Change Agents

[August1991]

It seems to me that there are two ways to effect change:

1. The Napoleon, Obama, Hitler way: Take advantage of a crisis and change things.

2. The Gorbachev, Trudeau, Nixon way: Work within the system and then change things.

Which method works best?

[TimG]

Which method works best?

I am not clear on the distinction you want to make. Change rarely happens without a crisis. Trudeau (Sr?) had the Quebec separatist movement. Gorbachev had the collapsing Soviet economy. Nixon and Obama did/have not really changed much. They fiddled with the status quo or made existing problems much worse. Hitler and Napoleon started and lost bloody wars which makes their approach bad no matter what the unintended consequences. Edited June 16, 2015 by TimG

[August1991]

I am not clear on the distinction you want to make. Change rarely happens without a crisis. Trudeau (Sr?) had the Quebec separatist movement. Gorbachev had the collapsing Soviet economy. Nixon and Obama did/have not really changed much. They fiddled with the status quo or made existing problems much worse. Hitler and Napoleon started and lost bloody wars which makes their approach bad no matter what the unintended consequences.

If you know anything about history, Gorbachev and Trudeau Snr (and Nixon) worked/suffered within a system that they eventually decided to change. Obama (and Hitler/Napoleon) were outsiders who took advantage of a crisis to make change.

Which method of change is sustainable? Or does it matter?

Edited June 16, 2015 by August1991

[TimG]

If you know anything about history, Gorbachev and Trudeau Snr (and Nixon) worked/suffered within a system that they eventually decided to change. Obama (and Hitler/Napoleon) were outsiders who took advantage of a crisis to make change.

If the distinction you want to make is political outsider vs. insider then it makes more sense except Obama has not changed anything significant and has only made existing problems much worse. Edited June 16, 2015 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

It seems to me that there are two ways to effect change:

1. The Napoleon, Obama, Hitler way: Take advantage of a crisis and change things.

2. The Gorbachev, Trudeau, Nixon way: Work within the system and then change things.

Which method works best?

Interesting how you associate political personalities. (??)

3. Revolution. (?)

[Big Guy]

I believe that to change the way that people think you have to convince them that doing things another way is better for them. No one would support making a change to something that will make things worse for them. I am talking about long term change.

I believe that you achieve this by either lying to them and telling them what they want to hear or convincing them the truth of your argument that what you propose will be better for them.

Short term change does take place through war, confrontation, suppression and satisfying short term goals but in time, local pressures force things back to satisfying the wishes of the local population. As examples I suggest the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the current Middle East.

[Scott Mayers]

4. Natural Catastrophe

5. Artificial Catastrophe too I guess.

I believe that to change the way that people think you have to convince them that doing things another way is better for them. No one would support making a change to something that will make things worse for them. I am talking about long term change.

I believe that you achieve this by either lying to them and telling them what they want to hear or convincing them the truth of your argument that what you propose will be better for them.

Short term change does take place through war, confrontation, suppression and satisfying short term goals but in time, local pressures force things back to satisfying the wishes of the local population. As examples I suggest the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the current Middle East.

You're right Big Guy. We are just like children... when they are doing something they are doing you don't approve of, sometimes it is good to distract them to something else. It is tougher when we become used to doing certain things habitually or traditionally, etc., and so the 'distraction' to something better must be more compelling.

[Wilber]

Napoleon ended up being responsible for Britain becoming the worlds dominant power for over 100 years. Hitler did the same for the USA.

Sometimes folks don't get the change they were looking for.

[Moonlight Graham]

If the distinction you want to make is political outsider vs. insider then it makes more sense except Obama has not changed anything significant and has only made existing problems much worse.

Obama has changed things ie: healthcare, and US relations with Cuba and Iran. Doesn't matter your (or anyone's) opinion of them, they're still significant changes.

But I agree with your first post that Gorbachev etc. also used crisis to affect change.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

Obama has changed things ie: healthcare, and US relations with Cuba and Iran. Doesn't matter your (or anyone's) opinion of them, they're still significant changes.

I don't call Cuba significant. Iran is just one aspect of the complete mess created by Obama's incoherent foreign policy in the middle east and when it comes to that file he has definitely made things worse. That said, Obama's policy on Iran will likely lead to the Saudi's building a bomb and if that happens I would concede that he has done "something significant".

On healthcare, I guess Obama has changed something significant: he has made it impossible for unskilled workers to get full time employment because of health insurance rules. He seems to want to double down on his war on the poor by turning salaried junior managers into part time employees. I guess you are right there too.

Edited June 25, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't call Cuba significant. Iran is just one aspect of the complete mess created by Obama's incoherent foreign policy in the middle east and when it comes to that file he has definitely made things worse. That said, Obama's policy on Iran will likely lead to the Saudi's building a bomb and if that happens I would concede that he has done "something significant".

On healthcare, I guess Obama has changed something significant: he has made it impossible for unskilled workers to get full time employment because of health insurance rules. He seems to want to double down on his war on the poor by turning salaried junior managers into part time employees. I guess you are right there too.

So I guess your idea would be to not sit at the table with Iran and let them carry o building their bomb behind closed doors or would you just start bombing. Obama has already had to try and clean up a couple of esses that stilted thinking has caused. Obama's healthcare is becoming extremely popular and available....kind of like we have here in Canada. You might though be somewhat right about Cuba, but isn't this embargo a bit stupid after all these decades...

[TimG]

So I guess your idea would be to not sit at the table with Iran and let them carry o building their bomb behind closed doors or would you just start bombing.

Iran will eventually get a bomb no matter what happened. The only question is whether they get it with the approval of the US or without it. Obama seems to have decided that giving the US blessing to Iran's bomb efforts was the best course. This has enraged the Saudi's and the Israelis to the point where relations are thawing between the two countries. Saudi has already started prodding Pakistan for access to a bomb.

Obama's healthcare is becoming extremely popular and available....kind of like we have here in Canada.

Obama care will collapse under its own weight in a few years since all of the measures that were supposed to control costs have been discarded.

[On Guard for Thee]

Iran will eventually get a bomb no matter what happened. The only question is whether they get it with the approval of the US or without it. Obama seems to have decided that giving the US blessing to Iran's bomb efforts was the best course. This has enraged the Saudi's and the Israelis to the point where relations are thawing between the two countries. Saudi has already started prodding Pakistan for access to a bomb.

Obama care will collapse under its own weight in a few years since all of the measures that were supposed to control costs have been discarded.

Obama has certainly not given his blessing to the Iran's bomb effort. Staying engaged with them is the only intelligent approach unless like I say you want to go down the Bush road again. And why would public healthcare collapse i the US...it has survived decades here in Canada.

[TimG]

Obama has certainly not given his blessing to the Iran's bomb effort. Staying engaged with them is the only intelligent approach unless like I say you want to go down the Bush road again.

Staying engaged does not require concessions with nothing to show for it. Obama has shown he is desperate for any deal and the Iranians are milking it for all it worth.

And why would public healthcare collapse i the US...it has survived decades here in Canada.

Survived decades by using waiting lists as a way to ration care. I don't think waiting 3 months for an MRI would make Americans think they are better off.

[On Guard for Thee]

Staying engaged does not require concessions with nothing to show for it. Obama has shown he is desperate for any deal and the Iranians are milking it for all it worth.

Survived decades by using waiting lists as a way to ration care. I don't think waiting 3 months for an MRI would make Americans think they are better off.

Obama's deal with Iran certainly requires commitments. Unfettered inspections by the IAEA is but one.

Not going bankrupt because you need healthcare is what makes Americans (or anybody for that matter) feel better, and is probably the main reason why the AHA has become so successful.

[August1991]

If the distinction you want to make is political outsider vs. insider then it makes more sense except Obama has not changed anything significant and has only made existing problems much worse.

ObamaCare (US health care) is a major change in US government policy.

====

Make no mistake. Obama's a twofer. History will remember Obama as both the first black president and as the president who introduced public health care.

But is this change sustainable?

Edited June 26, 2015 by August1991

[Big Guy]

I believe that it is. There is no way that the Americans would rescind health care.

Initially, the Republicans called the initiatives "Obamacare" assuming that it would never be passed and this failure would be associated with a failed president. It will backfire. This health care package will be celebrated in time as one of the major positive societal initiatives ad Obama will be associated with it.

President Johnson pushed Medicare and Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. Anybody remember who opposed them?

[Shady]

Obama's deal with Iran certainly requires commitments. Unfettered inspections by the IAEA is but one.

Not going bankrupt because you need healthcare is what makes Americans (or anybody for that matter) feel better, and is probably the main reason why the AHA has become so successful.

Obamacare isn't popular or successful. As has already been pointed out, most of the mandates have been pushed back until 2016.

[Shady]

I believe that it is. There is no way that the Americans would rescind health care.

Initially, the Republicans called the initiatives "Obamacare" assuming that it would never be passed and this failure would be associated with a failed president. It will backfire. This health care package will be celebrated in time as one of the major positive societal initiatives ad Obama will be associated with it.

President Johnson pushed Medicare and Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. Anybody remember who opposed them?

Do you even know how Obamacare works. How is being forced to buy health insurance from an insurance company like Medicare or social security?

[On Guard for Thee]

Obamacare isn't popular or successful. As has already been pointed out, most of the mandates have been pushed back until 2016.

Actually Shady it is quite popular and successful and has just easily been successful in a COTUS challenge which helps pave the way for it to proceed in all 50 states. Please do some fact checking once in a while.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

[Shady]

Actually Shady it is quite popular and successful and has just easily been successful in a COTUS challenge which helps pave the way for it to proceed in all 50 states. Please do some fact checking once in a while.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

No it's not quite popular. No state is forced to spend a single dime on Obamacare. And it can't be judged until several years after its fully implemented. It won't be that until 2016 because they differed many of the mandates and granted millions of waivers.

[On Guard for Thee]

No it's not quite popular. No state is forced to spend a single dime on Obamacare. And it can't be judged until several years after its fully implemented. It won't be that until 2016 because they differed many of the mandates and granted millions of waivers.

Apparently it is quite popular....even at the supreme court level, and even among Bush appointees to the court. And of course why wouldn't it be popular if it allowed millions of people to have health care who previously couldn't afford it. Lets see now, you live in Ontario right, so you probably have a similar government system available.

http://newsdaily.com/2015/06/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-key-obamacare-insurance-subsidies/

[Shady]

Apparently it is quite popular....even at the supreme court level, and even among Bush appointees to the court. And of course why wouldn't it be popular if it allowed millions of people to have health care who previously couldn't afford it. Lets see now, you live in Ontario right, so you probably have a similar government system available.

http://newsdaily.com/2015/06/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-key-obamacare-insurance-subsidies/

No it's not quite popular. And as I've already stated, since so much has been deferred and waived until the end of 2016, nothing can properly be evaluated. Furthermore, Obamacare is nothing like OHIP. So I must assume that you have absolutely no idea how it works. Add to that, that under Obamacare, my OHIP coverage would've been eliminated because it would've been considered sub-standard coverage as it doesn't meet all of the minimum requirements under Obamacare. I, like millions of others already have had to, would need to purchase a new healthcare plan from a Heath insurance company and possibly lose the doctor I currently see.

[On Guard for Thee]

No it's not quite popular. And as I've already stated, since so much has been deferred and waived until the end of 2016, nothing can properly be evaluated. Furthermore, Obamacare is nothing like OHIP. So I must assume that you have absolutely no idea how it works. Add to that, that under Obamacare, my OHIP coverage would've been eliminated because it would've been considered sub-standard coverage as it doesn't meet all of the minimum requirements under Obamacare. I, like millions of others already have had to, would need to purchase a new healthcare plan from a Heath insurance company and possibly lose the doctor I currently see.

Apparently it is you who doesn't know how it works. Millions who couldn't previously afford healthcare because their employer didn't provide it now can and have signed on. That's the main reason why it is SO POPULAR. Again, do some research.

[Shady]

Apparently it is you who doesn't know how it works. Millions who couldn't previously afford healthcare because their employer didn't provide it now can and have signed on. That's the main reason why it is SO POPULAR. Again, do some research.

I'm sorry, but it's you that needs to do some research. You didn't address any specific I mentioned. You just continue to talk in generalizations.