It’s the independents, stupid
Obama’s support is dropping among the independents of New Hampshire. This has become a general trend for Obama; the Scott Brown election polls and results showed the same precipitous decline among independents in Massachusetts, whose swing from Democratic to Republican accounted for much of his margin of victory in a state that went heavily for Obama just one year ago. This change not only is widespread, but it has been going on for many months.
This sort of shift is hardly surprising. Obama’s support has dropped a bit among Democrats, too (understandably, because he hasn’t fulfilled the hopes of the more radical members of the Party), but nowhere near as much. The vast majority of Republicans never liked Obama to begin with and still don’t, so one would not expect a whole lot of change there. But the key to his victory was his ability to appeal to independents. And they have left him, as the article said, “in droves.”
There are those on the left who think this is because Obama hasn’t gone far enough in his transformative leftist policies. But this is wishful thinking on their part, and defies logic. As a group, independents tend to be more middle-of-the-road, so it stands to reason that they thought Obama would function more as a centrist, and that they have now been thoroughly disabused of that notion.
One of the earliest pieces I ever wrote on this blog concerned what I call “the Law of Thirds.” The following is an except from it that still seems relevant:
Some time ago–”“long before I became a blogger, or even a neocon”“–I noticed a certain phenomenon and gave it what I thought was a unique name: the “Law of Thirds.”…Basically, my law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between. It was something I’d noticed over and over in public opinion polls, and it seemed to be stable over time…
Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have [something] in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them. It hasn’t. As far as I know it’s still in operation, and has been for quite some time. Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so”“–whether that person’s name be Howard Dean or Newt Gingrich or whomever else would be an even better example of the genre.
Do I hear “Obama?”
Certainly the “independent third” is not going to be encouraged by the 2010 budget’s clear message that the Democratic Party exemplifies the epitome of “Tax and Spend” politics. It is interesting that the blue dog left denies that the label applies to them when campaigning, and that independents often buy their argument.
Perhaps a bit off-topic:
Obama says jobs have always been his highest priority
Yes, it’s a lie, and an obvious one; the man is beginning to sound desperate. (Or perhaps he’s so used to not being called on such things that he’s unaccustomed to being careful with his claims.)
But what caught my eye about that article was this:
The president, who has been pilloried by many in the liberal grassroots, as well as Democratic lawmakers, for not doing enough to guide and lead the health-care process through Congress, made it clear that he would hold Congress responsible if no bill is passed.
“If Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not,” Obama said. “There will be elections coming up and they’ll be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or the other during election time.”
I see that as an interesting CYA attempt. President Obama has demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he has no coattails whatsoever. Three times, in recent months, the President has gone out of his way to campaign for a special-election Democrat… and all three Democrats lost.
So the President is threatening Congress with trouble at the polls, from which he might not be able to save them. It’s a bit like hearing “I won’t lift a finger to help you” from the man with no arms.
Will Congressional Democrats see this for what it is, and assume that they’re on their own? I suspect they already do.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
The law of thirds is what has kept America from catapulting headlong into European-style socialism or worse — the middle third keeps the other two thirds in check. Our three branches of government tend to serve the same purpose.
Of course, we have been gradually sliding into socialism for decades (the ideological center has been shifting gradually to the left), but it could be much, much worse. Just think where we’d be right now if Obama had been elected with 70% of the popular vote, instead of the 52% he actually received. The difference is that middle third.
And here’s a nice companion to this posting:
http://article.nationalreview.com/423992/the-great-peasant-revolt-of-2010/charles-krauthammer
Good or bad, the 1/3 in the center who have so much power, are also the 1/3 who have no real political philosophy – and they can be very unpredictable as a result.
Most koan are situations and related questions from famous Masters.
They cannot be answered logically, but through the student’s insight into heir true nature.
i realized this morning that i cant give insight by handing out facts and being abused for it.
The process of recording the koan created new problems. Scholastic types could tread all the histories and imitate the “illogical” responses to the Master’s questions or pretend to be a Master themselves. People like this still exist so always be careful who you trust with your mind. Fooling a master is more difficult.
that should be a huge lesson in marx, reality, this conversation here at this time as well.
I can think of only one koan that fits.
A monk requested “I have entered the monastery: please give me some guidance”
Master Zhao Zhao replied:
“Have you eaten breakfast yet?”
“Yes”
“Then go wash your bowl”
🙂
those who dont get it can work at it.
[and those that get it, can now laugh]
and those that are laughing and dont know
the jokes on you.
“Merits will be of no help if your Essence of Mind is obscured.”
In the light of day,
Yet in a dream he talks of a dream.
A monster among monsters,
He intended to deceive the whole crowd.
A related tendency is that people in politics tend to think that elections are like wars — if one party is “defeated” in an election they and their supporters have to surrender or something.
The shrewder politicians know that it never ends. That’s going to be the undoing of all the Congress and Senate Democrats: at some point the Republicans are going to regain a majority in one house and then payback is going to be a bitch.
Trimegistus: And then there will be payback for the payback.
And then there will be payback for the payback.
Which just goes to show that politics, like war, never solves anything!
Which just goes to show that politics, like war, never solves anything!
which goes to show that parrots will repeat anything and not think about what they say.
personally i thought that ending slavery was a good solution over dissolution and slaveries contiuence.
of course you may think that stopping the extermination of jews was a bad thing, but i think that ultimately that made the war a good thing
of course you might also say that it would be better that the west was all under islam… if not, then you would have to accept the crusades was ok.
then of course, you can take a satellite view of korea, north and south. i guess you can say, if you side with kim jonk il.. that the war was bad, as it prevented him from unifying the whole country under communiusm, and making the south koreans live, or rathe die of starvation and deprivation like the north.
and most of all, then how can you sit here and argue america is good, when the result of having america was a war between king george and us.
lets see if i have met my new goal.
short.
no lecture
forget detailed history
and make sure to take a shot at someone else
did i learn right?
i will try again in a while.
i sure do want to make you happy hux.
i live to give you what you wanted.
otehrs to be like you, and no one to be like me.
for a person who doesnt think war is right, you sure do snipe alot.
[this is going to be fun]
though i wonder if he knows that it was Zen masters like suzuki who reformed budism for war?
in my old way i woudl show it, but now i will assert stuff, and you can figjure it out.
🙂
you have to love people who fill in the blanks with imagination, verve, and are offended by ruining a good lie with facts! what i love is that they never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.
🙂
Neo: a minor thing > you have a typo in the last sentence, third paragraph.
Good post. I like the sorting out of your law of the thirds. Good link to Krauthammer from Adrian too.
Actually my post was intended as satire of the “war never solves anything” trope.
How ’bout them Independents? Think they’ll make the playoffs this year?
JohnC: thanks. Fixed!
I am so glad you feel that way..
you got what you wished for, lets see if its what you wanted.
Think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others. — Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785
[sometimes people avoid certain things and ignore them because its unfair to participate on that level as they put away childrens toys when they stopped being children
most of the time thought, i dont bother with people who have the attention spans of a lightning bolt, and similar substance.
after all i did attempt to stay away. but felt so miserable without you, it was almost like being here with you again.
so i came back…
🙂
Actually my post was intended as satire of the “war never solves anything” trope.
thats nice, maybe you should have spent more time being clear. perhaps defining your terms and giving us the substance we needed to understand…
otherwise, why would i bother trying to understand you when you write in a way that is that obtuse.
need a link to strunk and white?
i just want to thank you though, i have had a wonderful time. but with you, it wasnt it.
So how ’bout them Independents?
Anyway, Obama’s ongoing loss of independents is an excellent leading indicator for bigger Dem losses in 2010.
The American Republic muddles along despite all claims to the contrary.
I’m sure you’re right about the Independents.
But I’ve always thought they were taking the free ride. They seem to define themselves by the issues that the so-called “extremes” (loaded term these days) forge for themselves.
In other words, the right or left does the work, and the Indy says ‘I’ll take this, and not that – and I can’t stand you guys!’
A bit of a dodge and hypocricy and lack of virtue.
It’s the same with the people who proudly exclaim that they are “moderates”. Once again, all they do is look around to find where the edges are on either side, and then stand in the middle of those – and then engage in moral preeening for being “moderate”.
There are b etter meanings for all of these terms. If Right is “right”, then to be moderate with respect to it is to be that far “wrong”; to be “independent” with respect to it is to be “insane”. If Right is “wrong” things loko different, but the analytical model still holds.
I like Chesterton. I like the Tradition. I like Aristotle and Aquinas – the function of the intellect is to find the truth. Once you find it you stand right there on top of it and don’t budge. Once you find it you hold onto it as if your life and the lives of others depended on it – because it does/they do.
I am a lifelong registered Democrat, in part so that I can vote in the primary elections in Pennsylvania. Only voters registered in the big two parties can vote in the primaries here.
In reality, though, I am an Independent, and a center right one to boot.
I can’t say that Obama lost me (since he never had me to begin with), but I’ll bet there are a lot of Independents lurking within the voter rolls of the Dems and GOP.
I’ll accept the law of thirds. What scares me is how dead center of these three parts is on an ever leftward tack.
At this rate Dennis Kucinich will be center right in 20 years. And Americas greatness declines respectively.
What scares me is how dead center of these three parts is on an ever leftward tack.
SteveH: I worry about that too, but consider — this blog wouldn’t exist if neo as well as many of the commenters here hadn’t journeyed from left to right.
Cv said: ‘but I’ll bet there are a lot of Independents lurking within the voter rolls of the Dems and GOP.’
It looks to me like that was exactly what was proved with the Brown election in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t have guessed it would go that way, although Neo had me hoping. but it did obviously. And now I’m a believer that if it can happen in Mass of all places, it can happen anywhere. I like this new-found (or is it refound) American independence in mind, despite stated party affliation. I hope it can be sustained at least through 2010. Yep, Huxley – – how about those independents!
Artfldgr Says:
“thats nice, maybe you should have spent more time being clear. perhaps defining your terms and giving us the substance we needed to understand…”
Maybe you should strive harder for understanding….
Me, strive harder for understanding?
HA!
funny way of defining understanding as compliance when others want you to tow their line so they look better and can spout false information to make points, score status, and lash out as a means of lessening others.
yeah.. i understand.
which is why i dont comply…
but, lets ask a question of reciprocation..
when did the person who complained ever tried to read, understand, go to a link, and meet me?
they always declared they dont read me, unlike you thomass. so dont think i would return bs to you as you dont give bs.
i have two sets of people who ask me to please them (and who do not offer anything in return for that).
one set says they dont read me, they belittle posts by their size, not content. they think shallowly and do not realize that i am trying to illustrate a principal, not project a end (unless the principals keep working). they LIE straight to me that if i was shorter, more well written, etc. they would like my posts (which they already said they didnt read).
what you might not realize is that the paragraph is what was requested previously by the person i said it to. you might have noticed a double standard which couldnt be satisfied was playing out.
that in one occaision, he was asking an author to describe a term that some have taken volumes to do so, and on another occaisoin was asking an author not to describe all the detail.
it amounts to whatever pleases me now is right.
now lets take a second and talk about the second set. the ones that like me. the ones that find that unlike hux, what i am going to put up is different. completely different than any one else is putting up. a fresh angle instead of another ride on the old saw. even better, its different, with a different perspective, AND every fact is backed up so that they can pick up something interesting and go out and learn something they never knew.
what have you ever learned from someone who makes up fake facts about reality, doest check them, and really only did it to score points with you because they think your an ignorant idiot who will believe them and go with the better writing, over the better substance.
and that
is what it boils down to in truth
some people are hungry for some substance, and a different view, and an interesting thought. they want to be challenged, they want to learn.
they have learned what i have learned. the other side sounds all big and large and solid. but when you start to ask real questions, know sources of when things occured, and so forth. you bite into it and they are nothing but cotton candy fluff.
their dialogue amounts to nothing better than cocktail party social prattle for entertainment. they never intend to actually reach some conclusoin or anything like that. they like the event way to much and loath a resolution and moving to a whole new idea. even worse, they loath if the condition resolves itself in a way they werent on. which is why it never resolves, facts are never really presented, gaps are puttied with what sounds good.
now i am not one to say that junk food shouldnt exist, but know what your eating.
the people who at least like this other thing, with odd facts, and consistency. they are nicer. they realize that i am giving something, and they are aware that its taken time away from other things that i could be doing and i am trying to benifit them. or havent you noticed i dont cave to being mr popular even though thats dangled in front of me to.
here is the plain truth.
there are nothing but a huge quantity of other places where the first group can get their meaningless fill. but that means being a tiny fish in a big pond.
there are not a lot of places where the second group can get their fill. and it means that the first group cant be a big fish in a tiny pond where respect not celebrity is on the menu.
so
if you and others opened your eyes, its not that i dont listen or understand. its that i dont listen to you, because i understand the second group, who respect me and appreciate what i have to offer, and dont demand that i work harder to be liked by them (for nothing in return but lack of greif visited on my by them).
i understand a lot
which is why i dont act like my job is to please ever jerk that doesnt offer even knowlege in return.
oh.
thomass. here is a life lesson
when someone tells you that they would love you if you looked different, talked different, and did different things. they are cleverly telling you they dont like you and wished you didnt exist and in your place was someone else. its a pseudo intellectuals way to insult someone and not get punched in the nose as he would be if he turned around and said i dont like you to someones face.
unlike others i see a rose is a rose regardless of how its named
and an insult like that is a very nasty thing to say to someone… its even nastier to do it in a way that your dishonest with them and they might not know how to respond.
especially when the passive agressive ass pretends that its advice in your own interest, that they are trying to help you. what you miss is the part where they said other things that contradict that sincerity.
without the actual sincerity and honest desire to help, what does that game become?
a famous quote from a famous frenchman whose name i can never spell (so cant find the quote) went something like this
its easy to insult a prince, you compliment him on qualities he doesnt have.
read history and you will find a plethora of ways that people take nasty snipes at each other and do so very indirectly.
i will say that insulting someone that way is so used, that many times the person saying it doesnt realize that is what they are doing, but those tend to not realize they lack real sincerity.
Gallup: Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively
realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/04/gallup-majority-of-dems-view-socialism-positively/
The Gallup Poll reports that a majority of Democrats, 53%, have a “positive” image of socialism, which includes independents who lean toward the blue party.
Only 17 percent of Republican and GOP-leaners hold socialism in a positive light. In total, more than one-third of Americans, 36%, have a positive image of socialism.
Also viewing socialism positively: 61% of liberals, 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.
[only what percentage was needed in a certain other country?]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx
I suspect neoneocon’s “law of thirds” is somewhat related to natural organizational principles: such as the bell curve; http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/images/bell_curve.gif and the golden mean; .618 which translates to about 39% and the 80/20 rule. Not exact corollaries but ‘cousins’ to the same phenomena that neo and others have observed.
I’ve found that Independents come in two ‘flavors’; the more common moderate who has no core principles and thus is ‘independent’ of a philosophical rudder…and the more rare independent, who knows exactly what they believe and has integrated their core principles sufficient to see both sides of the issue. Just as every coin has two sides, so too does every issue.
There’s value I think in considering that to dismiss that principle is to assert that approx. 50% of the human race is completely wrong, about everything…
And isn’t it hubris of the highest order, to assert that our way of thinking is right and complete, about everything…
“Also viewing socialism positively: 61% of liberals, 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.”
Hhmm…
Which means the 39% of liberals, 61% of moderates and 80% of conservatives view socialism negatively
Damn! I think we have a majority!
I worry that the “middle third” tends to be the least informed third, and therefore tends to end up supporting whomever they perceive as Osama’s infamous “strong horse.” Bush and the Republican brand generally were severely weakened during Bush’s second term by an onslaught of unfair press coverage (Katrina then Iraq), causing the middle third to lurch over to strong-horse Obama totally without regard to whether they agreed with his liberal agenda.
Blogs like this are living proof, though, that the ability of the MSM to create strong / weak horses is fading fast. If, as a result, their ability to drag the middle third leftward is significantly weakened, then the next rightward swing of the pendulum is likely to be much more long-lasting and resilient.
Mike Mc.: But I consider myself both an independent and a moderate. The closest category I can find is “classical liberal,” but that’s not a party.
After the blood-soaked 20th Century, how can anybody view socialism positively?
The mind reels. Mine, anyway.
I wish the same pollsters would go on to take a poll to see how many view Nazism and Communism positively. The results might be instructive, and/or sickening.
rickl: I think some of those who view socialism positively are thinking of Western European countries such as Norway or Sweden. Everything else is “Communism.” They don’t understand the connection, or the continuum, or how much trouble much of Western Europe is in economically, socially, demographically, culturally, and spiritually—or how much it has relied on our defense over the years, to free it up to have the money to practice its brand of socialism.
neo, I had this debate with Europeans when I lived there. Essentially my position was that socialism was to communism as a cold is to the flu. They differ in degree, not in kind.
Occam’s Beard: I agree with you. I just think that a lot of people (especially young people, especially in this country) don’t get the connection, and see them as something very different. They don’t understand the slippery slope of the compromise of liberty.
neo-neocon Says:
Neo, I think this paragraph, above, states something very important, and youve stated it very clearly and concisely. Terms such as “socialism” have been used in so many different ways that its important to distinguish what is meant in each circumstance, and what the connotations of that meaning are.
Socialism means something very different when it refers to:
(A)–Westen European (and to seome extent Canadian) “social democracy”: which basically involves the implementation of government programs and government regulations with the intent to regualte capitalism and create a more egalitarian society (but where democratic representative government and civil rights and liberties still continue).
and
(B)–Totalitarian Socialism as found in Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet bloc: what we’ve come to call Communism, which is the totalitarian suppression of all or most market economics, and their replacement with government controlled economy, which is ostensibly to create an egalitarian society but which in reality leads to brutal political dictatorship, an almost complete removal of individualism and freedom, and economic stagnation.
Dont get me wrong: I dont like either A or B. I think even the less malignant Western European model of socialism creates economic difficulty, an excessive regulatory state, limited economic choices in some circumstances, and various other “unintended results.” I absolutely oppose the implementation of such a cumbersome, choice-limiting system in the United States… I think American individualism and the free market are far preferable. Nevertheless, its important to not fall into the trap of conflating the two, as if there is no gap betwen one and the other. . . and there is a substantial gap.
Perhaps democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms or eventually always slides into totalitarianism.
Perhaps if Orwell had lived another fifty years he would have changed his mind about socialism.
Lately in the evenings I’ve been working my way through the big fat Everyman Library edition of his splendid essays.
How I wish Orwell were still around.
Hmmm… Correction and adjustment to my previous post, above.
In rereading Neo’s comment, which I quoted, I’ve become aware that she was in fact stressing the continuity between European socialism and the totalitarian (Communist) variety. as you can see by my prior post, I actually am more likely to stress the difference between the two, although I do agree that the ideas which underly the two are the same.
So let me make this adjustment to my above post: I still stress the difference between the two. Sweden and France and simply not Cuba and the former Soviet Union. But, I do agree (as I said in my prior post), that even European style socialism is undesirable, and that I would prefer by a long shot to have the individualism and choice provided by the more market oriented United States. Excessive government intervention, even in a democratic society with intact civil rights and liberties, still results in at least some restriction to individual choice and autonomy. And, as also previously stated, it results in economic difficulties and other unintended results. So, we agree there.
Correction:
Sweden and France are simply not Cuba and the former Soviet Union.
huxley:
Heh. Good comment.
If Orwell were alive today he would be commenting here, or much more likely, he would be running his own blog about his own “change” experience.
In the late 1940s it was still possible to believe that “democratic socialism” was a positive road to the future.
In 2010 you’d have to be stupid, insane, or evil to think that. Orwell wasn’t any of the above.
It’s a cliche, but nevertheless true, that socialism is contrary to human nature, which is to pursue one’s own self-interest (where “one’s” includes family, of course). The only way to implement socialism, i.e., pursuing the interests of the group over those of the individual/family, is coercion. The only way to coerce a population is to watch its members. The only way to do that without having every individual watched by another is to ensure that people don’t know when they’re being watched. Voila! Secret police.
The only way to implement socialism, i.e., pursuing the interests of the group over those of the individual/family, is coercion.
Occam’s Beard: I imagine it’s too big a discussion to indulge here, but historically and evolutionarily humans have always pursued self-interest at the level of the group, as well as at the level of self and family.
How else do we defend against other groups or take care of widows, orphans, the infirm or mentally deficient? Or do we just let those people die if they have no family to stick up for them?
At root I see socialism as a natural and necessary axis of how humans organize themselves. The question is how and how far we go along that axis.
And of course there is coercion involved. But anyone with a family already knows about coercion.
In addition to Obama’s heartening slide among the middle third, the many true believers I encounter out here on the Berkeley-Oakland Front are much less effusive about their modern day Jim Jones. A year ago, proselytization levels were off the charts. I rarely hear worshipful comments these days.
A year ago, proselytization levels were off the charts. I rarely hear worshipful comments these days.
LB100: Bingo! That’s my experience too in my deep blue circles.
I’m not sure how these people will jump when it fully sinks in that the Obama transformation has failed. Most of them are still stuck in the first stage of grief: Shock & Denial.
BTW — if anyone is inclined to read Orwell’s essays these days, I heartily recommend doing so.
He wrote in the thirties and forties — a time as unsettled as our own. He could no more turn the page to see how history turned out than we can today.
It’s very fresh writing and he was grappling with issues that still reverberate in our time. socialism vs. capitalism, the horrors of totalitarianism, the betrayals of the intelligentsia, etc.
I knew Orwell, as most people do, from his novels 1984 and Animal Farm. I’d also read The Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia. But I must say that Orwell’s real metier is the essay. He is a master and a delight to read.
I’d also say that neo has more than a bit of Orwell’s fluency, humanity, and cold commonsense “to see what is in front of one’s nose.”
Orwell Diaries
Which reminds me: I haven’t checked out that site in a while. It reproduces Orwell’s wartime diaries in real time, like blog posts, 70 years later. There are even comments.
This is probably pertinent.
A Communism for the 21st Century
I see socialism as doing more than just limiting liberty. It alters the very personalities and charitable makeup of a people. A sort of softness of individual life responsibilities that produces a hardness in individual souls.
Democracy with unencumbered free markets really is grounded in the idea that extraordinary things come out of ordinary people acting in their own behalf. We have the history of an America that catapaulted on the world scene as an unprecedented powerhouse to prove it.
And history also says there is no “collective” that can match the collectiveness of people who accept life involves risk and rewards on an individual basis.
Hux, I do not think there will ever be a better first line to an essay better than the one Orwell used on England Your England,
“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.”
Although Orwell himself is rather perplexing, a leftist who was against the natural outcome of leftist ideology, that is tyranny.
Perhaps one acquaintance correctly summed him up by noting that he could not blow his nose without commenting on the poor state of the English handkerchief industry.
And I strongly disagree with you that today is as unsettled as the thirties. Mankind faces one overwhelming threat, the Iranian bomb, something a normal American president would have already dealt with. In the 1930s, as a prof once put it, the devil was not only incarnate he was winning.
My favorite Orwell quote is “one would have to be a member of the intelligentsia to believe something as stupid as that.” It goes well with George Will’s “the intelligentsia, that herd of independent minds”.
BTW, someone define “socialism”. A couple years back one prof came up with 450 definitions of socialism, 50 of them contradictory.
Here’s another quote, from Al Capp the cartoonist “everyone condemns big government, big business and big labor, without which we would be the Republic of Chad.”
BTW, before you condemn Socialism randomly, here is an experience, I lived in Israel for a while, if that government had not been intervened handily in the development of that society and state that country would a third world hell hole. Fortunately the concept of community support translated well into a benevolent socialism.
There is a stiffening bureaucracy, which has to be seen to be believed, but it has not prevented Israel from being the hi tech powerhouse “Start Up Nation”.
Here’s a story, my Israeli co-workers were shocked to discover that we have no national identification cards, they could not accept that a social security number was not the same thing.
huxley said:
Bob From Virginia Says:
I’m in strong agreement with both of these statements. As I’ve commented above, when someone says “socialism,” its important to note in what context such term is used. Socialism of the Western European “social democratic” type, and socialism of the Israeli kibbutzim, is drastically different from socialism of the totalitarian type (i.e. the socialism of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
I am for keeping government intervention to a limit. If the spectrum of government intervention has at one end the totalitarian socilism of the former Soviet bloc at one end, and European “social democratic” policies somewhere in the middle, then I want the US to be over at the other end . . . with the greatest degree of freedom and the most limited degree of government action. But, nevertheless, I can’t help but think how awful life would be if there werent workplace safety standards, or laws against child labor, or government projects such as the interstate highway system. I also support taking care of, as huxley says, “widows, orphans, the infirm or mentally deficient.” As much as I like the writings of Ayn Rand, and agree with much that she has to say, I simply cannot agree that all government action is equivalent to the first step towards a Soviet economy. Its all a matter of degree.
Neo – I consider myself independent and moderate too, but I’m registered Republican.
I do that because in my State (PA) to register Republican is to take a stand against the Blue lean of the place, especially near Phila. To be Republican is to be a certain kind of Indy – but I always make it a point NEVER to vote for Arlen Specter. I want it recorded that not all Rs who did vote, voted for him.
Independence for me is clinging to the old American values and Principles. I’m not independent of those. I want those. I use those as touchstone’s for what I might be independent of. If that makes any sense…
I also know some people who say they are moderate because they heard moderation is good in itself. The mean between extremes for Aristotle was the virtue between vices. But if one of the extremes is virtuous and the other isn’t, what good is it to be between those two things? Sometimes moiderates just don’t want to say what they are for or against, and so they let other people say it, and then they say they want a little bit of both sides.
What if the extremes did that? What if they said, ‘We won’t say what we want or don’t want until we hear what the moderates want. Then we’ll distance ourselves from them accordingly’. That doesn’t sound reasonable, but when moderates do that it sounds reasonable.
“”At root I see socialism as a natural and necessary axis of how humans organize themselves.””
Huxley
This gets to the point. What we’re seeing isn’t natural or neccessary. Anyone who thinks compassion springs from a bureacratic system of forced charity just hasn’t been paying attention.
Theres absolutely nothing compassionate about saving one deserving soul at the price of destroying self reliance in twenty others.
Huxley, And to be told by Hollywood or journalists or Democrats that they think conservatives are mean, uncompassionate, against the poor, etc ……..
……….just because our compassion doesn’t extend to a bureaucratic inefficient economically hurtful system of government punishing people who make GOOD decisions to give to those who make POOR decisions
doesn’t mean we have no compassion.
In fact, we actually did the due diligence to understand, and we truly love and that is why we don’t want to reward people who keep making poor choices.
It is born of love that we want people to take more and more personal responsibility.
This commentary isn’t directed towards the non-able bodied or elderly
Years ago there was a phrase that captures much of what is going on today — “creeping socialism.” It appears that the process is largely unidirectional. It can be stalled, but it is difficult to roll back. Western European nations seem to be moving right for economic and budgetary reasons. How much success they have remain to be seen.
The current crisis in Greece highlights the problems of cutting back on government spending for social programs. They are threatened with strikes and riots by various interest groups.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/03/taxpayers-fork-million-single-census-ad-super-bowl/
What is up with this people?
I’ll hand out 2.5 million flyers for 2.5 million dollars to advertise.
I’ve walked around to 2400 homes in my area advertising my business and estimated a .25 cent return per flyer.
This would be a 400% increase!
And I strongly disagree with you that today is as unsettled as the thirties.
Bob from Virginia: By unsettled I did not mean dire or dangerous.
I meant that we live in a troubled time when there is great disagreement about the best way to go.
There is great similarity between the thirties and our post 9-11 world. We see the rise of a totalitarian supremacist threat and some believe we should appease that threat while others believe we should fight it. We see an economic meltdown and some believe we should spend money and turn more power over the state, while others believe we should rein in spending and reduce government.
The national discussion is quite angry and contentious. No one really knows what tomorrow may bring.
I simply cannot agree that all government action is equivalent to the first step towards a Soviet economy. Its all a matter of degree.
J.L.: Great post. That’s basically where I land.
“”I simply cannot agree that all government action is equivalent to the first step towards a Soviet economy. Its all a matter of degree.””
J.L.
I’d agree with that too.
I’d just suggest theres a huge difference between providing basic services and a govt seeking to mold society’s direction and behavior.
SteveH Says:
Agreed. Note my above 3 posts. I do believe that government intervention should be limited to the greatest degree possible. Western Europe’s experiment with excessive government, while far from creating a Soviet-style oppresive state, still created an excessive inefficient bureaucracy, a drag on their economies, limitations on individual choice in certain matters, and a host of other “unintended consequences.”
Socialism means something very different
actually it doesnt. its the same thing. one is grown up and close to its final state, the others are slowly heading towards it.
they all fail… but while they exist people always think that they can last… they never ever do. and its always misery
Creeping socialism, of course. If you give a mouse a cookie…….
A fellow I work with spent time in Germany working (in training before returning to the states) for a very large and well known German firm. When Germany was reunited, they had a hell of a time getting the “East Germans” off their asses.