Britney Spears is an Idiot: SHOCKER!

(sorry, i wrote my question in the most contorted order possible, i haven't had enough coffee yet)

That's bullshit. Any elected official needs to get feedback from the public. We don't just elect them and forget about it until the next election.

the mechanism of feedback is the threat of not being re-elected
the sanction (should they break the rules) is not being re-elected

it's up to them whether they slavishly chase public opinion or ignore it

marcello is quite correct in stating that absolute trust in the elected official is no more ridiculous than absolute trust in the system: the alternative — this is probably actually happening on a widespread scale in the US and actually has done on and off since it was founded — is a practice of "i only have to obey the laws set in place by the officials *i* have voted for"

once this practice reaches a certain critical mass, the result will be civil war => britney's statement *in itself* is no more absurd than the statement "i prefer the system as it stands to civil war"

i. "i trust [x]" meaning "i believe [x] has no anti-democratic hidden agenda"
ii. "i trust [x]" meaning "whatever [x]'s hidden agenda, i trust that the checks and balances within the system will either neutralise them , or exploit/detourne them to the benefit of the polity"

the problem with i. is that for a democracy to operate, it requires that all participants be angels at all time
ii. is certainly a lot closer to the beliefs held by those who set the US system running

(=> britney = pro-lincoln here)

OK - I'll agree with that .. I certainly don't mean that the President MUST listen to feedback from the public .. But only if he wants to be successful. That doesn't need to be "slavishly chasing public opinion" - it means listening to what the public has to say. It doesn't mean changing your principles or not doing what you think is right - it means considering other points of view and being open-minded enough to accept that you may not have thought of everything.

Fucking Republican absolutists.

(off topic a bit possibly: isn't what's happening in iraq a continuation of the principle of sherman's drive to the sea?)

Just to bring it back to Earth... Even GWB seems to have admitted that we need UN support in the postwar. If he had listened to what his critics (i.e. some of Congress) were saying 6 months ago, the decision would have been made earlier. So - not to say that GWB is an ass for not listening to them .. but just that there was merit in their opinion. And if everyone just sits back and "lets the president do his job" - he's going to get burned repeatedly.

ts: "actually discussing politics" vs "exploitation of quasi-radical stances to provide us with an excuse for sneering at people thereby excusing ourselves from ever having to engage with the actual discussion of politics"

Ha!

.. and yeah - this is kind of out of hand - the point was, what does Britney Spears know about politics and why was she on Crossfire?

"....accumulation of her own experience? "

..She's a 22 year old pop star? It's possible that she's far more intelligent than I give her credit for - but she has yet to convince me of it.

why should she convince you or anybody?

keith- go outside, have a smoke and listen to some whitehouse on yr walkman.

since we're on-line it's not very surprising that lots of us share a kind of vague ideal of the running "electronic town-hall" referendum as a better model — where "being informed" arises from this kind of argument and is (supposedly) not corrupted by mediation

but on-line contains its own built-in minority, and i think its "informed" is very class-bound

I trust some people and I voted and who I voted for got in, at the last local elections and at the last general election too. I'm just saying nobody should be trusted just because, especially if that just because is predicated on them already being in power; ie. bowing to the status quo because it's easier. Britney's in a position of influence over a lot of people, particularly young people; the statement accredited to her above doesn't strike me as encouraging anything but revererence without engagement, which is one side of apathy.

it doesn't much surprise me that this is a bottom-line position across a wide range of political stances, as the war of all against all is an underlying position in free market capitalism, and as the dominant social structure this carries across into and shapes many of its so-called opponents (from individualist anarchism to revenant stalinism)

and if you're serious about your doubts — which your argument about *constant* vigilance suggests — then you should be exploring the potential good and bad of other systems and how to get to them

i asked a q. on ile ages ago about whether written constitutions were inherently imperialist, and hardly anyone answered: i should have put it on a britney thread!! who knew!!

That is so untrue. No one has said that everyone has to subscribe to what we belive. We're arguing just the opposite - form your own opinion. Even if it's exactly the same as the President's. But make it YOUR opinion - don't just adopt his.

If I had the time, brain, and committment, mark s.

Mark - Britain is run by liberals like Blair and Brown, that's the problem. That kind of liberal is bad enough but the ones who tie themselves in PC knots over someone calling Britney an idiot are equally as reprehensible, if more laughable.

Years of observing people using this line as code for "I will never respect you as long as you disagree with me" to thread.

which is why i was having a go at it on this thread, daddio my honey

you can call britney whatever names you like: just don't hide behind big political claims when you do, if you want us to take your POLITICS seriously