If a policy is wrongheaded, feckless and corrupt, I take it personally and consider it a moral obligation to sound off and not shut up until it's fixed.
Aside from the occasional genocide, oppression, evil and torture, etc., it is inarguable that public policy could be implemented more rapidly in an autocracy.
Poverty is clearly one source of emotional suffering, but there are others, like loneliness. A policy to reduce the loneliness of the elderly would certainly reduce suffering.
Obama hasn't been divisive just because his policies are so unpopular, though that's a large part of it.
He was responsible for administering an army that lacked time-tested procedures and routinized policies, so every decision became an improvisational act.
Unfortunately, a lot of liberals seem to choose what policies to support based on whether they make them feel nice or mean, instead of whether they work.
Republicans are the party of 'no,' and Democrats are the party of 'don't know' because it hasn't fought for bold ideas, policies, or plans to turn us in a new direction.
I am shocked that Republicans can't explain why our technological and economic advantages are the result of sound monetary and economic policy.
While I'm leader, nothing will be off limits - there will not be one policy, one rule, one way of working which cannot be changed.
What is so remarkable about the success of affirmative action is that it has been accomplished despite the Justice Department and the policies of the federal government.
But if Russia is to be part of this larger zone of peace it cannot bring into it its imperial baggage. It cannot bring into it a policy of genocide against the Chechens, and cannot kill journalists, and it cannot repress the mass media.
It has been my policy not to respond to each of the many canards which have been part of the campaign to discredit my investigation, nor to waste time trying to prove negatives.
At the same time the Constitution sets in stone the Stability Pact and risks preventing member States from implementing a policy of growth. So we are not able to do things at the European or the national level.
That we have children coming into this world already polluted, at the same time we don't know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immorally wrong.
The day-to-day making of policy is arguing all the time. You're trying to get the right approach and the right answer, and there are moments that aren't very pleasant. But in the end, you look at the overall product.
In a normal time, I don't think economic policy makes a large difference one way or another. But in times of crisis it makes all the difference in the world.
In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
People just hate the idea of losing. Any loss, even a small one, is just so terrible to contemplate that they compensate by buying insurance, including totally absurd policies like air travel.
We on our part will stick to our independent foreign policy of peace, acting forever as a strong defender of world peace and a persistent proponent of common development.
As for the promotion of peace congresses we have had our meetings and assemblies, but the promotion through them of the determined and effective will to peace displaying itself in action and policy remains to be achieved.
A bad book is the worse that it cannot repent. It has not been the devil's policy to keep the masses of mankind in ignorance; but finding that they will read, he is doing all in his power to poison their books.
