on treating politics as a game

[jrtom]

snagged from filkertom's other blog: Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo on the dangers of political strategizing.

Today we hear Democrats asking whether they should take a hard line on Social Security or a soft line, stand in opposition or come up with a contending plan. Here's what I propose whenever Democrats have a question about just what stance to take on the Social Security debate.

One question ...

What is the actual policy outcome that would be most preferable on Social Security (to protect, preserve or augment it -- whatever) and how important is it that it take place in this Congress?

Comments

Re: Harried thoughts in the morning

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Just a brief response: you're right in that some of these aren't so much policies as they are goals. However, I'm not sure that policies are generally either/or so much as they are priorities, in practice. (Politicians may not be pro-dirty-air, but they may prioritize clean air considerably less than, say, happy energy companies.)

I think that the question of what oughtta be done about marriage and its associated rights constellation may be as thorny as the question we tackled a few months back about national service. Worth pursuing, but I'm not sure that the best answer is an easy one.