From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:56:40 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:

| It is interesting that you criticize Perot for making "no actual suggestions"
| but then conclude that "the things he talks about have no clear solutions 
| but tyrranical application of government."  Interestingly, the Liberterians 
| seem to feel that solutions at the things he talks about are possible without 
| the "tyrranical application of government."

The libertarians believe the solution is to place a firm dividing line
between the government and the economy--to undo the political capitalism
instituted during the Progressive Era.  Perot seems to understand that this
is a problem, but I've not heard him suggest removal of fingers of politics
from the economy.  He seems to suggest _more_ government involvement to
straighten out the mismanaged companies.

| I think Perot is suggesting a process for dealing with this countries problems.
| (I don't think that implies that the only solution to those problems are 
| the tyrranical application of government.)  I think it shows that Perot is 
| used to having to persuade people, as opposed to dictating solutions.  Perot
| could not, and did not, run EDS as a dictatorship.  I know that he realizes
| that the country cannot be run as a dictatorship.

While the story of Perot at GM shows his integrity and his strength, I
wonder what it says about his powers of persuasion.  It seems he wouldn't
deal well with a situation he was not in control of (like the executive vs.
the Congress).

| > It scares me that this suddenly gives you a one-voiced media, with that
| > voice being the government.  Imagine a nation where the _USA Today_ was
| > not only the paper-of-record, but was the primary source of news and
| > political opinion for the populace.

| I don't think Perot is suggesting that the government become a "one-voiced 
| media"

"We've got to have, using television, an electronic town hall where we
explain each of these issues we're talking about today in great detail
to you, and with the current technology we have today, you can respond
by congressional district and send a laser-like signal to every
congressman in Washington about what you want as a way of clearing
their heads." -- Perot at NPC

I don't accuse Perot of illegalizing free media, but going on TV and
"explaining" a problem that economists and political scientists never
form a consensus on is not a very healthy way to form public opinion.

| > | -----
| > | I make no bones about it, and I think I speak for most everybody here.  I
| > | love this country, and I love the people in this country.  And I love the
| > | principles this country was founded on, and I am sick and tired of seeing 
| > | these principles violated. 
| > | -----
| > 
| > |  ...doesn't sound like a man who is going to plow over people's rights.
| > 
| > You call this "staunch support of our Constitution?"  This is the same
| > vague crap that Bush uses all the time!

| One of the problems that Perot talks about is trying to fix complex
| answers into little soundbites.  I suggest this is one example.

The is an exerpt from an hour-long speech.  It is not a soundbite.

Besides, he did not say Constitution.  He did not say rights.  The purpose
of the framers was to have the former to protect the latter.  He talks
about loving this country and it's people, and loving the principles it
was founded on.  He's smuggling himself in on fuzzy patriotism, without
actually describing the principles he's claiming to favor.  Given the
current government and electorate's views on individual rights, I seriously
question his understanding of the Framers' principles.

| > | .............

| > And....  what would he do about it?

| Use the engineering process to find a solution.

In constructing an automobile from concept to production, the engineering
process takes 5-7 years.  An automobile just sits there.  It follows well-
known physical laws.  It doesn't need food.  It doesn't want a VCR.  All
it needs is to be designed and engineered for an greater purpose (the
transport, safety, and comfort of a human being).

Perot proposes to apply, in a four year presidential term, engineering
principles on society?  A society which may or may not follow physical
laws, which are disputed.  A society consisting of a quarter billion
individuals who have needs, who have desires.  And to what standard
would such engineering be aimed?

| As far as MITI, I can see your concern over government involvement.  What
| isn't in this soundbite is that he wants to relax/eliminate anti-trust 
| regulations to allow US companies to work together to competes better against
| foreign competition. (A direction I think you'd agree with).

Well, I agree with it _if the government's hands are out of the economy_.
Teddy "Trustbuster" Roosevelt had a similar principle.  There were "good
trusts" and "bad trusts".  The bad trusts were what the Sherman Act was
used for.  The good trusts, on the other hand, could be dealt with by
personal detente through the Bureau of Corporations.  Back then it was
pretty much up to Mr. Roosevelt what companies and industries were
favored and what weren't.  Yuck.

| Are you suggesting that there is no solution to crime in the streets without
| abolishing the 2nd ammendment?  The NRA and Libertarians believe that crime
| in the streets can be sustantially reduced without "incredible infringements 
| on the people's right to own weapons."

But the NRA and libertarians don't use rhetoric like his.  "...because
he's bored..."?  Given this motive for crime, there are only two solutions:
make people not bored or (try to) take away their arms.  I think he'd go
for the latter, the way he says, "you can't worry about all these powerful
lobbies.  You've got to figure out what is good for the owners of the
country and do it."

It is the pointless rhetoric with no solutions that bothers me most about
Perot.

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc