The joke’s on Guatemala
It’s becoming clear that the “throw the bums out and elect an untried and untested personality” impulse is international. First we had Canada, which elected an inexperienced but telegenic son of a former prime minister, a young man who until a little while ago had led a largely apolitical life. Then there’s the continued presence of Donald Trump as the leading US Republican. Now Guatemala elects a TV comedian as president.
That’s no joke. It may sound like a “Seinfeld” episode, but this one’s a reality show. And who knows, he may even do better than his predecessors in the office, whose corruption helped lead to his election.
Nobody really knows what TV comic Jimmy Morales will be doing as president (and no, this is not the Onion, nor is the date April First). But they’re hoping for the best:
…[Morales] has given little detail on his plans to overcome entrenched corruption besides promising to put more money into justice, make government spending transparent and audit institutions.
Morales’ manifesto was just six pages long, giving few clues as to how he might govern, and his FCN party will have just 11 out of 158 seats in the next Congress.
His previous gig was a TV show that “centered on skits and lewd jokes,” although he’s also “a former theology student with socially conservative leanings.” More about Morales:
He comes from a poor family and is an Evangelical Christian. He holds degrees in Business Administration from the national Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala and in theology…
He runs on a platform of conservative values and against corruption. His slogan is “Neither corrupt nor a thief.” He identifies as a nationalist, supports the death penalty and opposes abortion.
It seems as though the world has grown weary of politicians, particularly corrupt ones. And although I’m weary of them too—and certainly of corruption—it’s not clear that Morales has any executive experience running anything, unlike most of our own current non-politician candidates.
But I think maybe Peggy Noonan got it wrong in her latest column when she wrote about Donald Trump’s candidacy:
The only thing I feel certain of is how we got here. There are many reasons we’re at this moment, but the essential political one is this: Mr. Obama lowered the bar. He was a literal unknown, an obscure former state legislator who hadn’t completed his single term as U.S. senator, but he was charismatic, canny, compelling. He came from nowhere and won it all twice. All previously prevailing standards, all usual expectations, were thrown out the window.
Anyone can run for president now, and in the future anyone will. In 2020 and 2024 we’ll look back on 2016 as the sober good ol’ days. “At least Trump had business experience. He wasn’t just a rock star! He wasn’t just a cable talk-show host!”
Trudeau and Morales indicate to me what I already thought, which is that Obama’s election is a symptom of something, not a cause. He was elected because of some change in the standards by which the electorate judges a candidate, a change that predated his election and presaged it. We just didn’t know it yet.
America’s influence is vast, perhaps more vast than people realized if they thought most of it was military in nature.
When one pillar falls, they all begin falling.
Yes, yes it is. Since the FDR days, Americans have been indoctrinated with statism and emotionalism, same as the Germans were prior to the Weimar Republic…only the Germans didn’t get bad philosophy fed to them 24/7 via TV and social media. Also, since the sixties, the Country has suffered mass immigration from socialist countries and the new immigrants work to turn America into the horror that they left. Today, if a candidate advocates individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility, that candidate will never be elected. Many (most?) Americans have rejected reason are now clamoring for a “strong leader”; They’ll get their wish sooner or later…good and hard.
It’s becoming clear that the “throw the bums out and elect an untried and untested personality” impulse is international…. (thats cause communism is international communism… duh… what do you think their anthem is called? the locale?)
“Use the courts, use the judges, use the constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization, by constant campaigns about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness, make the capitalist himself, by his own appropriation, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of that nation.” Address of Laventria Beria
I just read a good column, by Joel Kotkin, on the new widespread populism (http://tinyurl.com/pa2bym2). Not that there’s ever just one cause.
Kotkin compares the current situation to Stalin’s oppression of the kulaks. In this analogy, American small businesses would be like the kulaks. The Tea Party would be a kulak rebellion against the new oligarchs — not just the big banks, but also Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, teachers’ unions, academia, mainstream media, big government, etc.
Kotkin doesn’t mention Guatemala, but most Latin American countries have been ruled by an oligarchy for a long time. In some ways, they are our future. For this, we need only look at California’s change over the last few decades.
Anyway, here’s Kotkin’s last paragraph. I’d guess it would appeal to those of us who also appreciate Victor Davis Hanson.
“In Russia, the forces of the state managed to destroy the kulaks, cementing a legacy of economic stagnation, particularly in the countryside, that remains today. America’s war on the kulaks may be less bloody-minded, but if it is not somehow halted, both our economy and the country’s intrinsic entrepreneurial spirit will fade. We may end up looking all too much like contemporary Russia, an oligarch-dominated kleptocracy that holds out increasingly little promise to its own people, and provides no real role model to the rest of the world.”
Obama’s election is a symptom of something, not a cause. He was elected because of some change in the standards by which the electorate judges a candidate
yeah… not like feminism getting the women to vote communist milquotoasts had no effect… they USED to vote WITH their families when they did… but free birth control, free tampons, and free free free are what you need to win in the modern era, women can be bought.
of course since thats not the image gold diggers who are hypergamous and want to hae their beauty validated by others giving them crap, they will fight and hem and haw.
but note… what did feminism promise them? money, freedom, cancer, alcoholism, end to their families, high paying jobs wiht high taxes… and on and on.
but the point was that daddy goverment was BBD for women… so they sold out their famlies, brothers, husbands, sons and more..
thats the fundemental change that came… the kids had to be left wiht the state that momma loves..
Free the Tampons, end bathroom enequality!!
http://freethetampons.org/
the ACA gives women more benefits than men and charges them less… you can bribe women to hurt their kids and their kids future as long as they have freebies!!!!
sorry, but only deluded people with self itnerest will see anything different.
[edited for length by n-n]
Argentina, had done something not too different.
Both you and Noonan could be correct.
Yes, a crass and vulgar feminization and hyper-socialization of the American electorate’s moral sensibilities were the precursors, but there is always that final and fatal infectious agent which the victim was theretofore thought immune.
It will probably continue to get worse until internal systemic weakness causes a collapse probably assisted from without; or, some group of people within decide that they don’t wish to be complicit in their own suicide, will shake off the blinders of Kumbayaist ideology and wash off the decades of all this “we” and “unconditionally committed to a shared fate” shit they have been coated with, and then in resisting what continually becomes ever more demanding “settled law”, find they are forced into violence.
What is clear is that we have two very distinct and incompatible moral communities inhabiting the same politically defined landmass. One of which wants and demands from the other what the other neither needs nor wants from it.
a sampling of articles:
[and yes, those other countries have a large movement as well, with many women thinking they are voting like americans and will make waht america has in terms of wealth by doing so]
Why are most feminists Democrats?
better to betray your family and children than to go against the sisterhood, eh? (even if you say your not one of them!)
Whatever Happened to Republican Feminists?
http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/polhistory/repubfem.htm
Everything Is a “Women’s Issue”
get rid of their mates and they will vote for a strong austrian to return the society to the things they want… right? ha ha ha… too funny… given that the people they side with talk about controlling them, gave them deseases, took away their high status by claiming it was low, destroyed their famlies and in some cases exterminated that future, and more and more..
good fun…
What Democrat Feminism Has Wrought
ok, slice the best part of above off as its not allowed to make fun of the choices of women.
here is one last part:
The major game-changer for the white-women’s vote might be a presidential run for Hillary Clinton. She might resonate with white women voters in a way that Barack Obama–and his mostly white, male Democratic party–has not. But like the saying goes: The first step is admitting you have a problem. Democrats can’t afford to wait for demographic shifts to change the game. They’ve got to get their own white majority on board. After all, as the recent past indicates, Republicans may use their power to keep communities of color from the polls, only further upping the ante for Democrats to figure out how to reach white women.
Artfldgr: Your last quote, just above, is nutty, andperhaps you posted it as a joke. I did not read your priors, because I know they are anti-feminist, as I am.
Cornflour: You got it right.
Noonan wants people to forget she couldn’t wait to jump on Choomie;s bandwagon.
And, yes, Trump has to “political” experience. Neither did Eisenhower, Grant, or Jackson.
But, unlike Selfie, they all accomplished something in their lives.
riffing on formwiz above:
Ms. Peg:
“Mr. Obama lowered the bar.”
What a bitchy insinuation. As one commenter keeps reminding us — blame the voters — who lowered the bar. Blaming Obama is like blaming the grafter for the cupidity of his marks. And what distaff columnist, whose forte is honeyed prose, was it that waxed and swooned over BHO? Anyone? Peg?
That’s grifter – not grafter. Though I see how grafter could work also.
Actually what we may be seeing is a manifestation of something that has been going on for quite some time.
The Kennedy-Nixon debates were broadcast on TV and radio. Interestingly the opinions of the audiences of who won differed. The TV audience thought Kennedy won while the radio audience thought Nixon won. I suspect that the deciding factor was not content but delivery. On TV Kennedy’s delivery was more photogenic and therefore successful. Physical looks trumped mere content.
formiz: At the general grade level politics is an integral part of the position. All those generals had to play and understand politics. Patton is an example is one who lacked political skill and ruined his carer as a result. If you want to read an excellent condemnation of amateurs in politics try de Tocqueville’s “The Old Regime and the Revolution”.
Somewhat off-subject. Has anyone noted how unmemorable anything Cruz or Bush said. They both have excellent resumes and both may be good material but the only thing I recall about Cruz is that he cooks bacon by wrapping around a gun barrel and shooting. As for Jeb the fact that he gets his foreign policy advice from James Baker who addressed J-street is the only thing I care to know about him.
Artfldgr: Have you considered the calming effect of heroin suppositories?
I agree. But she was not the only one feeling thrilling tingles in her legs, or deliriously sniffing at the crease in his slacks.
What species are these “people” anyway?
I blame the voters ….
As to Peggy Noonan, the disdain and distaste for her is bottomless … She didn’t need go after Sarah Palin.
She did.
Goodbye … for ever.
Same with Althouse. Too clever by half.
You are who you vote for ….
Campaign slogans such as: “Hope and Change”, “Change You Can Believe In”, “We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For” all tapped into the general dissatisfaction with the traditional political class. Now we have 2 outsiders leading in the polls for the GOP. People are tired of repeating the same behavior and getting the same old result.
What species are these “people” anyway?
Fanatics. It’s not something normal people would be familiar with.
Doesn’t seem like Pal is going to forgive Noonan. That’s okay, I won’t forgive the Left either.
As for women, there is an unofficial hierarchy there that mixes with the patriarchal or orthodox hierarchy. Which is why the Left thought taking over the feminist groups would be so useful. In order to complete the coup, they focused on two things.
1. Destroy the love of a woman for a man and vice a versa, thus destroying other loyalties that a woman may have, besides to government. This is similar to the Soviet union making oversea agents marry approved Russians, rather than local women. Keeps it in the “family” and keeps people’s loyalty in check.
2. Destroy the veneration many women have for over achievers, by tarnishing people like Sarah Palin as “not real women”. Thus putting into power the ‘real women’ like PillowC, Feinstein, and Maureen Dowd. The ‘real women’ in charge of the unofficial hierarchy of women.
Like many coups, the old guard has to be exterminated and replaced, and the loyalty of the soldiers must be maintained via gifts and bribes, or threats.
Once the Leftist alliance has the HIV and cancer versions taking over a group of people, it spreads, until people get what they see. Amazing isn’t it.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/wow-pro-abortion-democrat-steals-popes-glass-to-drink-remaining-water-with-wife-then-sprinkles-on-grandkids/
In case people thought I was exaggerating about the Left’s death cult fanatics, consider this. That’s the Pope, the head of a real religion and an old one, then consider what the Democrat behavior suggests and implies.
They are ALL like this, neurotic to one degree or another. It comes from selling their soul and killing their conscience.
From Brainy Quotes:
It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.
Ann Coulter
The standards that changed were those of the MSM, which essentially praised Barry to the rafters.
The vast number of LIV voted accordingly.
In total contrast, Sarah Palin, a quality politician with the highest approval polling I’ve heard of… was roundly trashed.
&&&
There’s an overlooked transformation within our information system: all of the younger journalists are being laid off — because they lack seniority.
So many newsrooms are staffed with ‘seniors’ whose coming of political age was 1968-1975.
These grandparents have no connection to young adults — two generations younger.
The same must be said of Yellen and company.
Within their emotional core, it’s still 1973, and they are True Believers, still marching in lock step.
As of late, I’m feeling a bit contrarian.
Experience is often overrated. As proof, Wash. DC is filled with ‘experience’.
Other than not being part of the political establishment (necessary to ‘experience’) what’s not to like about Guatemala’s Morales? Degrees in business administration and theology i.e. (we are ALL answerable to a ‘higher authority’).
Socially conservative leanings and identifies as a nationalist, supports the death penalty and opposes abortion. Grew up poor and denounces governmental corruption and theft from the public treasury. As for being a former comedian, laughter is the only sane response to the world’s insanity.
As for Trump, over at PJmedia, a commenter’s response to an article critical of Trump by Victor Davis Hanson was of interest;
“What are Trumps politics? Like Napoleons, no one quite knows.”Victor Davis Hanson
So I did visit Trump’s site and perused his positions. He only states his domestic positions, of which I can find nothing obvious to criticize and if he’s consistent, his domestic positions infer his positions on foreign ones.
Trump reminds me of Reagan in that he doesn’t lose himself in details. More important than how he intends to accomplish his goals is an attitude that failure is not an option. An illustrative and possibly apocryphal story of Reagan is his first official briefing on the Soviets. Asked what his strategy was regarding the Soviets, Reagan responded with “We win, they lose”.
That seems entirely in keeping with Trump’s attitude. And that kind of attitude is absolutely necessary if the momentum is to be seized back in our conflict with the Left.
The current wave isn’t the first.
I’ve told you I consider Italy a bellwether; remember Beppe Grillo? He didn’t manage to clean up Italy. Mainly I suppose because he’s a comedian.
And leave it to Noonan to miss the mark again.
And in a rare note of disagreement with GB, I won’t be voting for Trump. The man brags about buying influence, and does so quite openly. Donald Trump is not a moral man. An immoral man will lose his way easily in D.C.
And in a rare note of disagreement with GB, I won’t be voting for Trump.
Don’t you worry!
Womyn are giddy for Bernie.
Universal suffrage has been a disaster ….
Don’t underestimate the dark side in DC. It won’t just be Democrats Trump would have to contend with for the Ultimate Power, if he gains the Throne of America.
Trump lacks the research on the Leftist alliance that I and others have compiled. Some of it rests in the operational details of the anti Left, scattered across all kinds of sub communities. Some of it are secrets that won’t be revealed until the time is right.
I wouldn’t compare Canada with Guatemala.
In Guatemala, the president, vice-president, the head of the central bank, leaders of several political parties, and the head of the social-security institute, all are investigated and were brought down by myriad corruption charges.
What the internal politics will be remains to be seen, but, no, the Guatemalan election is not like the Canadian at all.
Matt_SE,
My point isn’t that Trump is a qualified candidate, rather that as President he may not be as bad as we fear.
As I’ve made abundantly clear, I’m no fan of Trump and am well aware of his egotism, prior stands on issues, etc, etc. At best he’s a liberal alarmed at where the Left is taking this country. Which if true makes him at least aware that in aggregate, the wealthy will fare badly under ever deepening leftist governance.
I do think it likely however that a President Trump would be far more preferable to a President Hillary Clinton, so if that’s my choice…
Fausta:
I wasn’t comparing them in the sense that the countries, and the dilemmas and situations they face, are at all alike. I’m aware of the corruption situation in Guatemala.
It was the particular candidates and their resumes as outsiders without much government experience that was somewhat similar, and similar to people like Trump, Fiorina, and Carson here. Each country and each situation is different, often very different, however.
Ms. Noonan is wrong. The bar was quite low before Obama. I think the real reason is they lied too brazenly this time around. That, at least, is my reason but in the last round I had voted against Romney and Cornyn because of their continual lies.
It would be easier to try to count when Noonan isn’t being a useful tool and adherent of the popular kid cliche.