The 2010 US election: as Europe goes…
…so goes the 2010 US election?:
…[I]t does appear to many that within the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership there is the sentiment that America would be a better place if it were more to resemble Western Europe…
And with Western Europe on the ropes, this could provide a political opportunity for the Republicans in the November elections…
Even before the European economic problems surfaced, Republicans were planning on using the debt issue this November to brand Democrats as fiscally irresponsible.
The European economic crisis is likely to make that argument more effective. With other nations in addition to Greece facing severe financial problems because of government overspending, the story isn’t going away any time soon.
This is couched as spin and “story.” But it is much more than that; it’s common sense. People who are looking, and who are not in denial, can easily see the connections between what’s happening in Europe and what is set to happen here, and would like to avoid a similar debacle if we possibly can. And voting Democratic just doesn’t seem to be the best way to go about doing that—in fact, au contraire.
I can’t remember a time when the relevance of European economic events to our own situation was more clear. As the article points out, this is partly a result of the growing (and purposeful) tendency of this country to resemble Europe in its economic policies and its government, especially during the Obama administration. But it is also partly a result of the greater unity of European national economies (the EU and the euro) themselves, partly a result of increasing globalization and interdependence of the entire world, and partly a result of the internet and the more widespread access to information about Europe making it easier to see the trends and resemblances.
The result is that many American voters are paying closer attention to Europe. We don’t want no steenking VAT taxes, either.
Just as in Britain Gordon Brown’s and his party’s lack of leadership and fiscal restraint paved the way for Labour’s decline and the Conservative semi-ascendance, so too do polls here reflect the growing support for the Republican Party.
How strong is that support? If sentiment on this blog is any indication, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, practically no one is all that keen on the Republicans, or all that trustful of them. They messed up fiscally when they had control of Congress in the early Bush years. They have their own scandals and corruptions. They often seem to lack leadership and fire in the belly. There are too many RINOs for many people’s tastes. But—and it’s a big “but”—the Democrats have so repulsed so many voters during their days of power, and especially since 2008, that although support for the Republicans is weak, dislike of the Democrats is so strong it ends up making Republican support fairly solid, if only as backlash.
WSJ authors Wallsten, Bendavid, and Spencer report that:
A big shift is evident among independents, who at this point in the 2006 campaign favored Democratic control of Congress rather than Republican control, 40% to 24%. In this poll, independents favored the GOP, 38% to 30%.
Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. In the latest survey, they narrowly favored Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround was seen among voters 65 and older.
“This is the inverse of where we were four years ago, and in a way that projects to substantial Democratic losses in November,” Mr. McInturff said.
The new survey gives incumbents of either party little reason for comfort. Only about one in five respondents approved of the job Congress is doing.
And here’s the money quote [emphasis mine]:
Of those who want to see Republicans control the House, less than one-third said that was because they support the GOP and its candidates.
Rather, nearly two-thirds said they were motivated by opposition to Mr. Obama and Democratic policies…
“Both parties do things I disagree with,” Mr. Carter said. “But just to stop what’s going on now, I will vote Republican.”
One of the reasons this sentiment has become so widespread and so powerful is that Democrats don’t get it—or at least they don’t appear to get it. Witness this typical statement by a Democratic pollster quoted in the article:
Mr. Hart noted that, to his own party’s detriment, a series of major news events and legislative achievements””including passage of a sweeping health-care law, negotiating a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and making a quick arrest in the Times Square terrorism attempt””has not measurably increased support for Democrats. “A lot has happened,” he said, “but the basic dynamic of the 2010 elections seems almost set in concrete.”
What Mr. Hart doesn’t quite seem to understand is that those “achievements” as defined by the Democrats are seen as the exact opposite by the majority of Americans: debacles, sabotages, or incomplete and flawed policies that avoided being a failure only by chance (in the case of the Times Square bomber, for example, the alert actions of a street vendor, and the last-minute manual check of an updated no-fly list by the airplane staff).
The “lot” that has happened is mostly bad, and if the dynamic of the 2010 elections seems (barring unforeseeable developments) to be set in ever-hardening concrete, it’s because each event has solidified opposition to this administration and underlined its stubborn wrongheadedness—and statements such as Mr. Hart’s only further convince most of us that the Democrats are either incomprehensibly stupid or mendaciously and willfully destructive.
Or perhaps both.
[ADDENDUM: More from George Will.
And bringing home the bacon ain’t what it used to be. Incumbents beware.
Tony Blankley on the kind of Republicans we need. And it’s not the “business as usual” kind.]
Even those who are known for their denial must grudgingly cop to it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Greece-Debt-and-a-Lesson-for-nytimes-2658659482.html?x=0&.v=1
Democrats know. They’re just convinced head up the a** denial is a sure fire way to shape the narrative differently till election day.
For the past several years I have announced to my acquaintainces and friends that I have never been an avid Republican, but rather a strident anti-Democrat. It’s nice to see the general populace catching on.
One must wonder to what extent the media played a role in the pro-Democrat wave of 2006-2008. I believe that it was primarily an anti-Bush wave (not necessarily pro-Democrat) fueled in great part by the constant media denouciations of Bush’s policies.
On examination, however, those policies really weren’t that bad. Bush was hardly a perfect president; then again, who is? Yes, the Republicans overspent as though it was their turn to be Democrat, but they also tried to warn of the coming financial crisis on numerous occasions. The flaw was not the policy, but that Bush didn’t push the warnings more aggressively through a recalcitrant media to create public awareness of the problem and pressure Democrats like Frank and Dodd to actually do something to avert the crisis.
Furthermore, the Bush administration was especially successful in establishing policies for protection of the nation from terrorists. Remember that these policies were mostly created from “scratch.”
Now with the Obama administration making the spending Republicans look absolutely miserly, and also adopting many of the Bush security policies in spite of candidate Obama’s criticism of them, it seems that people are starting to awaken to just what a fraud the current Democratic party leadership is.
I see the pendulum now at the other extreme. The November elections will hardly be a validation of Republicans. Perhaps the vote will not even be stridently anti-Democrat, but perhaps stridently anti-Obama & Co.
and it is not new. I wrote a paper back in college… 89 or 90… projecting just social security being unable to meet its obligations (even after Reagan’s tweaks)…. can’t find it but I projected it starting to really hurt in the 2020’s…..
plus, that was not considering other entitlement programs….
The Brits elected a RINO who rejected conservatism. We will go Europe’s way if we elect what they elect, so please, no Mitch Romney.
On the other hand, President Bush is being validated where he executed conservative policies. Good for us that he became an evangelical Christian who believed in right and wrong.
His belief that he was an instrument of God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) led to his policy of the Iraq war, the surge, and opposing Muslim terror–policies which win politicians elections.
When President Bush became an instrument of Harvard and social justice (the God of nihilism, deconstructionism and cultural Marxism) Bush’s policies dovetailed and enabled the great spender policies which are not winning politicians elections.
In the light of what is going on in Europe, the passage of the national health care bill by the Democrats is beginning to look like spectacularly bad timing. The Republican solidarity in opposition to the bill is beginning to look prescient.
In recent years many European governments have drifted right while we have lurched left.
I came in to say that the donations and vote I gave to Scott Brown were for divided government, not for the Republican Party.
Curtis’s comment reinforces my attitude. I have seen little indication that the GOP would not repeat the fiscal irresponsibility and grand strategery of the Bush/Rove/DeLay years if they were returned to power. My concern remains that the GOP has no intention of offering competent limited government and is counting on Democratic incompetence.
**************
Curtis, afaik Jimmy Carter also was a born-again Christian. Al Gore, too, considers (or used to consider) himself born again.
The attitude in your comment illustrates why I remain deeply suspicious of the GOP. (Btw, evangelical Christians are not the only people who believe in right and wrong.)
It looks like the conservative swing in the electorate is not going to merely settle for the lesser of two evils in upcoming elections. The Tea Party and other motivated supporters of fiscal responsibility and limited government are really gaining traction by working the Republican Primaries. As with any major shift it will take time and setbacks will occur. I believe that the fire has been lit, and over time elected representatives will recognize that the old “silent majority” will be silent no more. In the end we will get the representation and the government that we actively demand.
gs,
Curtis sounds like an outlier to me (or a troll). The question is whether Stark is correct (not settling for the lesser of two evils) and whether or not the Republicans have learned anything from the last 4 years. This latter, we will only discover after January, 2011.
y’all have not realized that they can get what they WANT if they DON’T act… and the blame will be on the opponents…
we are falling backwards and they are not going to catch us
artfldgr,
and just who might “they”be, Repubs or dems?
I see similar sentiment throughout the rightosphere: Gratitude that sentiment is strongly against Democrats, but some trepidation that Republicans will take the wrong message from a victory.
Although the polls look good for the Republican’s now I detect a similar pattern to the UK. The recent vote over there was more anti Labour than pro Conservative and the recent polls here, as discussed above, seem to tell a similar story.
More worrying is that 6 months before the elections the polls had the Tories winning by a substantial margin but in the end they only just scraped home. As we now stand 6 months before the US elections I can only hope that the same patterm will not be repeated here.
I’ve never self-identified as a Republican, although I have voted that way. My identity has always been as a JF Kennedy type Democrat. But the floor shifted and us Kennedy style democrats are conservatives now by definition. It’s not me that changed.
I’m hoping with everything I’ve got that these words from Dylan 1965 will now define Obama and his minions in 2010 and 2012.
These are the words:
“All your seasick sailors, they are rowing home.
Your empty handed armies, are all going home.
Your lover who just walked out the door
Has taken all her blankets from the floor.
The carpet, too, is moving under you
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue.”
T, yes I second Stark’s constructive realism. Curtis may be an outlier on this site, but I have passed through places on the Web where he is not.
Per LondonTrader, “a week is an eternity in politics.”
I don’t know what a Kennedy-style Dem is. If you mean having a Dad who was pro-Nazi, picking LBJ as Veep, winning an election by fraud, appointing your brother Attorney-General, and finking out on the Cubans you mobilized into the Bay of Pigs, count me out. Oh, sorry, I forgot Camelot, but that was good, right?
So the Republicans get control of maybe the House of Representatives but not the Senate in 2010. Then the bottom falls out. Who do you think the media will blame?
In general, I think about 75% of elections are lost — not won.
After JFK got us into Vietnam, and LBJ deepend the commitment to the unpopular war, Americans lost faith in the Democrats and voted in Nixon. After Nixon and Agnew embarrassed the country with their forced resignations, we voted in Democrat Carter out of disgust for the Republicans. After the horrible economy under Carter, and his inability to free the hostages in Iran, we voted out Carter and in came Reagan. The early part of Reagan’s first term was marked by high unemployment and low approval ratings, and at this time in his first term it looked like he wouldn’t be re-elected. But the economy turned around sharply so he was re-elected to a second term. And the economy stayed strong in his second term, and the USSR grew increasingly weaker, so we stayed with the Republicans and elected his VP to be president in ’88. Bush 41s re-election in ’92 was hijacked by Perot, who sucked off enough Independent votes to allow Clinton to win with well only about 40% of the vote. I really can’t explain why Bush won in 2000 over Gore, but he was probably re-elected in 2004 because the economy had turned aound and we were in the middle of a war and Americans didn’t want to take a chance with a Kerry presidency. But by the end of Bush’s second term, the MSM had really cranked up the anti-Bush rhetoric to extereme levels and then when the financial crisis hit McCain didn’t stand a chance.
So, when we change regimes, it’s almost never because we like what the opposition is offering. It’s almost always because we dislike what the current regime has done.
I’m not sure the Democrats are smart and disciplined enough to pull this off, but I’m likewise not sure the Republicans are smart and disciplined enough to avoid blundering into it. Between now and January the Democrats can set the country up for some very serious domestic and foreign crises in both 2010 and the coming years; should the Republicans win in November they may find themselves held responsible for those messes.
Naturally they could blame Obama and Co. for taking a bad situation and making it worse, but I suspect after less that two years of hearing Obama blame Bush for everything up to and possibly including his Wagyu beef being overcooked most Americans will have little patience for finger-pointing. Unless the Republicans go into November with can-do ideas and can-do candidates instead of the usual crowd of Beltway retreads, they could end up setting up a 2012 resurgence for the Democrats–but not necessarily for Obama. He’s not only beclowned himself, he’s beCartered himself….
First time I’ve ever been accused of being a troll! But then I just accused someone on yesterday’s blog of being a troll (antimedia) so there’s some poetic justice to that.
gs, your comments are well taken and true.
Everyone believes in right and wrong, even postmodernists who deny the concept. But I believe in a right “right and wrong” and a wrong “right and wrong,” whereby evangelical Christianity is a whole lot closer to the right “right and wrong,” than say Islam or social justice Catholicism. And that, I believe, is a majority view which will get conservative Republicans elected if they espouse it.
I argue that conservatism wins. Look at the movies. Hollywood pumps out BS PC ad nauseum but then something like Blind Side rakes in the crowds.
Yep, you’ve got it right Tom – you don’t know what a Kennedy style Democrat is / was. But, you are a bright one aren’t you? I’m sure you read every word of my comment carefully. I’m not talking about JFK personally and his sorry family. I’m talking about the assertion of a political vision / culture that aspired toward strength and coherence in foreign policy and in fiscal responsibility among lots of other things; an alternative vision to the static, dull passive Republicanism at the time. Sorta like what we see now with establishment Republicans.
So, JohnC, you like the talk JFK talked (as did I) but it is how he walked the walk that matters. And I did really read your words, thanks. I must admit to some doubt of anyone who quotes Bob Dylan as a meaningful source of insight in those, and these, troubled times.
I still like Bob Dylan, especially the early Dylan. And, I have NO problem quoting him at any time and I could give a hoot Tom about what you think about that. What I do give a hoot about is defeating this Obama regime in 2010 /2012. I constantly survey the landscape of rising conservative politicians with vision that is not establishment Republican and, unfortunately, I’m not particularly inspired. But I will vote to defeat Obama even though I might have to hold my nose to do so with some. And, I might even do it while humming a Dylan song.
JFK-style Democrat? Good God. You do know that JFK’s fecklessness came within a whisker of causing a nuclear war, right?
JFK gets props from Dems (and me) for his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis, but doesn’t get dinged by Dems (but by me) for having caused it in the first place. Khruschev was apparently so underwhelmed Kennedy at the Vienna summit that he decided to try it on with the missles in Cuba. I guess Khruschev wasn’t as much of a pushover as a Hollywood starlet, but then, who is?
JFK’s reputation rests solely upon his failing to duck at the operative moment. He was campaigning in Dallas because his re-election chances were looking so dicey at the time.
Having said that, JFK’s speeches would mark him as a conservative Republican today. He’d be branded as a fascist warmonger promoting American hegemony by the very people who speak of him today in hushed tones.
These observations are closely linked. The Carter economy was lousy because of inflation, and expectations that it would continue, which fueled still more inflation as lenders demanded higher interest rates to offset the expected inflation.
Reagan’s first 18 months were tough economically because Volcker and the Fed jammed on the brakes – hard – to wring inflation and inflationary expectations out of the economy. This demonstration that the government/Fed were willing to take such unpopular action to wring out inflation lowered borrowing costs by reassuring investors. That in turn caused the economy to rebound.
Note that Buraq is doing the exact opposite of Volcker/Reagan (even though Volcker is an advisor to Obama, he’s obviously being ignored). So the likelihood a big turnaround is probably not that high. Too much uncertainty about what Obama/Dems will do next for people to take any risks they can possibly avoid.
on a side bar, the film of the polish plane crash and the shots in it has hit the main stream suddenly.
Footage of Polish air crash emerges claiming to show Russian-speaking men shooting survivors
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1278175/Footage-Polish-air-crash-emerges-claiming-Russian-speaking-men-shooting-survivors.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I never went so far as to say what was the shooting noise about or for.
My Czech friends said the Russians did it. Her exact words: “They know how to do these things.”
I don’t know what a JFK-style Dem is supposed to be, but I am reminded of JFK’s tax policies, which were actually fairly conservative–he cut them, with good results, as I recall. Maybe that’s what John C. was referring to.
I agree with Scott that most elections are lost, not won. That’s a comment on the reactionary nature of our politics: Even–and maybe especially–Obama’s campaign and election, which seemed to be so much about what’s possible (Hope! Change! Si se puede!), was really more about what people wanted to dump. And then all the while, Dude flips the crowd off–repeatedly. But no one noticed, at least not much. At least not so’s it mattered.
Incidentally, I’m no Carter fan. Some say he’s lately been replaced as our worst president ever–making even James Buchanan (or was it Rutherford B. Hayes?) third-worst. But I must, in fairness, point out that he appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve. Carter could not only have done worse–he could hardly have done better.
Given that, I keep wondering why a man of such obvious prior integrity as Volcker continues to allow himself to be used as a decoration for this present administration. I wonder if they might have something on him (don’t they have something on everyone?).
Well the next election will bid fair to be lost rather than won. God willing, it will be soon enough.
Pfui.
I’d forgotten that Carter had appointed Volcker, so Carter loses his shutout – he did do something worthwhile after all. If Jimmy was trying to shoot the moon, he missed – but not by much.
Btw, I’d say consideration of worst President requires a weighting for the significance of the country at the time. Yes, Buchanan was terrible, but the Civil War was probably inevitable any way.
Volcker is in his 80s (IIRC), which may explain this.
JohnC Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Funny you should mention that. Just recently I realized that his 1963 song “The Times They Are A-Changin” sounded rather fresh and pertinent:
That song is nearly 50 years old, but hell, it could be a Tea Party anthem!
Tom:
I’ll quote Dylan anytime, anywhere. And he’s improving with age, if that’s even imaginable. His last four or five albums are among the best he’s ever made. Last summer I saw him live. He played about 15 songs and only 3 of them were from before 2000. I’ll bet there were some older fans in the audience who were scratching their heads and thinking, “I don’t recognize any of these songs”, but I loved it.
He will turn 69 on May 24, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s just getting warmed up. Check out Workingman’s Blues #2 from the album Modern Times. It’s a ballad for the New Depression, and a masterpiece.
LOL! Dylan! Well, I’ve never liked him, but I’ve liked him better as a writer, when other people perform his stuff, than as a performer of his own stuff. Andrew Ferguson published a piece at The Weekly Standard a while back that advanced the notion of Dylan having contempt for his own audience, and I found it fairly persuasive: http://tinyurl.com/2axxde9
Have a look.
I’m also reminded of a piece on, I think, Thistle and Shamrock some years ago, which quoted some Celtic star or another as saying that, “if you want to attain the top billin’, just murder good prose and sing through your nose, and then you’ll sound just like Bob Dylan!”
🙂
Fine, JohnC. I’ll sing with you as we vote to the same purpose.
Curtis, as it happens I have no problem with someone formulating his political positions on the basis of religious convictions.
I have a major problem when political advocates do not express such positions in secular terms: in terms, so to speak, of natural law.
IMO religious phrasings of political positions are either lazily thought out (so why take them seriously?) or, worse, a deliberate attempt to seize the power of government to force a sectarian agenda on the entire polity.
(Similarly, I do not care if American federal judges consult works of international jurisprudence, but I care a whole lot if they cite international jurisprudence instead of sticking to Constitution-based reasoning.)
Eh. I’m not impressed with the Ferguson piece. He seems to be enamored of his own snarkiness.
Dylan has always gone his own way, and has alienated his core supporters time and time again. His attitude has always been, “This is what I’m doing. If you like it, fine. If you don’t like it, that’s fine too.” He pissed off his folk music fans when he started playing electric in the mid-60s, and then pissed off the sex ‘n drugs ‘n rock & roll crowd when he played gospel music in the late 70s. His newest music is kind of hard to pin down. It seems to echo Tin Pan Alley pop songs of the 20s and 30s. Some of the songs sound like they’re 100 years old. He has absorbed every conceivable kind of American musical tradition and synthesizes them in new ways. His most recent albums sound oddly familiar, but not like anything that anybody else is doing.
And I liked the Christmas album, too. Except for the backup singers, the rest of the musicians are his regular touring band. There’s some neat bluesy stuff in there too.
rickl: I too have found that some of Dylan’s tunes are more relevant today than they were a few years ago. It’s amazing. I agree with your appreciation of his never ending talent, although I’m more fond his early stuff. Now . . why won’t he write some caustic tunes about this regime? About problems with political correctness and hypocrisy and blind-minded followers so forth?
Tom: sounds good. Keep in mind though, that although I’m sure I can carry a tune better than Neo, I’m mostly good at singing in my mind.
Republicans — please, simply put forth a halfway decent candidate/running mate.
You hurt the ones that I love best
And cover up the truth with lies
One day you’ll be in the ditch
Flies buzzing around your eyes
Blood on your saddle
Now I’ll have to get caught up with Dylan’s more recent work. When he was younger, I always thought he knew things that he almost couldn’t have possibly known at his age.
Some observers conclude that there is world-wide repudation of Keynessian economics and crisis of trust in establishment, currency, political system as a whole. See
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/05/12/the-failure-of-the-federal-confidence-game.php
Look at this Chris Christie video from Ed Driscoll.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/05/13/chris-christie-is-new-jersey/
More of this from Republicans could change the party image. If Christie’s follow through works at all, he will give voters something to vote for. After all the Obama mush, a little straight talk is refreshing.
Something really big is afoot. The whole EU project is crumbling and can fall apart, all its pillars being undermined: welfare state ideology, multiculturalism, common currency. This is the end of Western civilization as we know it.
EU can follow in the steps of Weimar Republic. Few things are more dangerous than economically unsettled Europe.
Glad Tom has chilled out after his reflexive rant upon hearing the word “Kennedy.” OB’s criticism was more on point. On character issues, it’s never fair to look at only one side of the balance scale.
I have also thought that verse of “The Times They Are A-Changing” should be a Tea Party Anthem. As to Dylan himself, he seems to go from pointless obscurity to (accidental?) genius on a suicide clutch. I don’t think he can be easily summarized. I don’t think even he knows what the hell he’s all about half the time. I have thought he’s a sort of “Tommy” from The Who: that deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.
Obama and the Democrats never cared about what the citizens in this country wanted or needed. The plan was always to have illegal aliens made legal in one fell swoop to mitigate the value of legal citizens and in some cases over ride their votes.
Also, they are trying to place as many people on the welfare rolls as possible so that they will be afraid to vote against Obama et al, for fear of losing government payments. Add to that the redistribution of working people’s money to those who don’t and you add another powerful incentive. Add those who no longer pay taxes and one can readily see why Congress and the President ignores the rest of the country.
Some observers conclude that there is world-wide repudation of Keynessian economics
keynes the older man refuted keynes the younger man…
thats how bad it is…
like langston hughes… the younger man is who is celebrated, the older anti communist is not known
Something really big is afoot. The whole EU project is crumbling and can fall apart, all its pillars being undermined: welfare state ideology, multiculturalism, common currency. This is the end of Western civilization as we know it.
a long time ago… i said that even if all this looks bad, it could be like a judo pull move… that is, the end will turn out to have been using the lefts power against them, moving out of their way, and letting them, once again, be seen in high relief against the absence of opposition.
a parasite needs the host.
when the host steps back and gives the parasite everything they want, there is no longer a body politic for the parasitical class to hide their machinations in.
while i tend to the dark side…
i will also point out that from the invasion of Iraq, that every burner on every stove would be turned on, and prevent Iran, which would force them to play their hands all over as finesse is not their way.
A week ago, let alone a year ago, if i said that the Euro and the complete plans of the soviets for sovietizing europe, then the west and such would fall apart as each state takes up its own currency and independence from the UNOPPOSED SOVIET ruling the EU states.
for bright people who pretend to study history, they always forget one problem with commune
unlike a free capitalist state, which can tolerate a huge spectrum of economics as PEOPLE ARE MOBILE.
a commune equal sharing means that either everyone gets wealthy, or else people who are able leave the commune
don’t matter whether its a Russian soviet commune created to the dialectic of Marx through some personality of the current condition
or its historical, like many i can mention. they ALL failed the same way…
we are so hip on how a free state fails and how much they tell us how fragile it is… but in truth, a free state inspires true fealty..
what is true fealty? what George Washington had, that Mirtrokhin, Vladimir Bukovsky, Stroilov, could not have given the truth…
this is why the focus on the young, and all the games. only a very tiny few manipulative few are loyal, and even they are only sociopathically loyal to what they can get out of it. no honor among thieves. remember?
when utopia seems to be possible, everyone will throw their hat in… when it exposes parasitical states and people, EVERYONE goes galt and fixes the eventually end of the few who can not maintain the convergence point of their machinations for very long past their win.
as Lenin said…
its not gaining power that is hard
its holding on to it that makes the difference
given that Stalin’s daughter is a Wisconsin cheese head… holding on to it is not possible in such a state.
What i see this morning and the turns in Europe and such is the answer to the soviet question/ the Nazi question,and the Frankfurt school question as to the destruction of the west.
The answer to the (great) question is becoming evident
the steel of statist teeth cant bite through the diamond surface of freedom once realized, and ultimately, wears itself down and destroys itself trying.
it wastes itself, throwing itself against a concept that can not be stopped, hidden, or denied in modern times
there are good reasons why…
.
(but that doesn’t mean that things will be ok for those living in the wrong time)
but the human system is designed to self limit itself from unproductive ends. and command economies are not better than nothing, and they are not better than our natural organization which it denies.
again… historical fools pretending to be smart
the system destroys itself if it falls under control
it can only exist healthy if its allowed to explore the solution space completely and pretty much unhindered.
every substantiated point clips infinity of potential, and so the path is forever sealed from this end biologically.
which makes sense given that a large cooperative of separate lines will not become slaves to a single or small set of lines for anything but a short time in history
and if they try to make a large cooperative out of only their own lines, they will genetically end up inbred and too weak to keep it going
if they dumb the population down to achieve the end, they get to achieve the same past end of aristocracy, not the current prize of a modern state… no way to go backwards and stay where you are.
the ONLY way to succeed in the long term… is to let it all happen on its own, and ride the successful ideas over the unsuccessful, and expand out into the universe… where there is so much room and space, people can literally have their own solar system to live in.
water water everywhere, how long can they convince us its a dessert? especially when they are a den of sociopaths and thieves?
ultimately… look at their army…
the perverted, the sick, the indigent, the incapable, the parasitical, the criminal, the etc.
Ultimately that group only has power on the auspices of who they are attacking, and that succeeding triggers their failure
just as their failure results in success…
the rebound will make the elizabethan and victorian ages look like a weimar german night club party
welfare state ideology, multiculturalism, common currency. This is the end of Western civilization as we know it.
i should also point out that those were NEVER part of Western civilization… they were always semi eastern ideas promoted to the judeo christian western modern society, which tries everything, but eventually throws up what doesn’t work.
the body politic is rejecting the grafted organs of the communist state, and they are withering on the vine.
Ultimately the question will come of whether to rule over a wasteland or be part of something better
for the long term, there is no way to have whats in something better, maintained in a wasteland
cant have it both ways..
the fact you cant lends just a tiny bit of credence to the wisdom of god embedded in the fabric of the universe. i doesn’t have to be that way, but it is.
gs: Thanks and I most heartily agree. Nothing is quite so jarring as a dose of Scripture as “proof” or foundation. It is laziness to not reformulate.
But the line is sometimes hard to draw. For instance, I watched a public TV special on the moon race last night and when Apollo Eight circled the moon and the astronauts looked at the earth, they took turns reading a good chunch of the first chapter of Genesis. The narrator felt obligated to explain why the astronauts did this. He apologized for their lack of political correctness, which, in my thinking, is a religion.
Natural law provides the best foundation and opportunity for tolerance, but often it leaves one with nothing to say.
Germa Yahoo News is citing an El Pais report that Sarkosy threatened to leave the monetary union if Merkel didn’t approve the bailout for Greece. Paris and Berlin are denying this, but Spanish sources are still saying the meeting was pretty hot. Kumbaya, folks.
Not quite on-topic, but not far off either:
There’s an interesting article regarding Europe (well, specifically, regarding soviet-era archives that two fellows -Pavel Stroilov and Vladimir Bukovsky- haven’t been able to interest anybody in looking at). The article includes snippets of conversations between Gorbachev and others, and a summary of a conversation between Gorbachev and an envoy of British Lord Kinnock regarding halting the Trident program (of which a later British politician said “If this report is true, then Lord Kinnock would be guilty of treason.”) Also, “Stroilov’s papers suggest as well that the government of the current Spanish EU commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, Joaquén Almunia, enthusiastically supported the Soviet project of gradually unifying Germany and Europe into a socialist ‘common European home’.” The article hints that there are uncomfortably close ties between the European Parliament and the former Supreme Soviet. *
I’ve only skimmed it but seems “Verrry Interesting”. Now, how do we get all these thousands of pages translated from Russian to prove the extent of the ties between the old USSR and the new EU?
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html
* One key paragraph: “There are other ways in which the story that Stroilov’s and Bukovsky’s papers tell isn’t over. They suggest, for example, that the architects of the European integration project, as well as many of today’s senior leaders in the European Union, were far too close to the USSR for comfort. This raises important questions about the nature of contemporary Europe–questions that might be asked when Americans consider Europe as a model for social policy, or when they seek European diplomatic cooperation on key issues of national security.”
I can not see anything sensational (for me, at least) in Stroilov’s archive. Closeness of architects of European Union to Gorbachev’s political philosophy is also nothing new. German Chancellor Willy Brandt was the president of Socialist International untill his death. There hardly is a big difference between ideology of Socialist International and Gorbachev’s vision of European future.
In German politics there is long tradition to see Russia as a natural polygone for cultural colonization. Almost all Russian tzars married German princesses and have full cabinets of German advisors and ministers. Brandt’s “Ostenpolitics” is a part of this tradition. (Just as pact Molotov-Ribbentrop.)
Sergey, Merkel opponent and Gazprom Gerd Schroeder friend Steinmeier glowed during Obama’s Victory Column visit. They had great discussions about Russian relations. Apparently he gave Obama the inside dope on how Medvedev was a true reformer and how he should be approached.
Relations between Russian and German political elites (and their intelligentsia) always were much more cordial than between respective masses. This story began since Peter The Great. These two empires always seen even their own people as despised rubes, and even more so small eastern European nations, whose interests they were ready to sacrifice to their own geopolitical ambitions.
Geopolitics is based on naked national interest, and here interests of Germany and Russia are mutually compatible: Germany needs Russian energy export, and Russia needs German expertise and investments. Russia also needed some European counter-balance to American influence, just as Germany needs Russian counter-balance to US. Both Putin and Medvedev tried to establish the best possible relation to Schroeder and Merkel, and hope to have German assistance in recognizing Russian sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe. In my view, they have good chance of success. But the ultimate prize for Russian leadership would be to split Europe and re-orient Germany for strategic economic and political alliance with Russia at expence of the rest of Europe and USA. This looks now as too ambitious goal, but who knows?
1. Curtis, my primary reaction to your latest comment is that if a political position cannot be expressed in terms of natural law, it should be scrutinized with special thoroughness. I remain open to persuasion on a case by case basis, but my prejudice is that a policy which can’t be justified via natural law is something that a limited government with enumerated powers probably should not be doing.
2. During the Apollo era, even the most unimaginative people were moved by the completely unprecedented nature of what was happening. (Iirc the world crime rate plunged during the landing: even the thieves, muggers and swindlers made it a point to tune in.) IMO the astronauts who read from Genesis were trying to articulate their awe by use of the most powerful imagery they knew. I don’t think that sectarianism, let alone politics, was much on their minds.
3. This has been a worthwhile exchange of views and we have much more in common than I had expected. If such civil and constructive dialogues were common practice, the Big Tent would be back up in no time, bigger than ever. Thanks.
gs. Received and appreciated. I have to be careful to not let concern turn into habitual outrage. I have a saying, “the dialogue is over,” which of course, is meant only for those who Robin of Berkeley said live on Mars. Maybe its time to not even say, “the dialogue is over,” and merely apply when appropriate.
Here is a pretty good, if brief, summary of the European monetary union and its conceptual problems. One question I have about this report is its emphasis on Helmut Kohl as the great motor behind things. I’ve read read that France pushed Kohl on monetary union as a condition for supporting reunification. I don’t know whether that is true. I do know that Kohl was commited to the EU as the way to achieve peace in Europe. His mistake was in trying to prevent the last war and in conveying to the people the idea that if Germans don’t start another war, there won’t be one. Of course, Germany has always had the US to manage nasty little problems like Korea, China/Taiwan, and even the stupid Parsley Island dispute between Morocco and Spain..
Here’s the Bloomberg article:
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-14/euro-breakup-talk-increases-as-germany-sees-greece-becoming-currency-proxy.html