Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
What I am saying is:
1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
|
1) It's the only sample that we have. Post WW2 we see the plastic revolution, computers, television, etc etc. For so many reasons, the rest of history isn't even entirely relevant to the current situation, because life and the economy have both evolved tremendously, changing the dynamics of cash-flow forever.
2) Going back to your "chances of positive or negative events" argument, I can only state that given how many extenuating factors exist, the only thing that we can do, unless we can achieve full transparency from our government and our corporations, is assume that over time, the net effect of positive and negative factors upon the performance of the Presidency, has been roughly equal.
3) There is no "choice" of an ending date for the study, and it is not arbitrary. That year was chosen for one simple reason, it is the first year that all relevant factors was tracked by the Economic Report to the President. And as I postulated before, it's all that really matters to the here and now. 70 years ago for example, our economy was balanced around the concept of single income families. It was considered generally disreputable for a married woman to be working in America, rather than taking care of her children. The advent of so many of our modern trappings, and the rapid rise in apparent cost of living, has transformed our economy in ways that make historical dynamics inapplicable to the present state of the nation (and the world), thus invalidating data culled from another era. Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Quote:
|
Since we have a very broken 2 party system..
|
For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less. |
Certainly not as intended. The type of conflict in Washington that was originally intended, has all but faded away. Our elected officials are no longer elected based upon their ability to debate, their ability to innovate, or their ability to help our government evolve. Our Federal Government was intended to change and grow over time, to meet the changing needs of the nation, and her people. But as politicians perfected spin, and their ability to manipulate people into voting for charisma, rather than for integrity and courage - as the focus was taken away from serious national concerns, and placed upon petty social issues - we failed ourselves, and our government failed us.
Both parties have failed us. Just, the Republican party has managed to fail us just a bit more.