The Centrice, Moderates, and Independents Are Un-Informed On Core Political Party Positions.MEO L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong/MEO" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.
WANTED… A WRITER FOR A BOOK ON MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY
The Results…. When Two Parties Won’t Change Their Core Values! Such As The Democrats, And The Republicans.
This Paradigm Was Written About In The Late 1800’s
Quote, …“In the classic simile, becoming identified with a political party is like being born into a religion: a loyalty acquired early in life; indeed, handed down from parent to child, and maintained, more often than not, through life; a loyalty which imparts a sense of identity and supplies an integrated set of basic principles and action proposals (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, 1954; Campbell, et. al, 1960).”
Was then Senator Obama elected because the country wanted change? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was the first black? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because the white man had a guilt ridden conscious because of the US.history about racism? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of then President Bush’s failed policies? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was a Liberal? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his opposition to the war in Iraq? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his green policies? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of global warming? No!1
Was then Senator Obama elected because of Rev. Wright’s races statements? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because many were against Hilary Clinton? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his answers, and or, proposals to the current economic US. situation? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was a Democrat? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of the Kennedy’s endorsements? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of torture? No!
I was doing some checking on a related topic, and found some interesting information, that I thought some might like to read in part.
There are several sources included here, in as much, that I have found each article interesting and informative. I have taken the liberty to cut, the majority of the text out, and in so doing, it wasn’t my desire or intent, to change the meaning of these well written articles.
Furthermore, it’s my understanding of the articles that I have read, so, in that, it’s my “opinion” of these articles, that I want to express, the message, and article truth’s, that they have conveyed to me.
Why did the current President win the election?
There seems to be a very simple explanation for it, In brief, at looking at the articles below, one can see the political logic used in the final analyzes of the 2008 Presidential Campaign Drive.
The article is stating that when two opposite are equal, and neither, is going to change their positions.
The median -the center, the moderate, the independent- voters comes into play, even though, the center, the moderates, and independents are unaware of either parties core reasoning’s, for the cen-trice, the moderates, and the independent are looking at another set of circumstances, that plays a leading role in their voting decisions.
They are thinking, quote, "how much government intervention in the economy there should be ‘FOR ME’," and how the parties will control this, that is, that for me.
Another quote from below implies, …“We conclude, that the constraints of the median(centrice, moderates, and independents) voter are less stringent than they have been supposed and that partisan elites, have more freedom of maneuver than has been appreciated…
In other words, the candidates has to speak the party line when with the party, but, when speaking to the uninformed, centrice are moderates, and independents. He or she speaks, to the desires of what’s in it for them, for the centrice, for the moderate, and for the independent.
Those in the middle, aren’t interested in either parties platform, neither their core beliefs, but what they can get out of it, for themselves and theirs.
Again, What I take away from this quote is that, the candidate, is in lock and step, with the true partisans of the party, and their issues at hand. However, the candidates can manipulate the centrice, those in in the center, those of the center, who are ill informed, of either parties core positions.
Why? because the center, the moderates are less informed, than the party regulars, and thus, are looking at other issues as their deciding factor, as to who to vote for.
The Republican, or the Democrat party’s candidates, can manipulate the center, the moderates, who are uninformed.
The candidates new, or proposed governmental policies involvement into their lives. if elected, and to how it will alter policies of the future, is basically unknown, are isn’t of concern to the moderates, independents, or those of the center.
The center, these moderates, are uninformed of the further consequences, of what either party is proposing, in regards to their immediate situations.
The centrice, and moderates, are looking to how to fulfill their needs, and how much government, should be used to supply their wants, needs, and desires.
The promise of either candidate, to fulfill, all of one’s need, speaks to the centrice, the moderates and it is all that is necessary to gain their vote.
This theorem is well known and practiced, yet, the constant continues, of a “no change of either party positions,” and then, with them going to the center, telling the moderates or median voters all that is good to theirs ears, and for their desire’s to be fulfilled.
Downsian Axis (google)
In his seminal work An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Downs introduced a left-right axis to economic theory. He placed socialists and communists on the ‘left’, Christian democrats, social democrats and liberals in the ‘center’, and conservatives and fascists on the ‘right’, where ‘communism’ allows 0% private ownership, and ‘fascism’ 100% private ownership.
Norman…He claimed that most voters have incomplete information when voting for political candidates in a democracy, and therefore will resort to economic issues of "how much government intervention in the economy there should be" and how parties will control this.
The Political Logic of a Downsian Space*
Robert P. Van Houweling
Anthony Downs (1957) applied the concept of spatial voting to understand electoral competition between political parties.
His paradigm has become the dominant frame for the formal analysis of the strategic decisions of candidates, although what most have taken as its central implication—that candidates will converge on the median voter—is often at odds with facts….. …We find strong evidence that voters’ partisan biases distort their spatial choices…
One familiar with the American Voter might anticipate this distortion, but its magnitude is quite staggering, particularly under typical conditions.
Contrary to the American Voter, however, we also find that voters’ partisan ties appear rooted in party reputations, reputations that, in turn, place limits on the freedom of politicians to exploit the biases of their partisan supporters.
We conclude that the constraints of the median voter are less stringent than they have been supposed and that partisan elites have more freedom of maneuver than has been appreciated.
In 1957, Anthony Downs applied the concept of spatial voting to understand electoral competition between political parties. Within a decade, Downs’ and the “Michigan” approach were on equal footing when it came to understanding people’s voting decisions. Downs’ paradigm, however, has become the dominant frame for the analysis of the strategic decisions of candidates and, hence, the electoral connection.
The decision rule for voters in a Downsian space is to choose the candidate whose position is closest to their own.
The median voter theorem, which flows from this modeling assumption combined with a uni-dimensional policy space and perfect information, has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding politics.
But it has also generated a deep puzzle.
The theorem suggests that political parties should moderate their positions in two-party systems.
Yet, in the American case at least, the positions of parties and candidates periodically polarize (Fiorina 1974; Ansolabehere, Snyder and Stewart 2001, Alesina and Rosenthal 1995, Poole and Rosenthal 1997).
Why do parties and candidates demonstrate regular, though variable, ideological divergence when, under the median voter theorem, there are always strong incentives to converge?….
The Democrats and the Republicans
The brand of the Democratic party signals a liberal program; that of the Republican, a conservative one.
To the extent that this is so, then a voter in Downsian space presented with party-denominated candidates receives two policy-related signals – the issue positions of the candidates and the brand names of the parties.
Typically, the two signals are concordant.
Candidates for different offices, at different times, and in different regions take varying positions on the ideological spectrum, but the Democrat is regularly to the left of the Republican.
But what if the signal is discordant and the Democrat is to the right of the Republican?
In atypical situations like this we anticipate that the distinctive consequences of the policy-based reputational roots of party loyalty come to the fore.
More specifically, when the positions of the candidates are roughly in concordance with expectations, more and less sophisticated respondents alike have reason to rely on party reputations rather than pure spatial reasoning.
But if candidates take positions that diminish the credibility of the signal sent by their party label, then the more politically sophisticated respondents are more likely to recognize when party labels don’t fit the candidates’ positions.
Their own attitudes are more crystallized and accessible and their positions on policies are more coherently organized (e.g, Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992). Thus, our expectation is that in cases where candidate and party signals are in discord, more sophisticated respondents will tend to attach less weight to partisan labels and more weight to the issue positions of candidates in their decisions.
They will approximate true Downsians in this unusual circumstance. Conversely, the less politically sophisticated respondents will be more likely to continue to rely on their partisan loyalties for guidance, loyalties that approximate the affective and instinctive ones described in the American Voter.
In sum, both behavioral research on partisan attachments and formal research on party reputations direct our attention to basic questions about how voters make choices that undergird models of strategic choices by candidates. …
The more general point, however, is that the dynamics of electoral competition may well prevent us from using election surveys to explore the roots of voter choice.
The second problem caused by our dependence on real world election surveys is that we cannot reliably know where individual respondents stand relative to candidates. Scholars interested in the ability of voters to make decisions based on policy considerations have long recognized a problem of endogeneity. When voters are the source of estimates of both their positions on issues and those of the candidates, it is not possible with the standard surveys to determine if one is also the source of the other, and if so, which is cause, and which effect….
….The research of Page and Brody (1972) offer one strategy for untangling these effects in an exploration of issue voting on Vietnam in the 1968 presidential election, but their findings only add reason for concern.
They analyze presidential candidates’ avowed positions on Vietnam and find the differences to be minimal.
Little surprise, therefore, attaches to their finding that the Vietnam preferences of voters had only a moderate relationship to their voting decisions, although more than half of them identified it as the most important problem for the “government in Washington.” …
The Centrice, moderates, and the independents, for the most part, Are Un-Informed On Core Political Party Positions.
Political Logic The Moderates, L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.
Global Currency MEO L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong/MEO" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.
WANTED… A WRITER FOR A BOOK ON MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY
This Article Is Shared In Part, With The Hope That The Readers Will Have Time To Read Through And To Reflect, On The Treasury Secretary Geithner Direction To A Global Currency.
Mexico, Could Be One On The Countries To Run The Global Currency’s New Bank.
MAY 2009 Global Research
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS IN FAVOR OF A GLOBAL CURRENCY!
On March 25, 2009 Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Federal Reserve,
Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”
The article continued in stating that, “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China.” Further, “The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.
It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.
Renewed Calls for a Global Currency
On March 16, 2009, Russia suggested that, “the G20 summit in London in April should start establishing a system of managing the process of globalization and consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a ‘super-reserve currency’.” Russia called for “the creation of a supra-national reserve currency that will be issued by international financial institutions,” and that, “It looks expedient to reconsider the role of the IMF in that process and also to determine the possibility and need for taking measures that would allow for the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to become a super-reserve currency recognized by the world community.”
On March 23, 2009, it was reported that China’s central bank “proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.” The goal would be for the world reserve currency that is “disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.” The chief China economist for HSBC stated that, “This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money.” The Governor of the People’s Bank of China, the central bank, “suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.” Currently, “the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organizations.”
However, “China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions. Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.”
On March 25, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Federal Reserve, spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations, when asked a question about his thoughts on the Chinese proposal for the global reserve currency, Geithner replied that, “I haven’t read the governor’s proposal. He’s a remarkably — a very thoughtful, very careful, distinguished central banker. Generally find him sensible on every issue. But as I understand his proposal, it’s a proposal designed to increase the use of the IMF’s special drawing rights. And we’re actually quite open to that suggestion. But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures, than — rather than — rather than moving us to global monetary union [Emphasis added].”
In late March, it was reported that, “A United Nations panel of economists has proposed a new global currency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system used for decades by international banks,” and that, “An independently administered reserve currency could operate without conflicts posed by the US dollar and keep commodity prices more stable.”
A recent article in the Economic Times stated that, “The world is not yet ready for an international reserve currency, but is ready to begin the process of shifting to such a currency. Otherwise, it would remain too vulnerable to the hegemonic nation,” as in, the United States. Another article in the Economic Times started by proclaiming that, “the world certainly needs an international currency.” Further, the article stated that, “With an unwillingness to accept dollars and the absence of an alternative, international payments system can go into a freeze beyond the control of monetary authorities leading the world economy into a Great Depression,” and that, “In order to avoid such a calamity, the international community should immediately revive the idea of the Substitution Account mooted in 1971, under which official holders of dollars can deposit their unwanted dollars in a special account in the IMF with the values of deposits denominated in an international currency such as the SDR of the IMF.”
Amidst fears of a falling dollar as a result of the increased open discussion of a new global currency, it was reported that, “The dollar’s role as a reserve currency won’t be threatened by a nine-fold expansion in the International Monetary Fund’s unit of account, according to UBS AG, ING Groep NV and Citigroup Inc.” This was reported following the recent G20 meeting, at which, “Group of 20 leaders yesterday gave approval for the agency to raise $250 billion by issuing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, the artificial currency that the IMF uses to settle accounts among its member nations. It also agreed to put another $500 billion into the IMF’s war chest.” In other words, the large global financial institutions came to the rhetorical rescue of the dollar, so as not to precipitate a crisis in its current standing, so that they can continue with quietly forming a new global currency.
Creating a World Central Bank
In 1998, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the New York Times advocating a “global Fed.” Garten was former Dean of the Yale School of Management, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, previously served on the White House Council on International Economic Policy under the Nixon administration and on the policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carter administrations, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his article written in 1998, he stated that, “over time the United States set up crucial central institutions — the Securities and Exchange Commission (1933), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1934) and, most important, the Federal Reserve (1913). In so doing, America became a managed national economy. These organizations were created to make capitalism work, to prevent destructive business cycles and to moderate the harsh, invisible hand of Adam Smith.”
He then explained that, “This is what now must occur on a global scale. The world needs an institution that has a hand on the economic rudder when the seas become stormy. It needs a global central bank.” He explains that, “Simply trying to coordinate the world’s powerful central banks — the Fed and the new European Central Bank, for instance — wouldn’t work,” and that, “Effective collaboration among finance ministries and treasuries is also unlikely to materialize. These agencies are responsible to elected legislatures, and politics in the industrial countries is more preoccupied with internal events than with international stability.”
He then postulates that, “An independent central bank with responsibility for maintaining global financial stability is the only way out. No one else can do what is needed: inject more money into the system to spur growth, reduce the sky-high debts of emerging markets, and oversee the operations of shaky financial institutions. A global central bank could provide more money to the world economy when it is rapidly losing steam.” Further, “Such a bank would play an oversight role for banks and other financial institutions everywhere, providing some uniform standards for prudent lending in places like China and Mexico. [However, t]he regulation need not be heavy-handed.” Garten continues, “There are two ways a global central bank could be financed. It could have lines of credit from all central banks, drawing on them in bad times and repaying when the markets turn up. Alternately — and admittedly more difficult to carry out — it could be financed by a very modest tariff on all trade, collected at the point of importation, or by a tax on certain global financial transactions.”
Interestingly, Garten states that, “One thing that would not be acceptable would be for the bank to be at the mercy of short-term-oriented legislatures.” In essence, it is not to be accountable to the people of the world. So, he asks the question, “To whom would a global central bank be accountable? It would have too much power to be governed only by technocrats, although it must be led by the best of them. One possibility would be to link the new bank to an enlarged Group of Seven — perhaps a ”G-15” [or in today’s context, the G20] that would include the G-7 plus rotating members like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, India, China and South Korea.” He further states that, “There would have to be very close collaboration” between the global bank and the Fed, and that, “The global bank would not operate within the United States, and it would not be able to override the decisions of our central bank. But it could supply the missing international ingredient — emergency financing for cash-starved emerging markets. It wouldn’t affect American mortgage rates, but it could help the profitability of American multinational companies by creating a healthier global environment for their businesses.”
Global Currency Coming? L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.