The ideologue vs. the empiricist

1. 61

   A.Villarasaposted 12 years ago

   Dr. Benjamin Carson, a noted Pediatric Neurosurgeon and Chief of his department at John Hopkins Hospital, when interviewed by Wall Street Journal,  offered a stunning and pointed counter-argument against what he termed as Obama's  rabid  ideological bent in running the country from the White House. He posited that the Presidency is a position not meant to be handled via ideological propensities because they tend to be counterintuitive and counterproductive.
   
   He further indicated that the presidency would best be served by someone whose background involves and invokes data/result driven precepts, much like a empiricist  would approach a scientific conundrum.
   
   The 2016 presidential election beckons, and I think if Dr. Carson is serious enough, he could in fact be elected as the Empiricist-In-Chief.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Cock of the Walkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This may be a little off point. I guess you have never heard of Andrew Jackson or Ronald Raygun, the best actor to ever play president. He took a bow when the wall came down. Very convincing, but the cold war is not over.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @C of the W
         
         I could say with some certainty that I know a lot more about American history than most Americans know about it...(blame it on the American Jesuits that ran the High School I went to way back in the Philippines, who insisted that  we, little brown boys, should learn American history). So yes I know something about A. Jackson and R. Reagan.
         Yes your post was off point... it was not even tangential. But perhaps you can tell me what you were trying to impart with that poster of Chairman Mao Zedong.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Unless the Republicans get a new breath of life in their old tired platform my bet is on Hillary to be the next president.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @rhamson:
         
         Wishful thinking on your part. Hilary is forever tainted by the disaster that was Benghazi. I don't think she will recover from  the statements she made during the Senate hearing on the role of her State Department.
         
         She was obviously treated with kid-gloves by her fellow Democrats on that Senate panel; but when pressed by some of the Republicans she lost her "cool" and made some rather bizzare statements in response.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         bBereanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         4 more years on the current path, when the full nightmare that is Obamacare is realized and people get tired of all the tax increases they were promised they would never have to pay, they will be looking for any relief they can get.  Carson is not GOP...yet, and has different ideas, so he may be an attractive candidate.  Still, even the "same old platform" might look good to the moderates by 2016, (if they can still afford the gas to get to the polling booth).  In terms of actual votes, Obama didn't win by much.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @bBerean:
            
            I watched his interview both with the WSJ and Hannity on Fox News and I was mightily impressed with the very humble mien he presented himself to both the interviewers and to the studio audience who  asked him a lot of piercing questions about his ideas on governing and governance. His answers were direct to the point, as contrasted to  Obama's typically meandering ripostes  that goes on and on and on and on.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               bBereanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Dr. Benjamin Carson is refreshing.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  @bBerean:
                  
                  Refreshing because he is not a politician of the kind that we are used to seeing in Washington and in various State capitals all over the country. Refreshing because he is not and won't be a career politician, whose only major agenda is to perpetuate himself in elected office. Refreshing because his ideas are not tainted by ideology.

                  replyreport
2. 65

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Obama has shown evidence of being quite familiar with the scientific methods, and has employed well-qualified people from empirical fields including biomedical research and economics.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Psycheskinner:
      
      He might have "employed" people from as you termed "empirical fields", but at the end of the day, he has shown again and again quite a propensity for ignoring their advice and following his  rabid ideological bent.
      
      BTW whatever happened to those "czars" of his?

      replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Empiricism and Politics. Now there is a paradox.
   
   The (U.S._TV_series) part of the url would not register. Have to copy to
   address window if interested. It's good.
   "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)"

   replyreport