Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | September 18, 2012

Twenty-eight years later, it’s finally 1984

In 1975, there were political billboards around America proclaiming portentously that 1984 was only nine years away.  The reference, of course, was to George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, the novel of a collectivized, indoctrinated human future, which high-school students had been reading since it was published in 1949.

The year 1984, by Gregorian reckoning, came and went, and Americans seemed to have dodged the Nineteen-Eighty-Four bullet.  We weren’t being interned for reeducation by a Ministry of Love.  Although conservative, constitutionalist, limited-government ideas came under relentless attack in the mainstream media and the academy, those who expressed the ideas remained free to do so.  (They in fact became freer with the lifting under Reagan of the genuinely Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine.”)

The MSM built narratives about the reprehensible heartlessness, hypocrisy, and stupidity of conservatives, Republicans, and Christians, but we remained largely free to live and work as we chose.  Reagan was reelected in 1984, and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were elected in the years since.  Republicans might have imposed unnecessary constraints on themselves – e.g., the party leadership unaccountably believing, against the evidence, that Republican candidates need to tack left to attract votes – but for the most part, the GOP continued to have a fair shot at the ballot box.

In 2012, the atmosphere has changed.  The sacredness of our right to free expression – religious, political, artistic – is not necessarily given priority by either our federal government or the MSM.  Dissent is treated as a pestilence, or worse (e.g., global-warming skeptics being compared to Holocaust deniers).  Media and political figures cater nakedly to political narratives, no matter how many times truth bites them in the backside.  They simply ignore the truth – often while being faced directly with it on live TV – focused instead on faithfully repeating the narratives launched from the Obama White House, as well as on nurturing narratives of their own.

Thus, when multiple attacks were mounted on US diplomatic facilities in the Muslim world on 9/11 – one of them a clearly pre-planned assault on the US ambassador in Libya (see here as well; the media originally reported the Libyan attack as pre-planned) – the Obama White House promptly launched a narrative: that these attacks were unrelated to the 9/11 anniversary, and were instead the fault of a shadowy naturalized American, who had made what is apparently a silly, low-quality video about Mohammed and Muslims.  (The clip on YouTube seems to confirm this assessment.)

Attacks on US embassies and consulates all across the Muslim world, on 9/11/12 and the days following, could hardly be interpreted as other than a form of attack on the United States.  Egyptian radicals storming the US embassy in Cairo chanted, “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!” – which carries not a whiff of righteous fury about an amateur video, but clearly invokes Osama bin Laden and the tactical triumph of al Qaeda on 9/11/01, and carries a warning to the president of the United States.  Assaults and attempted assaults on US diplomatic facilities occurred from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Morocco – including violent riots against our embassy in Tunisia, the vanguard of the Arab Spring and a North African nation with which America has had peaceful, friendly ties for more than 200 years.

At the very least, the Obama administration is misinterpreting what is going on.  The eruptions in the Muslim world are happening because of the larger shift that started 18 months ago.  Crowds of radicals from the Muslim world generate a fury that Bolsheviks could only wish for; the developments across the Muslim arc of the Eastern hemisphere today are not necessarily to be interpreted in the categories of Soviet-era instigation and fomentation, for which Marxist cadre were famous.  Today’s events are somewhat different.

Significantly, Mohammed Morsi is emblematic of a new kind of Sunni Arab leader who will grope toward a signature concept of state Islamism.  But that concept is as yet without clear form, and the numerous attacks on American facilities can’t be pinned on it.  The two phenomena – attacks from the street and state Islamism – are related, but they have not gotten to a melding point yet.  This is the evolution we need to be watching for.

The Arab Spring nations have either remained, uneasily, under sclerotic despotisms, or have migrated to an evolving Muslim Brotherhood rule.  Neither case is a factor for stability, social peace, or a consensual idea in the political realm.  Libya is as yet unpacified by her putative national government; Syria is in full uproar.  The Middle East has not found a stability point, and that condition is red meat to radical extremists, who include both the terrorists who assassinated the ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, and the inciters of attacks on US embassies in Cairo and elsewhere.

It is more than analytically flawed for the Obama administration to focus on the “Bacile” video.  It is so superficial and convenient as to appear cynical, as if the video is the readiest excuse to hand for the administration’s bizarre, twilight behavior.  This approach puts American liberty on the spot, rather than recognizing that there are hostile as well as friendly forces at work in the Arab Spring, and that they showed their intentions in flashing neon on 9/11 last week.  The Obama administration’s posture on this development seems to argue a colossal lack of knowledge, understanding, and analysis.  Indeed, it comes off as an ideology-accelerated “war is peace” fairy tale.

For the most part, the MSM have slavishly repeated the administration’s narrative.  They also went high order on Mitt Romney, who reflexively said the thing Obama did not about the events in the Muslim world: that is, the American thing.  There is no excuse for murdering Americans or attacking our embassies.  There is no excuse for foreign governments that allow these attacks to happen.  No video ever made can serve as an excuse for these outrages, and none should even be mentioned.  Romney said the thing that resonates with the American people.  The MSM were furious with him for it.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has pathetically tried to shed responsibility for the video, which has no doubt gained far more attention through the US administration’s narrative than it ever would have otherwise.  Standing in the spotlight for America, she groveled before some putative Muslim audience, proclaiming that the US government “had nothing to do with” the video in question – as if the issue here were culpability, and as if it would have been perfectly fine for the terrorists who unjustly tortured and killed our ambassador to kill out of vengeance our citizen who (at least reportedly) made the video.

The narrative by which the Obama administration and the MSM are living is a house of toothpicks.  It is so transparently based on a false evaluation of the situation that it has become surreal to watch it unfold.

This, in the end, is what will do it in.  Orwell was an incredible storyteller, but we know what he did not:  the end of globalist Marxism, and its shabby exposure for the lie it was.  Collectivism and indoctrination – Ministries of Truth and Love – don’t work.  They don’t gain ascendancy over a working order.  They never retail truth; by their very nature, they must deal in lies.  The human spirit recognizes that, which is why so many have had to be sent to reeducation camps under communism, and why so many Americans – even without fully understanding why – continue to resist collectivization and urgent ideological coercion.

America protects freedom of speech, thought, and religion, even when it is ugly, stupid, or silly.  If we do not, America is nothing.  Everything else we cherish will be lost if we do not hold to this.  And Americans do believe in these things.  We have fought and died for them.  We live them every day.

Our current president and his administration are at odds with the people on these matters, willing to obsess over, apologize for, and try to shed blame for a form of protected expression that should simply be taken in stride.  It even seems that the US Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation of the video’s perpetrator – h/t Breitbart – and this after the White House tried to get Google to remove the video from YouTube. Google showed more gumption in rejecting this request than it did in the face of Chinese censorship a few years ago.  (Google is cooperating in the censorship of the video in India and Indonesia.)

Too many of the American people may have become lost in a fog of political confusion these days, but the people are still better than this.  We are better, and we deserve better.  False narratives are weak and accompany morally weak behavior.  They are not the winning side.  Ronald Reagan knew that about communism and the Soviet Union, and we must be his students and know it today about the 1960s holdovers who sit at the pinnacle of our federal government.

Their ideology cannot stand.  It is weak and corrupt at its core.  It must not take us down with it.  Change course in November.  Elect Romney.  No, he’s not a philosophical conservative.  But he’s our option for moving forward peacefully.  The world will not leave us alone to delay a course correction.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

Note for new commenters:  Welcome!  There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam.  There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.


Responses

  1. Very good read , thank you.

    However, there is this that I feel the need to comment on:

    “…but we know what he [Orwell] did not: the end of globalist Marxism, and its shabby exposure for the lie it was.” No, Madam. Globalist Marxism hasn’t ended. It might have moved to a diferent address, uptown perhaps, but this nefarious concept is still alive and well and, in addition, as dangerous as it ever was and perhaps even more so. I say that because it is now well dissimulated and masked when it used to be more open and blatant. It has given up taking things by force and has joined forces with democratic institutions instead. That they have learned to use that handy smoke screen expertly is being demonstrated as we speak.

    Also this: “Collectivism and indoctrination – Ministries of Truth and Love – don’t work. They don’t gain ascendancy over a working order.” To the contrary they do indeed gain ascendancy for some. 47% of our own population is enamored with the BS and have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that they are entitled to free health care, free welfare, free homes, free gas and free, free, free everything. Paid for by somebody else through the aggresive ministrations of government, of course.

    “They never retail truth” No, indeed they don’t but that doesn’t mean it’s not working very well for some. Look at our president, he has been living off the hog for his whole life and in the upper exchelons for going on four years based, all of it, on anything but the truth, not anywhere near the whole truth and, actually, anything but the truth.

    “The human spirit recognizes that” Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that, as you know. Actually, our own development and, lately, our quick acceleration into socialism proves the opposite.

    Finally this: “…which is why so many Americans – even without fully understanding why – continue to resist collectivization and urgent ideological coercion” Well, if you are talking about the 53% that remains in play, you are right. But, if we look at the huge number of fully convinced and totally indoctrinated, it becomes a troubling thought. To me, at least. Let me put it to you this way, how many Americans do you believe would have “joined up” to our quick path to socialism say 50 or 75 years ago. The trend, if nothing else, should be worrisome in the extreme.

    rafa “The not in the least optimist conservative”

  2. smells like teen spirit

  3. I read 1984 just a 1/4th of the way through. I had to put the book down because I was getting chills up and down my spine. The only answer to this Socialst nightmare we are going through, brought on to us from this Administration, will be the full results from the elections on Nov. 7th. If Barry wins, it will be either by fraud or the American public having fully embraced all the propaganda by this Administration, the MSM and Hollywood. It will be a very ugly four years. Who knows? Maybe term limits wil be lifted, because Americans having become disgusted by the political process, and this Administration, with the help of the media, will persuade that the only solution is to give O’ all the time he needs to fully “transform” America.

  4. “Media and political figures cater nakedly to political narratives, no matter how many times truth bites them in the backside. They simply ignore the truth – often while being faced directly with it on live TV”

    Very true, yet that is a Pyrrhic victory. Each time a price is paid in lessened credibility.

    “Mohammed Morsi is emblematic of a new kind of Sunni Arab leader who will grope toward a signature concept of state Islamism.”

    Perhaps but once fully ensconced in power, how shall a Sunni theocracy be fundamentally different from Iran’s Shia theocracy?

    “The Arab Spring nations have either remained, uneasily, under sclerotic despotisms, or have migrated to an evolving Muslim Brotherhood rule.”

    As you point out, that is a fundamentally unstable condition, which is why the House of Saud is living on borrowed time. The ‘idea’ “whose time has come” in the M.E. is the rise of jihadist Islam, as it must…it being a matter of survival; a 7th century ideology faced with a ‘fatal’ disease; exposure to modernity.

    “The Obama administration’s posture on this development seems to argue a colossal lack of knowledge, understanding, and analysis.”

    Yes it certainly does, yet there is another explanation, one far more sinister. And one of which B. Ayers and his ilk would heartily approve. So audacious and mendacious, that the facts supporting its possibility must be marshaled before it can be considered.

    Consider; It is indisputable that if Obama should be reelected, that his policies that have led us to this point will continue. Those policies are and will continue to be ruinous, both domestically and in the foreign policy sphere.

    Obama’s reelection will see Iran gain the bomb. Israel can attack and slow down progress but cannot stop it. And if Israel does attack and Obama is reelected, he will have the excuse needed to prevent another Israeli attack.

    Once Iran gets the bomb, nuclear proliferation spreads through the M.E., of this there simply is no doubt. Radical jihadists in control of nuclear capable nations will result in nukes in the hands of terrorist organizations. Sooner or later, they will be used.

    Even should American retaliation be swift and decisive, the psychological reaction of the American public will be to support martial law. Once near permanent martial law is declared, American freedoms start to wither and the eventual imposition of 1984 style institutions becomes much easier to impose.

    In the final analysis, it matters little whether this scenario is a planned strategy of the left. Whether Republican or Democrat, nuked American cities lead to martial law. The real difference is that under policies of appeasement, nuked American cities are assured. If radical jihadists are not fought over there, they most assuredly will be fought over here. That is what liberals won’t face and that is why millions of innocent Americans are probably going to die. Pacifism in the face of fanaticism, always leads to the maximum amount of carnage.

    “The narrative by which the Obama administration and the MSM are living is a house of toothpicks… This, in the end, is what will do it in.”

    Yes, in time but do we have the time needed?

    “Too many of the American people may have become lost in a fog of political confusion these days, but the people are still better than this.”

    LIncoln said four things that apply today,
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

    There are a minority of ‘Americans’ who would rather see this country utterly destroyed than have it remain true to its founding principles. There are millions of Americans who have drunk the kool-aid of that minority.

    “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

    And that, more than any factor is the greatest obstacle to America’s survival. The people are not being given the facts. Rather there has been an active, decades long, massive campaign by the left and its propaganda organ the MSM, to keep the facts hidden and to represent half-truths, distorted fabrications and outright lies as facts.

    “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

    How very prophetic that observation has proven to be…that ‘philosophy’ of “social justice” is directly responsible for the MSM’s agenda ‘journalism’.

    “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

    His most famous dictum, the great question today is will enough be fooled, for long enough? Upon that question rests the fate of the nation…

  5. “Now truth is not always a pleasant thing”
    George C.Scott as Gen. Buck Turgison in “Dr. Strangelove.

    Your thoughts are all well and good Optcon. It will give us something to mull over till 2016 now that, (barring a miracle for him), Romney blew the election with his recent remarks. It reminded me (as a metaphor) of Gen. Jack D. Ripper’s irreversible action of sending off the bombers. It’s too late for Romney to fix this now. Unfortunately for us, Merkin Muffley is already residing in the White House (although Romney’s gaffes are making him (BHO) look like JFK).

    I recall posting a couple of months back, that a tack to the “center” was necessary after the Republican primaries ,(at least rhetorically), if there was to be any possibility of the them (GOP) carrying the presidential election.

    How the Republicans could end up making President Obama look good should be a (another?) wake up call as to how and which candidate eventually ends up representing the Republican party in presidential elections.

    The “former” Grand Ole Party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan, now inhabited by candidates the likes of McCain (out of touch) and now Romney.(incredibly out of touch, what’s even worse… no political instinct whatsoever!).

    Common sense, pragmatism and less ideology, reform reform, and again, reform……should be the new watchwords for the GOP. I intentionally leave out truth because, obviously, that would be asking too much from politicians.

    Well, then again, Romney might get lucky. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

    The discussion should now shift to the condition the country will be in after four more years of President Obama. And how best to prepare a team in 2016 with alternatives that will reverse the decline of the Nation, that is, 1)representative of the population and 2)above all ELECTABLE!

    Now that I got that off my chest, I think I’ll go mix myself a drink of grain alcohol and rain water ….

    • P.O.E. — jgets

      RIP —Romney

      and now it’s time for the Republican Party to decide whether to purge the rest of the centrists or cast off the yoke of the ultraCons

    • To: jgets

      First of all, don’t take this as a direct argument to your post which I am using more as a segue to mine.
      You wrote:
      “The “former” Grand Ole Party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan, now inhabited by candidates the likes of McCain (out of touch) and now Romney.(incredibly out of touch, what’s even worse… no political instinct whatsoever!).”

      It’s amazing how constant repetition is instrumental in creating often false or incomplete images. Why, if it weren’t for that fact politicians might actually be tempted to tell the truth and most teachers would actually be held to a much higher standard.

      For instance:

      Lincoln directed the start of the federal take over of the republic and he was instrumental in destroying the concept of confederation. He and the republican party were the first to actually do something important and meaningful for blacks; an action that has gone mostly ignored and remains unappreciated and unrecognized to this day, at least as far as the GOP goes.

      Teddy was a progressive. One of the first progressives, actually. San Juan Hill was only a small part of his career in the military and had little or no significance in his presidency.

      Eisenhower was one of the officers that led the charge against The Bonus Army in 1932 when they congregated in Washington DC to ask that their promised bonuses be paid off sooner in norder to help them survive the Great Depression. This move was opposed by Hoover and by F.D.Roosevelt due to poor budget situation and the impact this early payment would have on it. But, in any event, the break-up of the Bonus Army in Washington was conducted by Army Chief of Staff and World War I veteran Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower. MacArthur is considered to have exceeded President Hoover’s intentions [and possibly his explicit instructions] with his heavy-handedness. American veteran soldiers and some Washington police died in the fray and, in the end, the shanty village was burned to the ground. So much for the right of redressing the government and, even, for the use of military troops inside the national boundaries and against American citizens. But, who remembers any of that chapter in our history? What is remembered of those three gentlemen is their participation during WWII, something that they do indeed deserve; but my point is that spin and history serve whatever purpose suit those who write it. Sometimes the evil that men do live long after them but more often than not, it is only the good that lives after them while any evil is interred with their bones.

      Reagan was a terrific president and a great public figure. But, he was also a big spender of money and increased the deficit by leaps and bounds. Granted this was mostly due to his heavy spending on defense, Star Wars, and such coupled to his conviction and resistance to increased taxes, but the fact still remains that, when all is said and done, he borrowed like a sailor at the time. That this penchant is something that seems to have become anathema in today’s republican arguments speaks volumes of the value of spinning stuff to serve a non-stated purpose. Where were those deficit deniers when Bush did it, for instance? Yet, it remains true that the republican party most adored president (with lots of good reasons, by the way) outdid all presidents before him in the deficit department and nobody seems to have minded one rat’s ear canal worth at the time.

      Etc…

      So, why you are surprised about McCain and Romney is a mystery to me. It’s all a con job by all concerned and we are kept busy watching the pretty assistant while the magician grabs and pulls the rabbit out of his hat. Nothing is exactly what it seems to be, grasshopper. Sometimes it’s not even close…

      rafa

      • You state things well rafa.

        I’m not surprised, just wanted better political options (persona) to deal with today’s challenges. Call me naive, but I do believe we could do a better job in choosing President’s and running the country.

        • “I do believe we could do a better job in choosing President’s and running the country.” You are, of course, correct in that. However, about us choosing a better president, not so much. The two party system has become rigged, highjacked if you will, by expert manipulators of the system and the selection of presidential candidates is now just a matter of “allowing” us to choose between the two pre-determined options being presented for election. Re: McCain vs Obama. Yuck and gag vs. Gag and Yuck…

          Also, while you call Romney a moron because of his recently alledged “gaff”, you need to step back a step or two and consider this: He was mostly right about what he said on the 47%. The problem is that now the truth is no longer the principal form of judging the honesty of a political candidate, his political accumen is. In other words, that he is honest about a point does not matter, that he lies well does. Ergo: Obama is our president. That was the general direction (intention?) of my previous post to you.

          What Romney fails to explain, albeit nobody seems to be clamoring for it, is why he himself catered to that 47% in the same way Obama does and with pretty much the same intentions when he was Governor and passed Romney care. Goose and Gander stuff in my opinion.

          rafa

          • See my previous comment below(?) as to why Romney ‘catered’ to that 47% while Governor of mass.

          • OK. OK, I retract the moron part. “It was a politically moronic comment that came to light”

            This political correctness is killing me.

            On the 47% and taxes, I don’t know whether you took a look at this chart on the economists website. I,at least found it interesting

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-9

      • Romney’s political instincts are much better than you’ve given him credit.

        There’s no question that MacArthur was heavy handed. Patton and Eisenhower were following lawful orders; the veterans had refused to leave and were demanding that the government pay them before its contractual obligation stated it must. It was handled badly but the veterans must share some responsibility with MacArthur.

        Your memory of Reagan’s spending is flawed and incomplete. The democrats in Congress reneged on their pledge to Reagan to work to cut spending. President’s don’t set spending levels, Congress does.

        Reagan made the judgement that restoring our military was of greater importance than a balanced budget, despite the indebtedness that it incurred. The arms race that ensued, led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

        History has proven Reagan right in his judgements and priorities.

        McCain is a good man who has gradually succumbed to the liberal/left’s ‘narrative’.

        Romney isn’t an ideologue but he does uphold the basic principles of which our Constitution consists.

        The main criticism of Romney from conservatives has to be his term in office as Mass.’ governor. A Republican governor, in perhaps the most liberal state, faced with leftist/liberal ideologues in the state house has to be pragmatic or accomplish nothing. In such a situation, pragmatism means restraining, deflecting and guiding liberal largess and spending. Romney balanced the budget in the MOST liberal state in the country! If that isn’t worthy of notice, then one cannot reasonably make the claim to being fair minded in their assessment of Romney.

        Just because a politician isn’t a conservative ideologue doesn’t automatically make them a tool of those intent upon foisting a con job upon the public.

        • Thank you so much, GB, for helping me make my point yet again.

          Images of public figures, especially that of current politicians, are mostly based on the bait their fan club swallows or on the dung their opponents feed the public. However, spin and excuses aside, everything I said is historically correct and it is up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions and to choose the dance they are willing to perform for their own entertainment.

          However, Reagan did outspend the previous administrations (almost as a combined total) and the GOP today IS touting the national deficit as the bugaboo of all bugaboos when they didn’t speak one word for or against the practice during Reagan. It seems that the GOP is all for enlarging the deficit as long as it benefits them, not the Democ-rats. Neither did the GOP do any of that anti-deficit spending preaching during Bush 1 or Bush 2 or during any of the GOP tenure in Congress as far as that is concerned. Pork spending is OK as long as it is GOP pork, right…? The same as government health care is OK as long as it is Romney’s baby, not Obama’s.

          Crap.

          McArthur and his officers, Patton and Eisenhower, were indeed heavy handed but, also, heavy handed against American veterans of war and, also, American troops were indeed used within American soil to quell what amounts to a citizenry group petitioning their government. That too is historically correct.

          Come to think of it, can you imagine what would happen if American cavalry troops had been actually used to disband the “Million Man March” on DC?

          As are my comments about Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt the truth as well.

          That you choose to interpret, translate or excuse all of it in a way that supports your own pre-conceived notions and pre-determined loyalties is, of course, your prerogative as it is the prerogative of hundreds of thousands of others from both sides iof the isle but, again, I was not in any way trying to analyze or judge the actions of your heroes or to do anything besides pointing out the national penchant for swallowing the prestidigitator’s act hook, line and sinker regardless of the actual facts of the story or the abject ambivalence (convenient tilting?) of the “righteous anger” constantly feinted by those in our public square and by the official voices of both parties. I didn’t say whether Reagan was wrong or right about spending beyond the nation’s ability to gather money from its citizens but I was calling the GOP disingenuous for bringing it up now, without shame, only because it is convenient, not honest, for them to do so. We don’t have politics of honesty and truth but we certainly have developed the politics of accumulated lies. So, basically, what we have engendered onto ourselves is a stable of political liars and con men; none of them charming in the least, at least not in my book.

          To choose the lesser of two evils is still to choose evil. Or, is that not so either…?

          rafa

          • You’ll forgive me if I disagree with having helped you make your point rafa. I don’t mean to imply however that I completely disagree with you, merely that you exaggerate and forgive me, but appear to ignore evidence that contradicts your own narrative. The very thing you accuse others of doing.

            What you’ve said is historically incomplete and, most significantly, the parts you left out contradict your point of view. That’s called historical revisionism.

            Actually, some in the GOP did express concern about the Reagan deficits, including Reagan, whose trust in the democrats word had been betrayed. Those in the GOP concerned about the deficits generally accepted Reagan’s assessment that restoring our military in the face of Communism, outweighed any other consideration and again, history proved Reagan right. Reagan sincerely wanted to balance the budget and considered the debt his greatest failure.

            “Neither did the GOP do any of that anti-deficit spending preaching during Bush 1 or Bush 2 or during any of the GOP tenure in Congress as far as that is concerned”

            I can’t speak to Bush I as I was an independent with liberal leanings at that time! But by Bush II I was fully up to speed on GOP and conservative positions on the debt. There were many expressions of concern and criticism from the right during Bush II’s deficit spending. Again, democrats blocked any efforts at reining in spending and Bush II felt that the spending on the WoT outweighed any other consideration.

            Obviously, the GOP is going to criticize Obama’s spending on entitlement programs and empty stimulus programs. But Bush’s 3.7 billion in 8 years does not compare with Obama’s 5.9 billion in 3 years. At some point the debt becomes unsustainable. So, in your opinion, at what point are GOP complaints about out-of-control spending valid? At what point do GOP concerns transcend mere political maneuvering?

            Romney stating that not everything in the 2000+ page Obamacare bill is invalid may be politics or it could be just expressing common sense. After all, no one is wrong about everything…

            Yes, using American troops against veterans was heavy handed but refusing to break up their shanty town on federal property, (placed without permits) placed them outside the law. Which doesn’t excuse the heavy handedness but does make it a case of shared responsibility for the violence that ensued.

            Contrary to popular belief, the law “does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.”

            I don’t believe that I am choosing “to interpret, translate or excuse all of it in a way that supports your own pre-conceived notions and pre-determined loyalties” in fact, sadly I think that’s what you’re doing, in support of “a pox on all their houses” POV.

            Might it be that you’re the one who is being selective in weighing all the evidence? Two people can of course look at all the facts and reach different conclusions. But as one of the last great Democrats pointed out, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynahan …

            • “but appear to ignore evidence that contradicts your own narrative”

              And what, pray tell, was my narrative? I believe I’ve explained that narrative to you at least twice now so, that you still ignore it, seems to say that you would rather quibble and argue about unrelated and infinitesimal points instead of trying to grasp the point that is indeed being made. Here is what I mean by that. I don’t give a rat’s ass, as far as this particular argument goes, whether Reagan did the right thing or not. The reason I say that as abruptly as I just did is because, for the third time, I was concentrating on the GOP’s disingenuous technique of accepting pork and deficit when republicans do it, regardless mostly of intentions, but to hammer it like a nail when democrats do it.

              I can assure you that the socialists that agree with their current leader, Obama, believe, even sincerely, that they are increasing the deficit for valid and worthwhile social reasons just like Reagan believed he was doing it for tactical and strategic reasons. The only thing that changes is the reasoning but they are both increasing the deficit.

              Is that important? Yes. Eventually and in another context perhaps. But that was not the point of my post (that was the fourth time, by the way) and that is why I just don’t care to argue that point with you or anyone else right now.

              Rape is rape regardless of who does it to whom. When republicans raid the kitty for their own purposes, when they go to pork for their own political gain, when they support Healthcare issues because it benefits them at the time, when they overspend, expand government, support socialist programs because they think it would be political suicide not to do so, when they accept that “third rails” exist in politics and, instead of figuring the damned thing out, they are frightened like little children because of it, when they are the ones creating stupid little serfdoms, acting socialist light or quite progressively, when they accept and even endorse nefarious behavior and otherwise lie, cheat and misrepresent the truth, then they are just as wrong as the democrats are and every bit as dishonest. When they lie and spin about it later because their real love is for the copy not for the issue or for the truth, then they are still lying to the people and they are beneath contempt for doing so just like the democrats are and I wouldn’t clean my shoe with neither of them.

              Liars are not given that award because of how many times they lie in comparison to the other guy or how big a lie they tell compared to the one somebody else told. A lie told once makes you a liar. Period. Others might be “rescinding liars”, “compulsive liars” or “addicted liars” but the man that lied once or twice without apology or conscience is still…a liar.

              The GOP is a manipulating lying political party just like the democrats are and to think otherwise is to be, act and enjoy being a fool.

              So, in short, spin to your heart’s content, continue to argue finite points to soften anything that runs against or opposes your predisposition on things, shield your eyes when the truth is presented naked and without the political makeup that generally accompanies it nowadays and continue to believe that your heroes were or are infallible, honest to a fault and totally absent of any greed for personal power or shy away from any ego stroking adulation on the part of their serfs. If that is what helps you sleep, and dream at night, have at it.

              But, after all is said and done, Reagan did spend more than the others before him, Lincoln did begin the dissolution of the original republic and confederacy of states and he indeed did some pretty “out there” stuff during the war, Teddy was indeed a progressive and our three top tier modern military heroes did some pretty nasty stuff in their time against their fellow Americans. Why, how or how often they did all that is a matter for us to accept or reject as the case may be. But to ignore it is the same as surrendering to the panderers and charmers that have driven this nation to ruin.

              One last thought for you and others. When you call Paulite and fuster “unpatriotic idiots” (or words to that effect) because they, like you, run to excuse, rationalize or obfuscate a point of history being made, try to remember that those rationalizations, excuses and obfuscations are born of the same degree of zeal that you show when you strike a blow for “your team”. After all is said and done, all they are likely doing is following a different set of convictions, acts omissions and downright lies from you and so, maybe, to them, you and I are the “unpatriotic fools”.

              Such is the anatomy of a disagreement.

              Me? I call them and others that think and act like them “idiots” for not seeing or for not being able to grasp the abject failure of a philosophy that has been so totally proven to be a failed program of social and economic re-engineering and for not noticing that this particular program is based, almost solely, not just on the gullibility of the voters, which is no big trick, but on their greed, sloth, envy and most of the other cardinal sins of humanity which they exploit and augment by their actions.

              Which is how and why democracy has been figured out and made to suck.

              Sadly, there are many so called “right wing conservatives” that subscribe to the dishonest notion that, perhaps, socialism. light or heavy is irrelevant to this, is the better way to get votes and, so, damn conviction, damn belief and damn values. Furthermore, they all eventually end up working for local government in some capacity or in Congress. That or they are busy spinning, clamoring or seeking the lockstep vote for them.

              Regards,

              rafa

              • I was neither ignoring your point, nor unaware of it. Yes, both sides have consistently run up debt. Nor did I dispute your assertion that the GOP justifies their debt.

                I did dispute your assertion that their was no criticism and concern from the right during the Reagan and Bush II terms.

                I did offer that Reagan had sufficient justification for the indebtedness he incurred.

                Since you don’t care why Reagan ran up our debt, which arguably was a matter of national survival, then clearly no reason or circumstance is sufficient.

                But I certainly get the full extent of your point now. Forgive my obtuseness.

                Yes, many liberals do ‘believe’ as much as any conservative. That’s not the issue in dispute between us however, the issue is how best to govern and the biggest obstacle to settling that dispute is that when presented with factual rebuttal, sooner or later the left and many liberals resort to emotional accusations as to conservative motivations. All supported by the MSM’s deceitful ‘reportage’. Effectively ending the discussion until the next trip around the same merry-go-round.

                In principle, I can’t disagree with your assessment of the political ‘flexibility’ of both parties. And yes, much of it is self serving and ideological.

                But it started long before Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, they all have compromised their principles for the sake of limited agreement. As they had too. You can’t have democracy, representative or not, without disagreement.

                Perhaps the best example I can give of why compromise is not necessarily the unalloyed evil you portray it as is the long dispute at the Constitutional convention over slavery. The Northern states were opposed to slavery and the Southern states were adamant that it be legally accepted. They argued for days with no resolution.

                Finally, John Randolph of Virginia arose and brought the issue into focus. “Gentlemen, the issue is not whether we shall have slavery, the issue is whether we shall have union”…

                Everyone recognized the larger issue and the northern delegates choose union, accepting slavery under certain conditions, thus compromising their principled opposition to slavery, yes?

                By your lights, that was a fatal compromise in principle, yes? It certainly eventually led to the civil war and the deaths of more than 1/2 a million Americans, 1 in 4 able bodied men died.

                But by your argument, strict allegiance to principle would have led to rejection of union. And that, would have led to there being no United States of America to resist either the Nazi’s or the Soviets…as a balkanized north america could never have stopped either of those, bent on world domination regimes.

                So, as soon as you can arrange for God to step in and take direct control, we can finally have the incorruptible, utterly principled leadership you evidently desire because no ordinary man, or even the most exceptional, can or could secure the agreement needed to govern in a manner that it would appear that you would not criticize.

                Only tyranny can gain that level of compliance.

                Otherwise we’re stuck with this messy thing called representative democracy, always subject to human nature.

                You see, wishing a pox upon both their houses is really wishing a ‘pox’ upon all of us.

                Perfect is ever the enemy of good enough.

                • OK, this is going to be lengthy…

                  “I was neither ignoring your point, nor unaware of it. Yes, both sides have consistently run up debt. Nor did I dispute your assertion that the GOP justifies their debt. I did dispute your assertion that their was no criticism and concern from the right during the Reagan and Bush II terms. I did offer that Reagan had sufficient justification for the indebtedness he incurred. Since you don’t care why Reagan ran up our debt, which arguably was a matter of national survival, then clearly no reason or circumstance is sufficient.”

                  Again you are denying what I have already explained to sobriety. I do care why Reagan ran up the debt but that WAS NOT the point of my post. I just don’t know how to explain it to you in any other way so I won’t try. Think what you will.

                  “But I certainly get the full extent of your point now. Forgive my obtuseness. Yes, many liberals do ‘believe’ as much as any conservative.”
                  Well, actually, you don’t really. That was, at best, a secondary point.
                  “That’s not the issue in dispute between us however, the issue is how best to govern and the biggest obstacle to settling that dispute is that when presented with factual rebuttal, sooner or later the left and many liberals resort to emotional accusations as to conservative motivations.”

                  No. Don’t blame the left for that. The GOP, and you, by the way, do that as well. The knife, in an honorable world, cuts both ways, GB. Besides, GOP or Democ-rats, they are both con men. THAT was the point I was trying to make (and that was, what…? The fifteenth time I have said that…?).

                  “All supported by the MSM’s deceitful ‘reportage’. Effectively ending the discussion until the next trip around the same merry-go-round.”

                  Indeed. That was also the tune of my post. The MSM lives and thrives off the gullibility of the voting public. One of the problems we are now paying dearly for.

                  “In principle, I can’t disagree with your assessment of the political ‘flexibility’ of both parties. And yes, much of it is self serving and ideological.”

                  Well, from where I stand, it is strictly self-serving. Very seldom is it truly ideological at all, except for Marxists and rabid socialists, of course. And, perhaps, me. But one can wish for that particular miracle from the GOP.

                  “But it started long before Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, they all have compromised their principles for the sake of limited agreement. As they had too. You can’t have democracy, representative or not, without disagreement.”

                  All democracies claim to be representative. None are.

                  “Perhaps the best example I can give of why compromise is not necessarily the unalloyed evil you portray it as is the long dispute at the Constitutional convention over slavery. The Northern states were opposed to slavery and the Southern states were adamant that it be legally accepted.”

                  Well…that too was much of a contrived issue. Besides, the Constitution was passed as it was passed. But, besides that, the Northern states, while claiming to deplore slavery, were oppressing and mistreating the near-slaves that worked in their mills and factories in their drive to industrialize. There is, therefore, much to be suspected about their “intentions” on that issue because, mostly, they didn’t precisely walk the walk one bit. In fact, they didn’t give one hoot about slavery except that their main competitor, the agricultural South, needed that nefarious system for its own economic survival since the full benefit of the industrialization of America had yet to be gained. The South would have abolished slavery all by themselves as soon as they saw that a tractor was much more productive than ten slaves with picks and shovels and a combine more sensible than two dozen cotton pickers. And, before you go off on what I just said, let me state unequivocally that I believe slavery to be one of the lowest level mankind has ever reached.

                  “They argued for days with no resolution. Finally, John Randolph of Virginia arose and brought the issue into focus. “Gentlemen, the issue is not whether we shall have slavery, the issue is whether we shall have union”… Everyone recognized the larger issue and the northern delegates choose union…”

                  Sure. It was economically favorable to them at the time.

                  “…accepting slavery under certain conditions, thus compromising their principled opposition to slavery, yes?”

                  No. It simply showed the dual purpose of a politician’s word because they never relented on the issue nor did they have any intention of doing so at the time. The slow boiling frog was already in the pot.

                  “By your lights, that was a fatal compromise in principle, yes?”

                  Perhaps it was (but, more on that shortly). Heinous issues, if sincere, should never be accepted at any cost. Not if we really mean what we so openly brag about.

                  “It certainly eventually led to the civil war and the deaths of more than 1/2 a million Americans, 1 in 4 able bodied men died.”

                  Exactly. Because the politicians never meant a word of what they said when they lied about the compromise and they never meant to compromise at all.

                  “But by your argument, strict allegiance to principle would have led to rejection of union. And that, would have led to there being no United States of America to resist either the Nazi’s or the Soviets…as a balkanized north america could never have stopped either of those, bent on world domination regimes.”

                  First of all, by your own historic account, the union was only achieved by a lie presented by those that pretended to accept slavery under certain conditions but never did. But, that said, you can’t really state that America, balkanized or not, would not have been available to fight Nazism. Not with any certainty anyway. Besides, America, balkanized or not, didn’t save the world all by themselves from the Nazis, the allies, all of them, did. And, also, the “saving” thingy is way overstated. Ask the Poles, the Hungarians, the East Germans and the Checks about all that saving stuff. The enslavement of those millions of people by the Communists might have delighted Roosevelt and Churchill but it certainly didn’t please the slaves themselves or, I might add, the men that died fighting for their promised “freedom”. But, besides that rather “small” point, there is not one iota of proof that America would have split at all if the North had not insisted, for mostly economic and political, not principled reasons, to push on the slavery issue. A republic, as you must still remember, is formed with rights reserved for the States. Those rights should supersede the power of the Federal government. And it is the States that have the ultimate responsibility, as well as the constitutional right to decide thewir own destiny, not some centralized power group in DC. That is why I said that Lincoln was instrumental in starting the disassembling of our Republic. The very same Republic, what we were supposed to be and the one that we were eventually denied by the events we are discussing.

                  “So, as soon as you can arrange for God to step in and take direct control…”

                  No, not God. He doesn’t really do politics, as you know. Maybe the arrangement we need is by some other system that might be less vulnerable to the contortions and shenanigans of ruthless politicians. Hey! Here is a thought…maybe if we were to actually become a Republic again and limit the power of Washington…Nah. Too extreme for modern federal slavers…

                  “We can finally have the incorruptible, utterly principled leadership you evidently desire because no ordinary man, or even the most exceptional, can or could secure the agreement needed to govern in a manner that it would appear that you would not criticize.”

                  Ha! It’s all been done before in several places and at several times in history. But you and your thoroughly indoctrinated and totally provincial ugly American view of the world will never, ever be able to recognize it.

                  “Only tyranny can gain that level of compliance.”

                  Indeed. But, after all, isn’t that were we are headed anyway and isn’t that what you are constantly harping about “if we don’t fix this”?

                  “Otherwise we’re stuck with this messy thing called representative democracy…”

                  But, as I keep saying, democracy is not representative at all. Tell me, for the sake of argument, does Obama represent your wishes and aspirations for the country? Does Washington as a whole? Do I hear a yes!?

                  “….always subject to human nature. You see, wishing a pox upon both their houses is really wishing a ‘pox’ upon all of us. Perfect is ever the enemy of good enough.”

                  Your take not mine. Always subject to human nature? Sure. That’s precisely the problem with democracy. The pox is headed your way in any case and there is little if anything your accepting attitude can do to stop it. You have been thoroughly conned. And, if perfect is the enemy of good enough then it must follow that good enough is the best friend of abject complacency.

                  rafa

                  • There are certainly con men in the GOP. I simply disagree with your blanket assertion, which is inherent to your point.

                    I do blame the left because they don’t play fair. The GOP doesn’t deny that America has problems, it simply disagrees with Democrats as to the best way to address those problems. That laws, regulations and policies must be consistent with our Constitution. There are far too many examples of democrats twisting the Constitution in attempting to justify their efforts. You’ve got major democrats comparing Romney and Ryan to Nazis.

                    ”All democracies claim to be representative. None are.”
                    Nor can they be. Consensus rules in a democracy, not perfect representation.

                    ”Well…that too was much of a contrived issue.”
                    Really? Slavery was a ‘contrived’ issue? If that’s a contrived issue, what wasn’t?
                    There were little to no factories in 1789 in the north. Henry Ford invented or at least brought to America the assembly line, which is the fundamental qualification of a factory. The necessary condition to your postulate concerning the north didn’t exist in 1789. Ignore that fact and you shatter any claim to objectivity.

                    There is a great difference between ghettoizing a populace and slavery, as any family cruelly separated by slave owners in the South and any individual whipped for ‘impertinence’ could testify.

                    ”In fact, they didn’t give one hoot about slavery”
                    Not so. Benjamin Franklin responded to calls from public and private citizens to publicize the formation of the first anti-slavery organization in 1789…opposition to slavery accelerated in the North to the extent where in just 3 generations, war became unavoidable.

                    ”The South would have abolished slavery all by themselves as soon as they saw that a tractor was much more productive than ten slaves with picks and shovels”
                    Hardly, machinery would have simply allowed the South to use its slaves more effectively, raised productivity and expanded markets. Slavery exists today in a modern world of machines.

                    ”I believe slavery to be one of the lowest level mankind has ever reached.”
                    Never doubted it.

                    “They argued for days with no resolution… Everyone recognized the larger issue and the northern delegates choose union…”
                    ”Sure. It was economically favorable to them at the time.”
                    How cynical and, completely wrong. Men that could construct a document like the Constitution were motivated by far more than simple greed. It was the necessity of union to the success of this “new nation”, this new form of governance, that motivated them.

                    “…accepting slavery under certain conditions, thus compromising their principled opposition to slavery, yes?”
                    ”No. It simply showed the dual purpose of a politician’s word because they never relented on the issue nor did they have any intention of doing so at the time.”
                    “By your lights, that was a fatal compromise in principle, yes?”
                    ”Perhaps it was (but, more on that shortly). Heinous issues, if sincere, should never be accepted at any cost. Not if we really mean what we so openly brag about.”
                    Read the above, you contradict yourself. First you say that it wasn’t, then you say it was…

                    Exactly. Because the politicians never meant a word of what they said when they lied about the compromise and they never meant to compromise at all.”
                    ”I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” Thomas Jefferson

                    ”First of all, by your own historic account, the union was only achieved by a lie presented by those that pretended to accept slavery under certain conditions but never did.”
                    No, that is your interpretation of lies and pretense, not mine. Nor is it supported by the facts you ignore.

                    ”you can’t really state that America, balkanized or not, would not have been available to fight Nazism. Not with any certainty anyway.”
                    Of course I can. It took the entire industrial might of the US, harnessed to one purpose to achieve those victories. No loose confederation could have achieved that result. History conclusively demonstrates that time and again.

                    ”Besides, America, balkanized or not, didn’t save the world all by themselves from the Nazis, the allies, all of them, did.”
                    Not to denigrate the efforts of our allies but no way could a brave but exhausted Britain, nor a willing Canada, Australia, etc. have carried the day.

                    ”And, also, the “saving” thingy is way overstated. Ask the Poles, the Hungarians, the East Germans and the Checks about all that saving stuff.”

                    Please. The reality that a weary America could confront the Soviets and make them willingly retreat from Eastern Europe is ludicrous. The Poles, Hungarians, East Germans, Cheks, et al owe their freedom to Ronald Reagan and the Americans who backed him. To my shame, I was not one of them.

                    “delighted” Roosevelt and Churchill?
                    “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” -“The Sinews of Peace” speech, Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1945 Hardly the view of someone delighted with the “enslavement of those millions of people by the Communists”…nor is there any reason to think that Roosevelt, a pragmatist before all else, would have been ‘delighted’.

                    ”there is not one iota of proof that America would have split at all if the North had not insisted, for mostly economic and political, not principled reasons, to push on the slavery issue.”
                    John Randolph’s point that the real issue was “whether there would be union or not” is more than an ‘iota of proof’ especially as the historical record shows that the entire tenor of the debate changed from that point forward. It is your claim, which BTW is without one iota of proof, beyond personal opinion, that the motivation on the north’s part was economic and political.

                    ”A republic, as you must still remember, is formed with rights reserved for the States. Those rights should supersede the power of the Federal government.”
                    The old “states rights” argument. Sorry but the irresolvable problem with that is that you then have a federal government that is too emasculated. It cannot accomplish its needed mission of protection of the populace. Which is not to dispute the under the democrats with connivance from the GOP, that the Feds have not grown far to strong.

                    ”And it is the States that have the ultimate responsibility, as well as the constitutional right to decide their own destiny, not some centralized power group in DC. “
                    It is the individuals right to decide their own destiny. States are merely closer representation and, given the ubiquitous state of corruption at the state level, offer no greater escape from a sometimes less centralized power group. If you leave it to the ‘people’ to decide the individuals destiny, you get the whim of the mob. If you leave it to the representatives, the politicians, whether at the federal level or the state, you get the corruption of individual and special interests. There’s no escaping human nature, all you can hope to do is restrain its baser impulses.

                    “So, as soon as you can arrange for God to step in and take direct control…”
                    ”No, not God. He doesn’t really do politics, as you know.
                    I was not serious. My point was only that a transcendent, omniscient, beneficent entity could give you the governance you demand.

                    ”Maybe the arrangement we need is by some other system that might be less vulnerable to the contortions and shenanigans of ruthless politicians.”
                    Absolutely! Good luck figuring out the details of that ‘better arrangement’. More astute minds than mine or yours already tried that in 1789…

                    “We can finally have the incorruptible, utterly principled leadership you evidently desire because no ordinary man, or even the most exceptional, can or could secure the agreement needed to govern in a manner that it would appear that you would not criticize.”
                    ”Ha! It’s all been done before in several places and at several times in history.
                    Really? For more than one mans lifetime? When? Where?

                    ”But you and your thoroughly indoctrinated and totally provincial ugly American view of the world will never, ever be able to recognize it.”
                    Your anger, completely disproportional to our disagreement, indicates a failure of reason.

                    “Only tyranny can gain that level of compliance.”
                    Indeed. But, after all, isn’t that were we are headed anyway and isn’t that what you are constantly harping about “if we don’t fix this”?”
                    That’s a somewhat irrational statement. Tyranny being the only method of gaining the degree of compliance with principle you demand is irrelevant to attempts by the left to gradually impose tyranny upon the American people.

                    “Otherwise we’re stuck with this messy thing called representative democracy…”
                    ”But, as I keep saying, democracy is not representative at all. Tell me, for the sake of argument, does Obama represent your wishes and aspirations for the country? Does Washington as a whole? Do I hear a yes!?”
                    You confuse imperfect representation with a complete lack of representation. Special interests, one or the other… are supported by all Americans and are well represented. The Tea Party’s rise to prominence is further proof that when special interests reach a tipping point, there is no lack of representation in Congress. A Romney Presidency will, to some extent, represent my wishes and aspirations, just as Obama’s does paulite t’s.

                    ”Always subject to human nature? Sure. That’s precisely the problem with democracy.”
                    Yup. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. And it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.“ Winston Churchill (BTW, he’s one of my heroes)

                    ”The pox is headed your way in any case and there is little if anything your accepting attitude can do to stop it. You have been thoroughly conned. And, if perfect is the enemy of good enough then it must follow that good enough is the best friend of abject complacency.”
                    I’m not nearly as accepting of it as you imply. There’s a difference between acknowledging reality and apathy. You mistake ‘being conned’ for partial disagreement with your POV. Complacency and ‘good enough’ are easily confused, you cannot ever get to good enough however, if only perfection will suffice.

                    • GB:

                      Got to about half of your answer and decided to quit the rest. You have your opinions and I have mine. To parse this any further is a waste of time for both of us.

                      So, like I said before, you have the right to “feel” the way you do and, if it helps you sleep better, then have at it. I have the same right to reach my own conclusions regardless of anybody else’s spin or take on each of the seven hundred little, nay tiny little points made (six hundred and ninety of which still remain undiscovered, it seems).

                      Is this a great country or what…Different people can reach different conclusions and react with peace, love and lockstep or with controlled anger and a peremnial desire to puke born of each of those conclusions. Not that any of them, yours or mine, makes a gnat’s ass of difference to the constant political activity of the rulers.

                      Sleep well but sleep fast…while you still can.

                      rafa

    • Romney hasn’t blown the election with those remarks.

      If he does well in the upcoming debate, it will secure the election for him. The only question will then be if the Republicans gain enough seats n the Senate to give him the majority he needs to enact the legislative he needs to right our ship of state.

      • The Nation’s voters must choose between Scylla (subterranean crypto-socialism) and Charybdis (exposed 1%ism) without collectively possessing the wits of Odysseus . We all know what happened to everyone (except Odysseus) who tried to get on the other side of that……

        Best possible result under the current circumstances/reality (I respectfully disagree GB, Romney self destructed) is a balancing act between a Republican legislature and a Democratic executive.

        • “I respectfully disagree GB, Romney self destructed”
          We shall have to respectfully have to agree to disagree, until reality reveals which of us is the better prognosticator:-)

          I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of capitalism being a case of Charybdis (exposed 1%ism).

          80% of the wealth ending up in the hands of the 10% at the top is a natural law. The way to counteract that natural circumstance is to inculcate into society the cultural concept of “noblesse oblige”. That the favored few have a responsibility to those less favored by life (there but for the grace of God, go I) and that in philanthropy and creating jobs, high social status is attained.

          Capitalism, properly implemented, results in a growing middle class and over generations, the reality that “a rising tide lifts all boats”> And yes, Capitalism hasn’t been properly implemented for quite some time. The problem is in its implementation, not in its inherent viability.

          I do agree that the choice for voters is European socialism (subterranean crypto-socialism) and individual liberty with the responsibility that entails.

          Best possible result under the current circumstances is the election of Romney with a strong Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

          And, a Romney that reveals that he knows exactly what he wants to do, not only to right our ship of state but to effectively counteract the near traitorous opposition he will encounter from the democrats and the subversive reportage that will ensue from the MSM.

          If he can do all of that, history will consider him a great President.

          The probability however would have to be judged that he’ll be doing well if he can just reverse Obama’s efforts.

          • GB- The fact that 500 or so individuals (less than 0.01% of the US pop.) has a net worth roughly equal to 156,000,000 (50% of the US pop.), smacks more of feudalism to me than capitalism.
            So I wholeheartedly agree that capitalism hasn’t been properly implemented.

            As for “noblesse oblige”. …. the batch of vaccine distributed in the US is obviously ineffective (at least economically)…. according to the numbers above.

            It is going to be very difficult for Romney to convince swing voters, many of whom are truly hard working and struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy,. that Romney is going to properly implement capitalism, They have more immediate concerns.. and this is where I fault the GOP on their lack of political savvy. You don’t win elections by alienating half the voters, regardless of whether they’ll probably vote for the other candidate, it’s divisive. Reagan had a message for a broad majority of Americans, Romney has fallen into the (old)trap of being portrayed as the the candidate of the rich and privileged. Unless he can rectify this (or again, barring some miracle)…he will lose. This election should have been a cake walk, Instead, its been handed to a failed incumbent on a solid gold platter. Maybe unleashing Ryan will do some good, unless it ends up upstaging Mitt…

            At least TMF has given me a fig leaf to justify casting a ballot at all, instead of abstaining. It’ll be the first time in my life that I’ll actually be voting for a VP🙂

            • jgets:

              What you are seeing, as far as the now famous “Romney’s 47% self-inmolation” is the official parroted lying at work.

              I said as much recently in that our political system has turned into a contest of lies and false copy points as opposed to real policies. What that means, roughly translated, is that our federal socialist democracy has been expertly converted into somewhat of a political whore house with characters that feint love but mean nothing more than self-promotion.

              rafa

            • “The fact that 500 or so individuals … has a net worth roughly equal to …50% of the US pop. smacks more of feudalism to me than capitalism.”

              Yes, things have gotten out of hand. However, keep in mind that 80/10 rule. Disparity is not only inescapable, its necessary and a good thing. There’s a difference between injustice and ‘unfairness’. Men are often unjust, the operational laws of this universe are mostly ‘unfair’. In the main that’s a good thing, no progress nor even evolution, without the unfair ‘benefits’ conferred by life upon individuals. How ‘fair’ is it that we all don’t have Mozart’s musical genius, etc.?

              Noblesse oblige isn’t a panacea but it is a component of a society that accepts that wealth and good fortune is a blessing to be shared. That unhindered, “a rising tide does lift all boats” and that regulation of economic activity should be strictly limited to creating and maintaining a level playing field for all participants.

              When that is accomplished, the “cream will rise to the top” and 80% of the assets will gravitate into the hands of the 10%. What that 10% do with their wealth is, for the most part determined by cultural expectations.

              Romney can’t “properly implement capitalism”. No individual, not even the President, can do that. That is a societal endeavor, all Romney can do is make the case for that path and lead Republicans in that direction, fighting the headwinds of the left all the way.

              The MSM will do all it can to prevent and obstruct any efforts by Romney to explain himself over his 47% ‘gaffe”.

              “I fault the GOP on their lack of political savvy.”

              Unfortunately, political savvy is in short supply, fortunately on both sides.

              Reagan was vociferously accused of favoring the rich. Still is by the left. His question, “Are you better off today, than you were 4 years ago?” after 8 yrs, that question was answered in the affirmative by the public. If elected, I believe the same answer will be applied to Romney, if he has a republican majority to work with in Congress.

              I strongly favor Ryan over Romney too but I find his choice of Ryan to be greatly encouraging.

              • GB, in addition to “noblesse oblige” it might be wise for us to also remember the term “oligarchy” in regard to extreme concentrations of wealth and power.

                And please recall that I try to play the “Devil’s Advocate ” for constructive purposes🙂

  6. Hopefully next time around I won’t have to choose between a closet Muslim Marxist and a Mormon moron. And yes, I know my comment was not elegantly stated.

    • Its inelegance is unimportant. Labeling Romney a moron is unfair and inaccurate. Obama possibly being a “closet Muslim Marxist” is relevant because if true, it goes to his motivations and goals. Romney’s Mormonism is not only irrelevant but raises the question of religious bigotry upon your part.

      • OK GB, I’ll put it this way instead.

        To quote one of my favorite bloggers…

        “You’re killing me, Mitt”

        • He wasn’t my first, second or third choice either but he’s, for good or ill, what we’ve got. At this point, he deserves our support. Cut him some slack until he proves, as President, that he’s a RINO and not just a pragmatist. Right now, we can’t afford to make perfect the enemy of good enough.

          • I can’t vote for Romney… My original choice way back when was Paul Ryan. He has the “common touch”, the decent common sense, and the connection to the ground.

            So, it might seem like an equivocation, but I’m voting for Paul Ryan for VP this November. Whatever else is dragged along is dragged along.

            Style point voting in Virginia (as critical as the Commonwealth is to this election) isn’t going to cut it this time. To do evil in the name of good is to do evil nonetheless.

            r/John

            • Not that I concede with the characterization that voting for Romney is a lesser evil but, within the context of your characterization, to refuse to vote for the lesser evil is, in this case, to effectively vote for the greater evil.

              If Obama is reelected you will bear some responsibility. Just as, if Romney is elected, I will bear some responsibility for any ‘evil’ he might do. “Welcome neo, to the real world.”

              • TO: TMF and his voting opposition:

                About “to refuse to vote for the lesser evil is, in this case, to effectively vote for the greater evil. If Obama is reelected you will bear some responsibility…”

                That is simply not true at all. The job of every politician is to convince the voters that they are a good choice first and, then, a better choice than their opponent. If they fail to do that then it is their fault and the fault of their track record, their delivery or their policies, not ours. Besides, as TMF knows full well, that was the constantly presented spin during the Bush I and Bush II years and it resurfaced with renewed strength with McCain’s (spit) election bid. Great copy point but simply not true. What is that…an official talking point now?

                My vote, as well as TMF’s, from what I hear, is for our own selves to decide using our own conscience, not somebody else’s. My vote is not something I will ever give away slightly because it is a minute influence on the future of my country and, proportionally small as it is, it is also the ONLY real influence that I (we, each of us individually) have.

                I’ve been around this argument track too many times to be impressed by any of that “if you don’t vote for X, you vote for Y” BS. It’s silly in its own face because I could sit here and say that “if you don’t go to Afghanistan to fight you are siding with the Taliban” or “if you don’t scratch an itch, you are siding with the mosquitoes” or if “you don’t choose Corn Flakes you are helping Rice Krispies grow their market share” or whatever silly permutations we care to come up with.

                Let me say it this way too: Your own lovely seventeen year old daughter comes to you one evening and tells you that she is undecided about dating either one of two guys you happen to know about. One is a known heavy duty drug addict and the other is a convicted child molester. So, you really must think about the choice you will endorse carefully because if you don’t choose the child molester, you are choosing the drug addict and vice versa.

                Crap! All of it is nothing more than touchy-feely crap.

                To not vote for a given politician is perhaps your only chance we have to voice our disagreement of him or her. Besides that, our vote is our clear message that we either are or are not swallowing their lies or their policies hook, line and sinker. And, if enough people send that particular message and do so with a certain amount of fortitude, it might force a given party to change its ways because not to do so will lose them the votes that they need to retain or acquire power. Besides, if one is convinced, then one can sit back and watch the train wreck with the knowledge that one didn’t grease the tracks one little bit.

                Caving to this particular point has never proven to be the solution to resolving this kind of problem. Fear is not the way to win battles.

                My advice to all would be to tell their beloved daughter that neither of those two scum bags is a good choice and, then, to oppose her dating either with everything they’ve got. That is if they indeed love their lovely seventeen year old daughters, of course and, also, if they want to live with the knowledge that they did their job and tried to keep them from harm. Because, actually, not choosing/recommending (or voting) in favor of either of those two trash cans really means that you have chosen YOUR DAUGHTERS over them.

                Didn’t convince any of you? OK, so here is what I’ll do: I WON’T VOTE FOR OBAMA. Therefore, according to that same silly formula, I’ll be, in effect, voting for Romney. Soooo…if Romney is elected, it’ll be because of me…
                🙂

                rafa

            • I’ve just realized that there is no way Ryan will come to the fore in the 2012 election

              Why would any politician stick his neck out (especially a young one with potential) to support a losing campaign? Better to pick the fruit that has ripened in 2016 don’t you think?.

  7. JE,

    1. The “people” are envious, lazy, hopelessly ignorant, and crushingly self-centered. Romney was dead solid accurate on his 47% number. In a rational world, Obummer’s poll numbers wouldn’t crack single digits.

    2. Somewhere back, Joe Blow became Jane Doe-Blow. An overweight, underemployed complaining divorced single mother of half-siblings who has “married” government to provide for her. She’s loud, insistent, and not very intelligent. She thinks that she’s entitled to everything that she wants.

    3. Joe Blow still exists, but he’s more interested in drinking, chasing ugly women who he can bed easily, and hanging with his friends to watch whatever is being played on one of a hundred different sports channels. It doesn’t even have to be live, he’ll bet on NFL replay. He’s been divorced at least once, owes child support for a kid that might not be his, and the one he does pay for (the kid from the ex) only visits Joe because the weed Joe buys is so good.

    4. I figure we are down to about 40% of the population supporting the rest, and the 60% are unhappy with the level of remuneration so they are voting themselves a bigger share.

    On the Bonus Army thing. GB is correct, the soldiers were not entitled to the payments. They were attempting to use intimidation, guilt, and social pressure to get something that they were not entitled to, because they felt :entitled to it anyway. The reality behind MacArthur’s raid on the protester’s camp, and the protesters themselves is far less clear, and far more complex than either side would like to admit. Eisenhower was not as heavily involved as Patton. Patton did what he was supposed to do, and remained bitterly angry over the event for the remainder of his life, because he saw the soldiers as violating a trust. MacAurthur’s troops, later in World War II as senior staff and general officers would remain the objects of resentment for more than a few troops. It was an ugly chapter where no one covered himself in any glory.

    Lastly… and more on the point of the article again…

    You do realize that in 1984, Julia became a tool of “Big Brother”, and Winston Smith, tired, sick, and beaten down, succumbed.

    Big Brother won.

    r/John

    • TMF, Mitt was not quite accurate in equating Obama voters to the 47% that don’t pay taxes or contribute substantially by productive labor. But your general point is accurate.

      One of the biggest problems I see is a progressively shrinking productive class being called upon to support a progressively growing entitlement class. (I hope you liked employment of the word “progressive.”) Phil Gramm said it best when he noted that there are too many people ridin’ in the wagon and not enough folks pullin’ the wagon. It has gotten much worse since Senator Gramm held office.

      Mitt couid give a short seminar to the American people about the importance of the economic numbers. He could point out that the growth in jobs is not keeping up with the growth in population. He could show how unemployement figures are completely artificial because they define people out of the unemployed class when they stop seriously looking for work. He coud explain how we have a lower percentage of our population employed than we have seen in several decades, and how that affects government entitlement programs in future years.

      Mitt, as a successful businessman, would be just the person to cut through the statistical Bravo Sierra and level with the people.

      But he probably won’t because that would make him look “out of touch.”

      • Cousin:

        “One of the biggest problems I see is a progressively shrinking productive class being called upon to support a progressively growing entitlement class. (I hope you liked employment of the word “progressive.”)”

        One of the biggest problems? ONE of…?

        Cousin, you have to be one of the nicest and better class of guys around these parts (ignoring your Italian heritage, of course) because you speak with such care and such a profound sensitivity. That is not only “one of the biggest problems” we have. It IS the biggest problem we have. But, alas, that’s exactly what happens to every country that turns towards socialism as a way to insure that the power stays in the wrong hands.

        ONE of the biggest problems…Boy, that’s funny…
        🙂

        rafa

        PS: You do know I’m pulling your chain, don’t you?

    • TMF:
      “The “people” are envious, lazy, hopelessly ignorant, and crushingly self-centered.”

      Yeah, sure. However, their vote counts every bit as much as yours. Whether they are positively involved in their society, whether they are productive members, business owners, workers, providers of solutions or contributors, large or small, to the wealth of the nation, their vote is every bit as heavy as yours. Whether they receive huge portions of the largess that others accumulate with the sweat of their brows, whether they would willingly vote for whomever gives them the bigger piece of the national pie, whether they are properly educated on our system of government and whether they even understand it in the most basic of ways, whether they live inside our society in a constant state of conflict of interest or not, their vote counts just like yours. If they are selfish, self-centered, ignorant, irresponsible, bullies, sloth addicted, drunks, addicts, professional single mothers, or, possibly, eventually even ex and current criminals, it won’t matter one bit because they will get their votes, sometimes a good number of them when they cheat, counted with every bit the same weight as yours. Maybe even more…

      rafa

  8. “GB- The fact that 500 or so individuals (less than 0.01% of the US pop.) has a net worth roughly equal to 156,000,000 (50% of the US pop.), smacks more of feudalism to me than capitalism.”

    I must disagree with this point, jgets. The colossal expansion of the size of markets — exponentially over the last 100 years — accounts for the size of entrepreneurial wealth today. There is also nothing wrong with where the wealth is. The 156,000,000 didn’t do what it took to accumulate the wealth held by the 500. If we’re talking about the 156 million least wealthy Americans, they also don’t even pay as much in taxes — all of them added together — as the 500 do.

    But the biggest problem with your formulation is that feudalism kept the serfs poor and dependent, whereas capitalism doesn’t keep anyone poor and dependent. Under capitalism — IF it is practiced where the laws favor free and fair access to property ownership, as in the US — anyone can be a capitalist. Literally, anyone. Immigrants even today come to America not speaking our language, with nothing in their pockets, and within a few years become capitalists, owning their own businesses.

    The less-wealthy are so much better off under capitalism than under feudalism that it is almost silly to even compare the two. Poor Americans today — and poor Greeks, for that matter — live better than kings and princes once did.

    “Distribution of wealth” is a meaningless focus for policy, because wealth isn’t distributed. It can only be created by human initiative and hard work. There’s no “wealth sump” out there from which some people have excluded others from making withdrawals. There is no wealth except what is created by individuals. I don’t care who has what. I care that the laws of the land protect our liberty of economic action, which includes the protection of property ownership.

  9. Of course you are correct Optcon, on the points of freedom , free will, and protection of property ownership. And being a living product of the American dream, I know the lives my parents and grandparents (two of the many who came with nothing in their pockets) led to attain today’s “princely” middle class standard of living,

    Your post raises many issues and leaves many points open to long philosophical debate. I’ll start with one.

    The overwhelming (maybe unprecedented) concentration of wealth (from the exponential expansion your cite) and, inevitably power, is is not a possible corrupting (or criminal) influence on our Republic?

    I’ll be dusting off my copy of Plato’s “Republic” soon, methinks🙂

  10. “Distribution of wealth” is a meaningless focus for policy, because wealth isn’t distributed.” It’s not meaningless. It’s robbery!

    • I stand corrected, octavian61.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: