This is my Prime Minister

15 thoughts on “This is my Prime Minister”

1. Sure, I’d vote for him. What I like best in that statement is the section called “Aging with Dignity.” Anybody looking out for the interests of the elderly seems to have a special concern for my future welfare (as a future old person) that I like a lot. Plus I can’t help but laugh at the phrase “silver tsunami.”Report

2. I might vote for him.Report

3. The first few lines made me want to throw up. Should I keep reading?Report

   1. What? Why? Lots of the stuff in the beginning is pretty anodyne standard preamble.Just which part of it made you want to throw up?
      And there is some really good stuff in the middle.Report

      1. This bit, to be specific:
         
         …his Government’s vision to give every dreaming child, every anxious parent, every elderly person, a better tomorrow.

         Blech.Report

         1. Still, if he’s running against the guy who’s promising to give everyone a shittier tomorrow this might just give him a leg up.Report

         2. Meh would politicians lard their communiques with such gibberish in any conceivable governing system, always have always will.Report

         3. Also, he did not specifically say that, that was the editor’s introduction.Report

         4. I suspect I wouldn’t.

            I see lots of things that bother me, such as his emphasis on government-provided housing and his claim that Singapore can’t afford either “low key” government or any gridlock, which sounds like a call for a very activist government that brooks no dissent.

            What I don’t see, beyond the laudable emphasis on investing in education, is a clear plan for keeping Singapore economically important to the rest of the world. It’s too small to be self-sustaining at the level of wealth it has developed, but what’s to keep future developments in other countries from causing it to be passed by?

            I see lots of boilerplate, pretty much what we’d get from an American politician. Of course I wouldn’t expect much different from his opponent, unless he were running against one of those Republicans who is arguing against an inclusive society, so he might be able to sway my vote on the grounds of, “at least this one ain’t a lunatic.”Report

            1. afford either “low key” government or any gridlock, which sounds like a call for a very activist government that brooks no dissent

               at first I thought so too, but it seems that by low key, the sense I am getting is that he is referring to mediocre politicians (but that may be wishful thinking on my part).

               Gridlock, on the other hand is antithetical to good governance. Libertarians shouldnt want gridlock because gridlock, or the significant threat thereof results in inefficient spending. i.e. while a libertarian could mount a reasonable critique of any government spending (even the possibly efficient and potentially useful ones) not just libertarians, but everyone should hate inefficient spending. Pork-barrel spending is a direct result of trying to buy up votes so as to break grid-lock. It may sound self seving for a politician to say it, but it is still true.

               see lots of boilerplate, pretty much what we’d get from an American politician

               You dont see american politicianstwlling the electorate that:

               1. Government cannot do everything by itself, and that people need to step up to form their own private charities in order to help eachother. Democrats dont say anything like that, Republicans if they mention charities at all say that charities are sufficient to take care of it. They dont actually tell people to go take care of it themselves and stop looking to the state for solutions.

               2. Tightening immigration restrictions will slow down economic growth and they shouldnt be so xenophobic

               3. Admit that economic growth may slow down because of policy measures implemented.

               There is boilerplate, but there is also a level of honesty that american politicians just dont exhibit.Report

            2. from his opponent, unless he were running against one of those Republicans who is arguing against an inclusive society, so he might be able to sway my vote on the grounds of, “at least this one ain’t a lunatic.”

               The dominant opposition is the workers’ party which is anti immigrant and anti market.Report

4. I’m sorry, don’t have enough info to hazard an opinion.Report

5. How can I answer this question without a picture of the guy?Report

   1. “Update: Jaybird asked for a picture…”

      This is just a head shot. How can we know if we want to vote for him if we don’t know how tall he is?Report

   2. He’s cute enough. I guess I could vote for him.Report

Comments are closed.