Newt: new soloist in the Republican jazz combo?
So now it’s Gingrich who’s up in the polls, at least somewhat.
It seems to be his turn. Sometimes the Republican candidates remind me of a jazz combo (although not an especially mellifluous one):
In between these statements of the theme, [the members of the jazz combo] usually take turns soloing. The musicians often employ visual signals to cue the next soloist or a return to the head. This approach is referred to as a head-solos-head arrangement, or simply a head arrangement. These are especially popular in combos because they can be put together during the performance without the need for prior rehearsal or written music other than for the head itself. Other types of arrangements are possible as well, but this general outline is most common.
Depending on the number of horn players and how long they tend to solo, they may or may not all solo on each tune. While one horn player is soloing, the others rarely play at all. If they do play during a solo by another horn player, it is generally limited to unobtrusive background parts, which may be written or improvised.
Yeah, I know, it’s not a perfect metaphor by any means. For starters, the candidates are not agreeing on this; there’s no head arrangement, or any other arrangement.
But it happens anyway. Sometimes it’s the novelty that seems to cause it—a person is the frontrunner until the electorate finds out more about him/her and decides no, not The One after all.
With Gingrich, though, it’s most definitely not novelty. It’s a process of elimination of the others and a second look at a guy with a steamer trunk full of baggage, but who’s undoubtedly smart and doesn’t mind a slugfest. There’s something pleasant (a word I don’t usually use in connection with Gingrich) at the thought of Newt facing Obama in a debate.
But what I said here about Gingrich still holds true—except that I’m now beginning to think he could win the nomination, almost by default.
And I’ll go on record as saying that I’d prefer Romney, although I predict that most of the commenters here will jump down my throat for saying so. One of the posts for which I have a preliminary draft but haven’t yet written is why Romney’s role in Romneycare wasn’t as bad as most conservatives think, and why characterizing him as proponent of big government as a solution for everything is a mischaracterization of his position and history. I also happen to think that a president with a strong business and managerial background would be a good thing, especially now.
And yet most conservatives detest Romney as a RINO, flip-flopper, Democrat in disguise. But my gut tells me that the Republicans who trash him are making Democrats very very happy, because they’re doing their work for them.
doesn’t mind a slugfest
And this is just what the doctor ordered. Maybe I should reconsider Gingrich. We need an intellectual bar room brawler, not someone who sips tea with his pinky out.
Also, a Newt v. Barry debate should be put on PPV; it would put a dent in the deficit.
There are three things I’ve liked about Newt in this primary season.
He hasn’t spent time attacking his primary foes but rather has focused on the general election and the real threat to this country,
He is extremely well informed and able to express his ideas clearly and eloquently. And to do so extemporaneously.
As Occam’s suggest, I would pay to see an Obama Gingrich debate.
Neo,
I’m with you. Like Obama, Gingrich loves new ideas and he doesn’t care so much about whether they work. They just have to be cool. I’m not sure about his involvement with Freddie and Fanny, but he certainly wasn’t on the front line with Bush and other critics.
I also think Romney has been unfairly dumped on–last time for being a Mormon and this time for being a RINO. I just can’t believe that someone who knows how to crunch numbers like he does is not primarily interested in getting the budget under control and helping the economy. His big criticism of Obama is that he feeds the uncertainty that inhibits business and investment. I suspect that is one reason he has taken a gradualist approach, for instance using attrition to reduce the size of federal departments rather than pretending he can wipe them off the face of the earth with a stroke of the pen. He probably knows that changing the bureaucratic structures and mindset won’t be easy– witness the stupid Christmas tree tax.
Conservatives are looking for a battle right now and Romney has give them a quieter plan for changing direction. But we run the risk of imitating the liberals, ie, putting all our eggs in one policy basket that we can’t alter because it defines our tribe. We can’t assume that our policies won’t produce unintended consequences, and we have to be able to pull back when they do and try another way to achieve our goals. We can’t close our minds like the feminists, gays, and civil rights leaders have done. This doesn’t mean that we must change our goals or violate our principles: it just means that we need to test our actions and revise if necessary.
I also think Romney has been doing a lot of homework on national security and foreign policy. That tells me he knows how difficult these areas are and that that screaming through a microphone may not be the best approach. I don’t think he underestimates the difficulty of being president.
As to global warming, the previous measures proposed to save the world are now being shown to be ineffective or damaging. I’m glad he is willing to change positions based on better evidence. I personally think climate is far more complicated than originally thought but I remain open to new information, and I think energy research is good. At some point, many different research threads will come together to provide realistic energy for the future, but we aren’t there yet. It wasn’t all that long ago that people were trying to decipher the genetic code. That’s been done, but we still don’t know all about genetics; however, much of what we’ve learned to date has been put to good use. The same thing will happen with energy research.
Finally, those who dislike Romney because they don’t trust him on social issues are the same ones who criticized Mitch Daniels for his back burner comment. But for most voters these issues may indeed be on the back burner, and some sort of consensus may be reached if there is room for discussion and persuasion. I bet most people are getting tired of all the screaming. Who knows how that will affect them in the voting booth?
I’ll be interested to read your post on Romney when you get it ready, neo-neocon. My gut feeling is that he is going to be the R’s nominee. My 80-something mom is cool with that; she sees his business and political experience as a big plus, and feels he has a statesmanlike air about him.
My childishly 60-something self, on the other hand, would like to see the heavy foot of instant karma stomping with a big juicy crunch on the cockroach of statism/leftism.
I’m not sure Gingrich’s foot is heavy enough, but maybe it’s taken on some heft in the years since the Contract With American turned out to be nothing but business as usual.
The MSM hasn’t tried to drag Newt down yet because he’s been so far down in the polls that he wasn’t a threat. But now that he’s gaining in the polls, I’m sure they’re going to rehash all the “dirt” and baggage he’s got.
And he’s got a fair amount.
I’m sure the MSM will make it well known that Newt is the only Speaker to have ever faced ethics charges. He was brought up on 84 ethics violations. All but one of the charges were ultimately dropped. But that one had a high price. The House, obviously under Republican control, forced him to pay a penalty of $300,000. At one point he’d struck a deal with Bob Dole to lend him the money, which sent the Democrats into a hissy fit, so he abandoned that idea. Then after the Republicans lost several seats in the 1998 mid-terms, the Republicans blamed Newt for the loss and his own party forced him to resign.
He’s been married three times. The last two marriages began as affairs while he was still married to the prior wife. (He’d been estranged and living apart from his second wife for quite some time, but that part of the story almost never gets told). And of course there’s the Left’s favorite legend about him — that he asked his first wife for a divorce while she was laying in a hospital bed being treated for cancer (his daughter wrote a blog post recently disputing that story, but the story has been around for three decades, so I’m sure it will be revived again soon).
Once the media digs all this up again, I would not be surprised if the enthusiasm for Newt flames out.
But yes, Obama v Newt would be one heckuva debate.
heavy foot of instant karma stomping with a big juicy crunch on the cockroach of statism/leftism
Love the evocative imagery, Elizabeth.
Alas, I too fear that we will be stuck with Romney as the Republican nominee. For all practical purposes Cain and Perry have imploded and by doing so have done the heavy primary lifting for Romney, a development the Democrats are sure to love. It will be 2008 all over again, with Romney filling in for the feckless (not hapless) McCain. Perhaps we are doomed to another four years of Obama, if only because the Republicans have perfected the art of the circular firing squad and can’t see past the next RINO’s turn at bat–RINOs do tend to be nearsighted.
So what do we do? We take Newt out of the line of fire–sorry, buddy, but this is not your year. Go back to the bench and wait. Romney gets the nod and our support; he also gets our gun barrels in his back if he even thinks about accommodating the Democrats. We then focus on electing the most conservative Tea Party types in any contested congressional races–those will cause Romney to think twice about pleasing his inner Democrat.
We focus on getting Obama out of the White House, even if we have to do it with a RINO squish who makes a weathervane look bold and decisive. We prop him up with solidly conservative representatives and senators, prying the Democrats’ hands off of those houses. And we use the interim to groom a solidly conservative and capable candidate, one not given to shooting him or herself in the foot.
We also use that breathing space to mercilessly gut what will be left of the MSM. That’s almost as important as taking over Congress. Drag the press out into the light so that people can see how shamelessly they lied for Obama–make sure they’re never believed again. Hang a “Walter Duranty Albatross” around their necks and show them for what they really are; if they’re lucky they can retire in obscurity.
We simply cannot afford another four years of Obama, and Obama Lite isn’t going to work. But it’s fanciful to think that one election will change everything. Reversing the course we’re on will take a few years, and they will be tough and miserable. Not doing so means a tough and miserable future with no relief in sight….
Well said, ipw533, particularly with regard to the need to eviscerate the MSM. Our problems in large measure derive from Red penetration of the media.
Romney exemplifies the lost distinction between finance and economics. Economics determines what should be done. Finance determines how to pay for it.
Romney’s experience is all in finance. He has one actual managerial star, the Olympics. And that’s much more of a game of finance and currying the proper favors from the proper agencies.
If economics-based management experience is important, ask the guy who has learned multiple businesses from the bottom up. Only one candidate can list cleaning burger joint toilets on his management resume. Having that kind of detailed process information is more useful in changing an organization than merely knowing interest rates and collateral requirements.
For all practical purposes Cain and Perry have imploded
For all practical purposes except poll numbers or campaign funds. Perry has done well at damage control on his last flub. He made noises very appealing to R primary voters tonight.
Cain is still showing strong poll numbers. Many have heard the Marist results that drop him to #3. But what about the simultaneous CBS poll that puts him still ahead? And all the polls taken during the last week where Cain was clearly still the front-runner despite the smear campaign.
I hope to see some movement in everyone’s numbers. The minor candidates had, I think, a very good showing tonight. They all might be capable people.
And that leads to the whole farce of guessing on electability. I repeat: The people will elect whoever we send them. Let’s send them our best, not the one we think our enemies will like the most.
Or if you can’t get past “electability”, let’s send them the one with the longest coattails.
I’ve always thought that Newt, baggage and all*, was far and away the best candidate, very, very well educated, smart, experienced, tough, articulate and–measured against all the other front running candidates–a true Conservative, someone willing to not just nibble around the edges but to try to be a real “agent of change.”
Cain is likeable and a smooth talker, but is just not well versed enough in all the myriad issues a President would potentially face on day one–and his saying that he would gather a cadre of experts to teach him what he currently isn’t familiar with or doesn’t know just doesn’t inspire me.
Perry? His “brain freeze” doesn’t fill me with confidence at all. How about the guy holding the “football” telling him that we had just been attacked by nuclear weapons and Perry forgets the unlock codes, or doesn’t remember the name of the particular adversary he should be ordering retaliation against, or can’t get out the correct words in a conversation with another head of state, when it is a matter of peace or war, life or death? Sorry. No sale here.
Romney has always struck me as just too plastic and too much on the liberal edge of Conservatism, and the solutions he is advocating are just not radical enough to fix our enormous problems.
As I view it, if we are going to get out of the current deep, deep hole we are in, we are going to need massive and comprehensive change, a tectonic shift, an earthquake, not just a minor adjustment, and Newt is the only candidate advocating change on this scale, and with the moxie and knowledge to possibly pull it off.
* A big piece of Newt’s baggage has always been the story of how he supposedly very callously went to his dying wife’s bed to ask her for a divorce. The story is repeated in seemingly a million articles. Thus, I was very surprised indeed to read that Gingrich’s daughter told a reporter this week that A. Her mother did not die of cancer, but is very much alive, B. That her mother was in the hospital to get a benign tumor removed, and C. That her parents had already decided to divorce, and Newt was merely there by agreement to discuss some of the details thereof.
It’s no threat to suggest that trashing Romney makes the Ds happy. If it is going to be Romney, I want the Democrat to win.
It would be nice to be in agreement with all my Prog pallys on one issue for once. At least superficially. They think Romney is too far right. I would just want to get the collapse over more quickly.
Wolla, Newt’s assets as you describe them would be great in a Cabinet position. Or VP slot.
Gingrich understands changes that would be desirable. Can he *sell* them? I am not persuaded that he will find followers. He’s a lecturer, not a communicator.
Foxmarks is right on with his comments about economics vs. finance.
I am troubled by my sense that many of the commenters on this line have been shaped by the MSM, whether they acknowledge that or not. “Cain has imploded”?? Cain was dealt with by the MSM as if he was a young woman in Salem accused of witchcraft. Not an implosion, but a remarkably vicious and orchestrated assault.
Neo seems to be signalling she will be a Romney apologist whilst divulging hitherto unknown nuances of Romney in MA.
Mitt’s Mormonism mattereth not, except as a foil for the MSM. Hell, Nixon was nominally a Quaker, though fortunately West Coast Quakers are a denomination quite unlike their brethren in the East .
Romney is Anthony Kennedy. Gingrich is Scalia. Perry is Roberts. Santorum is Thomas.
I prefer Roberts. A POTUS needs to both grounding and likeability; needs a touch of the common man.
I have said it before and will say it again – if Romney is the Republican nominee I will support, work for, and vote for him. That said, if the Republicans nominate a ham sandwich, I will support that nominee as well. There is not a one of the Republican candidates that are anywhere near as bad for this country as Obama. I disagree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul on his foreign policy, but if he secures the nomination I will vote for him. Think about it -a ham sandwich would not be constantly bashing business. A ham sandwich would not be promoting class warfare. A ham sandwich would not be constantly touring the world in Air Force One. A ham sandwich would be a big improvement over Obama.
Unlike many who seem to have lost hope, I see a country that is filled with people who want to work, to raise their families, and to have a better life. I see a country with huge potential that is not being realized because we have let the liberal/enviro complex erect all kinds of barriers to wealth creation. What is wrong can be set right by reducing governmment spending back to 17-18% of GDP and removing the barriers to wealth creation we all depend on to maintain or raise our standard of living. If we can get some fiscal conservatives in Congress and even a RINO in the presidency, the recovery can take place. Anyone who is willing to see things get worse should take a look at Greece or Argentina. We don’t want to go there.
I pointed out in a previous commment that analysis of the 2008 election showed that too many conservatives stayed home and didn’t vote. Had they voted, the election would have been much closer. To not vote when so much is at stake is a crime against your children’s and grandchildren’s future. My motto continues to be: ANYBODY BUT OBAMA -2012!
Conservatism is the one thread holding America back from the abyss. A liberal will take scissors to that thread. A RINO will be too afraid and let us down easy into the abyss by that thread. A real conservative will pull us back up by that thread.
The nominee will not be crowned until after the people vote in the primaries. Give it a chance and pay no attention to the media.
Newt is poison. Old bad news. Wish he would just go away.
Whoever we get is whoever we must support. Anybody care to repeat the snit we had in 08 when we stayed home & gave Obama the White House?
Wolla Dalbo –
It’s an unusual experience finding myself completely simpatico with someone else’s expressed views, but… well, Obama is President, so I guess nothing surprises me any more.
Anyway, I heartily second your comments. Slow and steady wins the race…
I would only add one more thing, more of a strategic point than a substantive one.
Romney has the most to fear from Newt (I think this is what you and I were noting a few weeks back in predicting the current “Newtmentum”), because Newt is, for better or worse, the only candidate in the bunch who has the potential to unite the party. He can poach enough RINO’s to placate the moderate establishment crowd, and he can pull support from enough of the base as the alternative to Romney, one who we know will, at the very least, figuratively kick sand in Obama’s face.
That’s potential, of course. But it’s a potential no other candidate has.
If Romney winds up in a tete-a-tete with Newt (which will in all likelihood be the case if Newt wins Iowa), I’d even predict that Romney loses for the sole reason just mentioned. As much as I appreciate neo’s attempt to soften up folks like us on Romney (and I honestly do), I’m sure she knows that for a huge chunk of the primary electorate that’s a vain endeavor. If Romney is more or less toxic even for me, just imagine how toxic he is for the true base.
I have to add as a footnote that seeing the entirety of Commentary magazine and the once awesome, erstwhile Commentary blogger Jennifer Rubin make laughingstocks of themselves shilling for Romney does not help him become more acceptable to the base. Like it or not, Romney IS the establishment’s choice, and combined with the stench of what his record is perceived to be (regardless of what it really is), this combo KO’s any chance he’d have of winning the trust, never mind the hearts, of conservatives.
Seeing the establishment line up like lemmings behind Romney bothers me a lot – it’s not so much THAT they do it (everyone lines up behind someone), it’s HOW they do it. So condescending, so presumptuous, so… Romney-like. I barely read Commentary these days because of this (Tobin is particularly off-putting); and Rubin has so put me off with her bizarre way of not merely supporting a candidate but falling in sweet, sweet love with him, that I took her off my blogroll. (Bear in mind that I was 100% in the tank for Christie, as Rubin was before she switched to Romney, and even then I found her infatuation embarrassing).
Point is, no matter how toxic Newt is to the base, Romney is more toxic. And no matter how much the establishment wants Romney, there are many within that would be willing to defect to Newt.
If Romney is going to be our nominee, he should not be christened. So merely on strategic grounds, given what I’ve noted, there’s a solid upside to supporting Newt: he will truly give Romney nightmares. And Romney needs nightmares. For I am not sure at all that he understands the monstrous incubus he will be facing in the general. (I am, like you, quite sure that Newt understands).
Looks like me and you (Wolla) are still the only two on the Newt scooter here, however. It’s good though. We need the cannons to be blasting against Newt to see if he really can overcome his negatives. I saw him do a pretty good job of dodging the cannonballs on the Fox Center Seat (or whatever it’s called). But he’s got to do more.
So by all means – knives out everyone.
“”And that leads to the whole farce of guessing on electability””
foxmarks
I notice this electability phrase being pushed by the MSM in reference to conservatives. What they’re really pointing out, is that they probably won’t get enough favorable press coverage to be elected. They are in fact admitting their own skewed coverage has a corupting influence.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J./ham sandwich 2012!
First let me preface this response by telling you a bit about me and my wife. We are old school Catholics and clearly understand the difference between the “Occupiers” and the “Tea Party” and our affiliation is with the Tea Party. My wife was executive assistant for a well know defense attorney, a sales person for IBM and an instructor of software applications for 23 years at the college level. In college I ran around the edges of the newly formed SDS and protested the Viet Nam war until I caught the leaders of the movement in my area in a bald faced lie which they explained by “The end justifies the means”. This ended my affiliation with the radical left. I spent 8 years in Hollywood in special effects until I had an epiphany and realized God was real. I left Hollywood became a Real Estate Broker and Appraiser and met my wife. I tell you this so that you understand our mindset when choosing entertainment on TV. Usually it’s the, History, Discover, TLC, etc Channels and some select serialized dramas or comedy’s, (Blue Bloods, NCIS, CSI and Tim Allen’s new show). My wife hates MTV and abhors Boxing (except she did watch a rerun of the 91 Buster Douglas defeat of Mike Tyson with me). So I was surprised one night when I was reading and she was doing a channel search and stopped on an MTV show “Bully Beat Down”. This is a show hosted a UFC fighter known as Mayhem, where high school students send in stories about the worst bullies on their campus. The show contacts the bully and asks them to come on the show to face a real UFC fighter and a chance to win $10,000 if they win. If they lose the money goes to the person whom they bullied. My wife began to watch as did I. This kid comes out and proceeds to tell everyone he is the toughest kid not just in his school but in his city, providing video clips of himself beating up kids at a park one of which was the one who wrote in about him. Mayhem was so thoroughly disgusted by this punk he decided to get in the cage with him himself. For the next 10 minutes Mayhem proceeded to kick this kids butt every way from Sunday, all the time my wife watched muttering under her breath, “Good, good”. When it was over the kid who had been picked on received $10,000 dollars and Mayhem warned the bully that if he heard about him pick on anyone again he’d pay him a visit. I asked my wife why she had watched the whole thing since she didn’t like fighting. Without hesitation she said, “Because I love to see a bully get beaten.” Now that’s a long way to get to the point but this exactly why Newt is coming up fast in polls. The Main Stream Press has sucker punched conservatives every chance it has gotten over the last 30 years and has kicked it while it was down, (just look at the treatment of the Tea Party). The obvious strategy of the MSM when these debates started was to get the candidates to eat each other alive on TV and destroy their credibility. I remember the Fox Debate when the questioning was leading down that path, Newt stepped forward knuckles bared and landed a punishing blow to Chris Wallace’s head for asking such insipid questions when the future of our nation hangs in the balance. Every debate since then has been the same; Newt refuses to let the MSM bully him and the others with lame, smarmy questions. He delivered a crushing blow to Maria Bartiromos ribs and last night he knocked Scott Pelley senseless with a round house kick to the head. This is what he has done that no one has done since Reagan, rise above the fray and not let the MSM bully you. The people love to see the bully beaten and cowering in a corner and Newt has done just this. He has shown the superciliousness of the Media and through knowledge of the facts, an uncanny ability to understand how the world connects on an economic and political level and sheer chutzpah has beaten them into a corner. Whether he can win or not I don’t know, I hope so, but my wife and I do so enjoy watch him beat the bully’s down and I think this has translated to his rise in the Polls.
Unlike many who seem to have lost hope, I see a country that is filled with people who want to work, to raise their families, and to have a better life. I see a country with huge potential that is not being realized
I haven’t lost hope. I acknowledge mathematics. Yes, the people know how to provide bountiful food, safe shelter and myriad entertainments. But the takers have been promised too much, and the makers have used too much leverage to provide for both themselves and the parasite factions.
A collapse is inevitable. Only Paul is talking about shrinking government and taking leverage out of the system at a level that might lead to an orderly restructuring. Instead, we will have The Great Repricing. We can make the same bounty in terms of tons and calories and gallons. But the dollar value relationships between them will be much different. Anyone who thinks in terms of GDP is using a dollar-based measure and not seeing the problem. All the factions who think they are owed so much will have a hard reckoning.
So I am looking for the candidate who might help those angry taker factions to see that the world is different know and they’re up for some austerity and hard work. A candidate who has significance outside politics and into culture. The economic picture after the Repricing will be determined more by the culture, what people are willing to do and what they’re willing to do it for. Value is subjective.
Romney is a finance guy, the old guard. He would attempt to assert the old pricing on the new world. His life has been built on leverage. And culturally, he is ruling class. Who is he going to inspire? T. Coddington Voorhees doesn’t need our help.
Obama is the Great Society guy. He think hard work is optional. The post-Repricing society will be better if we can hang the collapse solidly on our socialist factions. With Barry, the collapse is more violent as he rages against fate, but we get to the sunshine faster.
Paul is the one who gets the economics right, but he’s not suitable as CinC in the real world, nor does he offer any help in appeasing the suffering during the period of instability and repricing. Although at least he wouldn’t unleash the troops on the people (unlike Perry, who seems eager to squash somebody).
Santorum is a non-factor. So, if anyone has sympathy for my scenario, out of Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich, who can best preside over urban riots and temporary shortages of food and fuel? Which of those three is most likely to respect the Constitution and not make excuses for violating it?
Neo,
I just got this via Peter Robinson at Ricochet, Paul Ryan and Churchill. It’s right up your alley.
http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=268596
I’ll go finishish reading it now.
Our national problem is much like that of a family who borrowed too much. (Too much mortgage debt and credit card debt.) They have been living over their heads for some time because the credit was available and…………they knew (actually hoped) that a pay raise or a new, better paying job was just around the corner. If the higher income came to pass all could be worked out over a period of time. However, for some time, the family has been setting limits on what it would do for new income. One side has said they cannot beg from strangers, (Raise taxes.) The other side says it will not engage in any wealth creating activity that might offend its G_d, Gaia. (Restrictions on agriculture, energy exploration & production, mining, lumbering, manufacturing, etc).
They can cut back their spending and try to hold on. In time they can pay down the debt and hope for more income. But when they cut their spending it affects the businesses that no longer get their patronage. So, it has a ripple effect because those businesses will now cut back their spending. Thus, there is less money circulating leading to further cutbacks. If it goes deep enough you get a self-reinforcing spiral of deflation. The Keynesian side of the family want to spend more money because that will stop the deflation. Which sets the stage for eventual inflation. But the hard money side of the family want to cut spending deeply and immediately, which sets the stage for bankruptcy.
What is the answer? If you look at this country as a family, it is a family that has the ability to increase its income by increasing economic activity that grows the GDP. However, some of the family members (the liberal-enviro complex) say that engaging in wealth creation is unfair because everyone will not experience equal results. They are staunchly against doing anything like oil exploration, mining, lumbering, and manufacturing that produce wealth because…………well, because it’s an insult to their G_d, Gaia.
By gradually decreasing spending so it doesn’t trigger deflation and growing the economy, the country can, over five to ten years, set things right and get back on its feet. It will mean discipline and setting realistic fiscal goals. It means following a plan much like that set out by Paul Ryan. I know most of the R candidates are at least somewhat on board with Ryan’s ideas. Newt has said they are not ambitious enough and I would listen to his reasoning. The fact is there is a way out of our problem if the liberal-enviro complex can be voted into the minority so new wealth creation can increase the national income and governmnet spending can be placed on a gentle downward glideslope.
Europe, on the other hand has no way out of their dilemma because the southern European nations have no way to increase their income except begging from strangers. (Taxing their own citizens or borrowing from the northern EU nations.) They have no resources except agriculture and tourism. They have relied on the kindness of their northern EU members to maintain them at a high standard of living. The eventual solution will probably be the breakup of the Euro-Zone coupled with sovereign bankruptcies. This sounds ominous and it may be, but………….Niall Ferguson’s book, “THE ASCENT OF MONEY,” points out that sovereign bankruptcies have been quite common throughout history. It suggests that maybe bankruptcy is the only way to eventually get back on track. Remember Germany went through sovereign bankruptcy in 1923 and by 1929 was becoming a manufacturing juggernaut threatening all of Europe.
The problems are daunting, but Obama and the liberal-enviro complex have no solution except more borrowing, taxing, and spending. The Republican solution of less spending nad more wealth creation does not depend so much on who is President as it does on getting a solid Republican majority in Congress. For that reason I am supporting whoever the nominee is.
J.J., you’re in the trap of dollars and the Keynesian frame of demand. Yes, the regulation is a significant problem, and eliminating the stupidity there would buy time, but not avert collapse.
What matters is not GDP, but the allocation of real production. How much corn vs. how much steel vs. how many iPhones vs. how many manicures. If policy and leverage makes iPhones worth $1000, GDP rises but nobody is better off.
I say the math shows we’re past any realistic “grow out of it” scenario. The Federal Government is bankrupt by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The sooner we face Repricing, which for many will feel like austerity, the suffering is lessened in length and depth.
We’re choosing the kind of collapse we want. Anyone suggesting that it can be avoided is selling a different species of unicorn.
Semi-OT: I’m currently reading
Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (by two NYT reporters, no less), and a more damning indictment of Democrat politics would be hard to imagine. (Order it through neo!). The authors trace the financial meltdown back to the beginning of the Clinton era, and detail how Fannie and Freddie suborned attempts at effective oversight by effectively bribing Democrat politicians and playing identity politics to the hilt. Infuriating!
There are two ideas about elections and one is considerably more referenced and intuitive than the other. Does a candidate win by appealing to the most people or does a candidate win by possessing a special excitement at a special point in time?
Mmmmmm. Mmmmmm. Mmmmmm. Obama!
Ich!.
It’s horrible to endure hour opponent’s excitement upon their victory. Remember the new world that was going to occur. Again.
Ich!
But if Obama’s victory doesn’t convince that excitement wins over reason, then consider that for a full forty percent of the population, politics is their religion, and no reason other than their own prevails.
Now the fact that “excitement” has much less to do with electing Republican candidates than Democrat ones is testament to a better wind in the Republican camp, but the question still boils down to “who will you vote for.” And that question’s answer involves a circular analysis. I’ll vote for the guy or gal who wins but therein is the circle.
And it’ll all be decided by who’s still in it and who has the luck of the draw to be in the excitement at the moment of the draw. Maybe Gingrich knows this and stayed in despite facing overwhelming refuidation and overshadowing by Republicans who wish they had not withdrawn.
Occam’s,
I haven’t started my copy yet, but it sounds like Nanny Bloomberg may have. He told the OWS people they couldn’t put all the blame on he bankers, that Washington also played a part in the financial crisis.
Great comments, foxmarks. I agree that a collapse is now unavoidable. Its timing may even be a blessing in disguise, since it means that we won’t be able to afford socialized medicine.
Now that’s an interesting way to look at our choice, isn’t it? To answer your question, I’d say probably Bachmann.
Agreed, rickl, all the huffing about repealing Obamacare is a sideshow. It’s an economic and actuary impossibility no matter what the law says.
Bachmann has a record closer to following the Constitution. Cain has the biography of hardship and perseverance. Of the three, Gingrich is the weakest. Lectures do not calm riots. And in troubled times I think a reverent faith and humility before G-d is helps keep power restrained. Again Cain and Bachmann have the integrity Gingrich lacks.
ps– I forgot to say that Huntsman, too, is a non-factor.
rickl@8:41pm: “So, if anyone has sympathy for my scenario, out of Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich, who can best preside over urban riots and temporary shortages of food and fuel? Which of those three is most likely to respect the Constitution and not make excuses for violating it?’
Urban riots and shortages of food and fuel even if temporary, will provide even the most conservative of presidents ample reasons to declare martial law. When I see people almost long for such a collapse, I question whether any real thought has been given to the consequences. Even if you have food, fuel, ammo, and money stored against such an eventuality, do you really want to see millions suffer?
I remember the same feelings during the Carter administration. The end of the wordl was coming. The country was bankrupt. Hyper inflation was stalking the streets. And yet, Reagan and some common sense policies brought us back from the brink. I’ll never forget how stunned I was to find that to be true.
This country is like many storied entrepeneurs. It is never down for the count as long as we have the ability to create welath. And that is what sets this country apart from most of the others. Magnificent resources, creative people, private property ownership backed by courts, and the ability to self correct through the ballot box. Do not sell it short. Be of good cheer and work for the self correction that will change things.
J.J.,
You sound a bit like the VDH article at NRO today. Great minds and all that.
J.J., Optimistic platitudes do not affect the math. The collapse will suck. We do have some influence on how it will suck. I would prefer to minimize the Katrina Kids response to short-term breakdowns in supply. I have great faith in the neighborly web of goodwill, and that much order can be maintained without law.
Reagan’s policies didn’t bring anything back. They began the phony economy. Thirty years of borrowed prosperity. It was the start of the leveraging that will unwind on us all.
foxmarks said, “Reagan’s policies didn’t bring anything back. They began the phony economy.”
I have heard those exact same words spoken by Jared Bernstein, Robert Reich, Peter Orszag, and other progressive advisors to Obama and Clinton. So, it must be true.
What they claim, though, is that Reagan’s deregulation of the economy is what caused the 2008 crisis. So, it must be true. Or is it? If it wasn’t the deregulation, it was the phony increase in the economy that was caused by…………what exactly? Too much economic activity?
Between the time Reagan was elected in 1980 and 2000, my retirement funds went from barely adequate to more than adequate. But it was all phony prosperity? Well, phony or not, the merchants are still accepting my pitiful offerings as legal tender. And that’s just fine with me.
expat said, “J.J., You sound a bit like the VDH article at NRO today. Great minds and all that.”
Golly gee whillickers, expat, that’s shore nice to hear. However, I’m afraid that if brains were gasoline, VDH would have tanker truck full and me a mere thimbleful.
J.J., the Progs got it wrong, too. Much of that activity was paid for with promises (debt). Reagan was in the White House when total debt began rising faster than real output. It’s the trap of measuring activity by dollar-denominated GDP. You’re looking at the speedometer, not measuring the velocity of the car.
Take a look at purchasing power (without suspicious hedonic adjustments). The price of stuff you have to buy with your fat bankroll has risen faster than the account balance.
That era’s contribution to the total problem is minor, but that when the levering began. Debt-money inflates the price of everything. It works great until people start missing payments. Then the present value of all that debt collapses and your bank faces insolvency.
Foxmarks, I’ve read a number of books about the 2008 crisis. None that I read said much about Reagan’s policies. Many mentioned the CRA, the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie), easy money policies, and the repeal of Glass Steagall, all of which led to a binge of creation of financial derivatives, over leveraging by banks, and over rating of the derivatives comprised of mortgages called Mortgage Backed Securities. Too much risk was taken on because there was a widespread belief (even by smart money people) that real estate prices would never go down. When the FED raised interest rates and buyers dried up, the house of cards was pushed over. Yes, there was too much borrowing and leverage that occurred from about 1998 untill 2007 when things started to unravel. That had nothing to do with the economic growth that occurred from 1980 to 2000. Most of that was based on the technology boom and opening up of free trade and was real. What was eating away at our economic situation at the time was the gradual strangling of logging, mining, manufacturing, and oil exploration accomplished by the environmental lobby using the Endangered Species Act as their primary weapon. Followed now by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) as their newer weapon of choice.
For any economy to be wealthy it must produce wealth. That means agriculture, manufacturing, exploitation of natural resources, etc. Our wealth production from 2000-2008 consisted mostly of developing real esate, constructing financial products for sale to the world, agriculture, and technological improvements to IT and communications. Our expenditures for the GWOT were driving government outlays faster than the growth of the economy because our economy was running in place due to being hobbled by the environmental restrictions. The Great Recession and Obama’s spending have exacerbated the problem. I maintain that it is not an insoluble problem, but if it goes on another four years it may become impossible to solve without a sovereign default. I may be wrong, but I’m not willing to give up the ship without a maximum effort to right things.
O.K., J.J. we can agree that for the first decade since 1980, debt wasn’t catastrophic. I’m only poking at that fabled Reagan time as the start of the present bubble.
The things you cite for 2000+ I see as a product of a debt-fueled bubble. Land development and construction was all funded by debt still outstanding. Absent easy money, would we have so many residential square feet per capita? Most of the wealth in financial products was the packaging and expansion of debt. The info tech produced is already obsolete, and was not paid for out of current production. It was financed.
The process improvements in goods production should lead to lower prices. They did not. Why is food more expensive if we’re better at growing it?
Regulation certainly distorts the price system. And it adds deadweight loss to economic transactions. But until the price of risk and the price of money are deregulated we will not know the true price of anything. And when the price of risk and money are set free, the financial world collapses. A Great Repricing of the assets supposedly securing all the debt in the economy is inevitable.