best for the world. I take things such as that theory as a way to come to the best decision. I can see how I wasnt clear, sorry

You can question globalism without agreeing with Wallerstein. He runs into so pretty obvious historical problems.

I do the former without the latter.

 

[sphagnum]

I know, I have yet to come to my own decision on whether I personally find globalism is best for the world. I take things such as that theory as a way to come to the best decision. I can see how I wasnt clear, sorry

"Globalism" is the goal of socialism. Only with the proletariat in charge.

 

[JavyOO7]

I voted for her because there is a decent chance we can get a left leaning SC for a while.

And I'm in a battleground state, where every vote counts. So it's her or Trump... It could be her or any other GOP person.. it's still her. GOP politics, socially, is decades behind America so the choice is easy for me on who to elect.

But the truly massive change that I wish Hilary would do? I don't see it happening. I guess I have been watching too much TYT YouTube lately, let's just say that.

 

[Tall4Life]

I agree with her on most issues, I just hope she doesn't start a war. Already voted her so it doesn't really matter.