I think we need two good, strong parties to make our government work. Otherwise, you get what we have now, which isn’t pretty. So I don’t want to see a purer Democratic or Republican party, which is what party partisans are always calling for – I’d like to see two sane, responsible big tent parties vie for votes while taking a long term view of the election process. Instead, what we have is one party taking advantage of the fact that the other has become, well, deranged. And the fact that the national media has joined the one party in its madness and is doing it’s best to distort reality doesn’t help – which is how you get a majority of people supporting private Social Security accounts but a majority dissaproving President Bushes plan on Social Security, which consisted of a nebulous plan for private accounts.
Archive for category National Politics
Better Government
Jul 20
Border Crossings Reduced
Jun 13
Hmm, apparently sending the National Guard to help seal the border has already had an effect: fewer illegal immigrants are trying to cross, in a mixture of individual discouragement and higher smuggler fees. Let’s hope Congress does its part so that they don’t waste the time and effort of thousands of National Guardsmen.
Third Party Thoughts
Jun 6
The talk of the day is about a third political party. Oddly enough, it seems to be driven by disaffected Republicans hoping for a purer or better Republican party. Parties are odd things – since to be one of the two major parties you have to be pretty inclusive. What actually defines them? The Democrats think of themselves as the party of the little guy and the Republicans think of themselves as the party of mainstreet America, but are they really? And even when you say the Democrats are the party of urban and rural America while the Republicans are the party of Suburbia, that is a tendency, not a uniformity. Same thing goes for the whole Red/Blue state dichotomy – we’re really just shifting pattern of purple.
I would have thought the Democratic coalition of disparate groups would be the first to crack because the members seem to be in actual opposition over positions, where the Republican coalition between fiscal conservatives and moral conservatives could better tolerate different areas of interest. For instance, the working class Catholic part of the Democratic coalition has to clash with both the anti-religous and pro-abortion wings of the coalition. The interests of Black parents and the teacher’s union leadership are also in opposition. The amazing thing to me about the Democratic party is that it hasn’t torn itself apart, but maybe the ability to unite around hating Republican presidents is enough of a glue to keep itself together. And perhaps that’s why the Republicans do better at electing Presidents – the strain shows up the worst on a national scale.
Of course, what people mean when they talk about a new third party is a third major party, because there are more third parties already out there than you can shake a stick at. In my life we’ve had a couple of third party candidates — John Anderson (who’s policies for 1980 are amazingly relevant for today) and Ross Perot who might have actually won the election if he hadn’t vacillated because of what he thought was a Republican dirty tricks campaign — but they didn’t leave a major third party behind.
The last third party to emerge was the Republicans themselves – and it wasn’t driven by leadership but by principle – the fight over slavery. That sort of galvanizing principle is what’s needed to form a new major party, not some isolated man on a white horse riding in to our rescue. And the party that fell apart during the relignment was the Whigs, kind of old school Libertarians, who weren’t as old, organized, or successful as the Democrats. I’m not sure that a new party built along the lines of what commentators think the Republican party should be would actually spawn a brand new third party when it’s more likely that it would simply reenergize and transform the existing Republican party. If the problem is that the party faithful feel their party leadership is out of touch, wouldn’t it be more likely that a lot of incumbants lose primaries and a new party leadership be installed than a whole new party be formed?
For a new major party to form, you have to have significant numbers of voters leave both current major parties, so you have to have a principle that divides both parties. Otherwise you wind up with one major party, two minor parties, and that same host of insignificant parties. Is (more/less) immigration that principle? It sure seems to provoke enough emotional reaction; but I’m not clear that it would split both parties or that a third party could grow by planting that banner. The fight over slavery festered and blazed over decades before it forged a new party – I don’t think we are there yet on immigration. I don’t think it’s enough for people to climb up out of their ruts.
Quite frankly, I see the Democrats in far more danger of an actual crack up than the Republicans. I don’t want to underestimate the power of habit and hatred, but that is all I can see holding the Democrats together. And a crack up of either party would mean a realignment as different interest groups migrated between the parties. If one or the other were to break apart, the other one would be changed as well as an influx of new voters and an outflow of old voters would change the party whatever it’s name is.
Tim at Random Observations has a look at the reality behind communist infiltration in the US:
Today, Haynes has come full circle. Years ago he laughed at the old Minnesota DFLers. Now, many of his fellow historians dismiss him.
“They still see Communist Party USA members as idealists focused on social justice — just ‘liberals in a really big hurry,’ ” he says. But Haynes is hopeful that the facts will prevail. Younger historians are more receptive, he says. “They don’t have the same investment in the academic conventional wisdom as the Sixties generation, who often try to rewrite history to suit their own agenda.”
What more needs to be said? When it’s so abudantly clear from history that Marxism is a philosphy of death and destruction, why are there any Marxists left, and why are there so many teaching at Universities?
Oddly enough, both meanings of “bad” work when applied to government – bad in the sense of immoral and in the sense of poorly run. When I look around, I see a lot of bad government – it’s bad government that is the root cause of most of the problems worldwide. Bad government leads to the famine, chaos, and war in Africa; leads to the horrible suffering of North Koreans and Cubans (among sadly too many others), and leads to the instability and turmoil in South America.
But we’re seeing good government in action in Washington. No, not the clueless band of politicians that currently inhabit Congress; but the continuing demonstration that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. Yes, problems are looming like Medicare and Social Security, we are fighting a war with a nation divided, members of Congress are behaving not just irresponsibly, but criminally — yet the economy is booming, people from the world over are trying to live here, life is good in general because governement doesn’t “run” the nation, and the government itself continues to function well enough because it isn’t “run” by the politicians. Come what may, we have confidence in our government to function adequately.
The Showdown That Wasn’t
May 26
Remember when President Bush nominated Gen Hayden to be head of the CIA, replacing the resigning Porter Goss? We were told how Congress was sharpening their knives over this one, with even Republicans questioning the nomination. Senator Arlen Spector claimed he would use the hearings to delve into the NSA’s programs for eavesdropping and collecting call information. Well, the whole intellegence committee got a full briefing, and a funny thing happened on the way to the big showdown — he was voted out of committee 12-3, and he was confirmed by the full senate 78-15. Some showdown. And it points up once again, the more you know about the NSA programs, the more in favor of it you are.
Dennis “Haymaker” Hastert
May 26
The Congressional Search kerfufle has taken a couple of new twists: First, President Bush ordered the material seized to be sealed for 45 days. For some reason, this sparked wonderment in some quarters, although not in others. I’m firmly in the camp that this makes sense, for a couple of reasons: one is that the President has to work with Congress, so it doesn’t make sense to get into a public shouting match with the leadership he wants to work with over something that really is the pervue of low level government (IOW the President and Congress really shouldn’t get involved in a routine police matter). The other is that this allows the President to have a series quiet, private chats with the House leadership that has gone bonkers and allow the whole matter to drift off to oblivion, with the announcement of the resolution time to coincide with something of far more interest to the news media, like another disappearence of an attractive young white woman. And really the President is giving anything up – he made it clear that the evidence would not be returned, and a 45 day delay in a case like this is nothing – the FBI already waited 8 months to seize the material after serving a subpeona.
Another bizare twist is that Hastert has fired a shot across ABCs bow for their repeated claims that he’s somehow under investigation (or in their odd phrase, “in the mix” – I never knew investigating Congress was like baking a cake) after the Justice Department has officially stated he isn’t. ABC has revealed enought for it to be clear that in fact there is nothing new here. Will the obvious questions this raises be persued? Hell no. We won’t go asking about the propriety of an investigator or investigators making these leaks (short answer is that whoever leaked it should be investitgated and fired), nor will we be asking why this leak, now? Speaker Hastert obviously feels that it is retaliation for his complaint over the search of William Jefferson’s Congressional Office. Is there another motive? I just hope Denny shows as much fire and tenacity in going after ABC, which they so richly deserve, as he as in going after the FBI over the search (which they don’t deserve).
And what’s getting lost in all the subsequent plot twists? That all the evidence points to William Jefferson being a crook.
Guess The Neo-Con
May 25
Synchronicity happens. I’m reading a blog post with a quote from a well known person, and then I read an article and bam, you have a Reece’s Peanut Butter Cups. Some writer for the Washington Post writes another attack on Neo-cons, which has become short hand for someone a lefty doesn’t like (being Jewish doesn’t hurt), and so I respond. See if you can guess the well known author of the following quotes.
For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
Sure sounds like a neo-con, nattering on about God and the rights of man.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
Sheesh, he’s a supply sider too. Doesn’t he know this is trickle down, voodoo economics, the kind that didn’t work for Ronald Reagan or GW Bush?
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.
Typical neo-con going on about freedom but not the important stuff like universal healthcare. No doubt he wants the US to go stick its nose in other people’s business and force them to be like America.
The 1930’s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war.
Can’t neo-cons get over WWII? That isn’t the only war you know. What about the lessons of Vietnam?
My fellow citizens, let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead — months in which both our patience and our will will be tested, months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.
There he goes again, dragging God into it. And what’s this guy going on and on about the difficulties for — where’s the exit strategy, where’s the clear communication of a plan for total victory? All I hear is somebody who’s in over his head, and doesn’t know how to get out.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge — and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do — for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
More of that imperialist talk about not permitting other countries not being up to our standards. And what’s this talk about divided there is little we can do — sounds like he doesn’t value dissent. Although, something sounds familiar – haven’t I heard that pay any price, bear any burden talk before? Hmm, I don’t recall Wolfie or Perle saying that stuff.
Yep, that neo-con I’ve quoted here is none other than John Fitzgerald Kennedy — JFK. Gosh, who knew that he was the father of neo-conservatism foreign policy, not Irving Kristol?
Not only is the tone strikingly like the neo-conservative of today (lending credence to their claim that they didn’t leave the Democrats, but the Democrats left them) but a shocker is the committment to do hard things. Today the left is consumed with always taking the easy way on foreign policy. Don’t rock the boat. Stability is a greater good than liberty for all.
In place of “support any friend, oppose any foe” we have apply pressure to our friends’ butts, apply lips to our enemies’ butts.
Bear any burden is replaced with the only fruit worth picking is the low hanging variety.
This is the rhetoric of Democrats and the left before Vietnam. They sound quite different today — still suffering from a culture of defeatism over 30 years later.
I read the quote on economics at Steve Verdon’s and was intrigued enough to follow the link to American Rhetoric where I found a bunch of JFK speeches. Reading them, I’m struck by how much the idealism in them is the same as in GWB (and the famous neo-con movement). Now of course I got to pick the excerpts I wanted, but I don’t think I distorted JFKs views. And I’m not arguing that if JFK were alive today he would be considered a neo-con because I have no idea what the intervening 40 years would have done to his thinking; but the JFK who was President was far more like Reagan or GW Bush than any current Democrat (except possibly Lieberman).
Politicians serve as a constant source of total amazement for me, even more than the blaze of stars in the sky at night away from city lights which leaves me slackjawed in astonishment. William Jefferson is a member of the House of Represenatives who looks to have taken bribes and is under investigation by the FBI. As part of that investigation, the FBI searched with a warrant Jefferson’s congressional office and the US residence of the Vice-President of Nigeria. Oddly enough, it was the search of the congressional office, not the foriegn official’s residence, that has raised a stink. Of all the hills to pick to die on, why the Republican leadership in Congress picked this one is beyond me, what with Denny Hastert demanding the FBI turn over any documents it seized as part of the raid, along with the comment “They took the wrong path.”
I suppose I should be happy that the Republican congressional leadership is not playing politics, because clearly the political response would be to help carry the boxes the FBI seized and make a statement to the press with boxes in hand that it’s a darn shame the Democrats tolerate a criminal in their midst. Instead they make a boneheaded claim that Congressional offices should be sanctuaries for illegal activity. Most people are going to wonder what’s in your office, Denny. If a sitting President has to testify before a grand jury, then a Congressional office can be searched by the FBI.
Look, I understand the idea behind the separation of powers, so my question is what would be the correct path here? Congress has passed the laws which the executive branch is trying to enforce, and the FBI executed a search warrant duly authorized by a judge – in other words, the branches of government are doing their separate jobs. The FBI subpeoned the documents it searched for in September of last year, which subpeona Congressman Jefferson and Congress itself ignored alike. And in that eight month period, has Congress opened its own investigation into Congressmen Jefferson, or taken any action at all? Of course not. Back when they had a chance to act, they did nothing. Now they are up hopping on their hind legs bellowing about principle. But what’s clear here is that the executive branch isn’t trying to intimidate or influence the legislative branch — a case which would warrant all the bellowing and in which case I would gladly bellow right along — but a case where the executive branch and judicial branches are going about their constitutional and legislatively mandated roles of law enforcement.
I don’t like the FBI raiding congressional offices, but then I like criminals even less and think they should be investigated, prosecuted, and incarcerated whether the criminal is a member of Congress or not — especially if the criminal is a member of Congress
I keep hearing talk by conservative bloggers about sitting out the 2006 elections to punish the GOP. Does the GOP deserve punishment? Boy, and how. But who exactly would we be punishing, and who would we be rewarding? Do you think Bush is bad on immigration for not being strict enough, why would you let the Democrats, who are far less strict, take over? If you think the Republicans are spending too much, why would you let the Democrats, who would both spend more and tax more, take over? If you don’t care for Frist and Hastert, why do you think Reid and Pelosi would be an improvement. Yes, I would like to cast my vote for somebody, but believe me, if I need to I will cast it against somebody.
As far as punishment goes, you’ll be punishing the whole nation, and yourselves especially. Yes, some congresspeople would be out of a job, for about half a nano-second until they joined K-Street and made real money for a change.
And what makes you think the message would be that the GOP needs to be more conservative? The Democrats could win in a walk if they moved to the center, but they have chosen (so far) to move to the left. Why do you think the GOP will be any better at reading the tea leaves after the fact then before the fact?
