Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFrom Ace of Spades (yes, McWing, again), talking about the GOP and the upcoming election: If This is the Best We Can Do, We Deserve To Lose.
Our choice is coming down to whether we want to run the car over the cliff at 120MPH with Obama or whether we want to clip along at a leisurely 60MPH with the eventual GOP nominee in the driver’s seat for that final launch over the edge.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Meh. Why get frustrated about it? Bush proved it's impossible to defeat a non- primaried incumbent. It's not like this information is new. Focus on the house and Senate. There's no blame, just history.
LikeLike
What aspect of presidentiality are these candidates missing?
LikeLike
"What aspect of presidentiality are these candidates missing?"They're not unprimaried incumbents.Alas, w/the exception of Romney, they'd all be better than the current occupant.
LikeLike
I was trying for "what do you look for in a president" rather than "what does it take to win."
LikeLike
Someone who believes that government is the number one inhibitor of our most important freedom, economic liberty.
LikeLike
Is a belief enough, or does the job require a particular skill set?
LikeLike
It would seem that with a quarterly economic decline of 7% to 9% in Q4-2008 and Q1-2009, we were certainly headed over a cliff. Growth of ~2% over the last five quarters is insufficient, but tooling along in second gear is a far cry from speeding down the mountain with failed brakes.I do feel compelled to state that claiming economic liberty is our most important freedom is a misunderstanding of the American experiment. Life, Liberty, and an 18% limit to the federal government doesn't have much zing to it. I didn't feel a sudden lift in my freedom in 2001 and 2003 nor did I feel tyranny's clammy grip around my heart in 1993.Indefinite detention by the military without trial, on the other hand, that does sound like a potential violation of our freedoms.BBP.S. Accidentally left my computer at home before visiting family in KC over the past week. It was a useful break.
LikeLike
"Is a belief enough, or does the job require a particular skill set?"Certainly an ability to compromise tactically and strategically without compromising core principles is one of the most important skill sets. An ability to find and then delegate responsibility. An ability to constantly and ably sell your beliefs and ideas as well as to effectively communicate when comprimes is required.
LikeLike
"It would seem that with a quarterly economic decline of 7% to 9% in Q4-2008 and Q1-2009, we were certainly headed over a cliff."There's no wrong answer here, just curious if you thought that the Federal Government had done anything to stop this slide, and if so, where would the slide have stop without said action?"I didn't feel a sudden lift in my freedom in 2001 and 2003 nor did I feel tyranny's clammy grip around my heart in 1993."Nor did I write that, I merely wrote "Someone who believes that government is the number one inhibitor of our most important freedom, economic liberty.""Indefinite detention by the military without trial, on the other hand, that does sound like a potential violation of our freedoms."Obviously it would depend on the circumstances. Let's say an American citizen is picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan actively fighting US troops. I would have not problem with indefinite detention for that individul.
LikeLike
FB:Life, Liberty, and an 18% limit to the federal government doesn't have much zing to it.Indeed. Surely the Founders never intended for the federal government to command and control such a huge portion of the national GNP. It's odd to me that anyone might imagine our current government has much at all to do with the "American experiment" as undertaken by the Founding Fathers.
LikeLike
It's fair to say that the American government today bears little resemblance at all to the government envisioned and established in 1789, in large part because modern liberalism has decided that we were never intended to have economic liberty at all. Little did the Founders know that they would be treated as collectivists 200 years later.
LikeLike
Ah, good to be back. I do think that actions taken in the fall of 2008 (the detested TARP) and the spring of 2009 (the even more detested stimulus) had the desired effect. Note, this was a combination of action by the Fed and the legislative and executive branches. Arguing in the alternative is difficult, so I cannot speculate what would have happened otherwise. The most instructive counter example is probably that of the United Kingdom. I think we're in a helluva a lot better position than early 1932. Troll – my apologies if I misconstrued your statement. [Note: that's not a Washington style apology along the lines of if I have offended anyone, I apologize.] I took your statement to mean that you felt that our most important freedom is economic liberty. I do profoundly disagree with that sentiment.Scott – The Founders didn't intend for the federal government to control ~1/4 of the nation's economy. Subsequent amendments to the U.S. constitution, as provided for in that constitution, have had that effect.QB – It wasn't modern liberalism. There have been many opportunities over the last century to roll back the changes wrought by progressives (or liberals). I welcome any GOP candidate to campaign on a platform to reduce the federal government to a suitably small fraction of GDP. I think such a candidate will lose. If that is the case, your beef is with the American people, not with modern liberals.BB
LikeLike
"large part because modern liberalism has decided that we were never intended to have economic liberty at all."yes, and modern conservatism amounts to a neo-anarchic revival. Every man for himself!
LikeLike
"…your beef is with the American people…"Perhaps.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?pagewanted=allExcept when lying sociopaths are the celebrated and purported omniscient wizards of the (dare I say Triumph of the Will? Why, yes, I do!) narrativized "liberal" conventional wisdom of the last 70 years.I feel clammy.
LikeLike
"Subsequent amendments to the U.S. constitution, as provided for in that constitution, have had that effect."This is incorrect in at least two major respects.First, most of the expansion of the federal government in the past 80 years has been accomplished by torturing the Commerce Clause into meaninglessness, not by amendments. The 16th Am has certainly contributed, but frankly that likely would not have led to nearly the expansion that has occurred without the giant whole run through the doctrine of limited powers. Second, to the extent that the 14th Amendment has become a source of expanded federal power, it is almost entirely through the doctrine of incorporation (of the Bill of Rights), which has no real basis in the text or intentions of the drafters but is a judicial invention.
LikeLike
"QB – It wasn't modern liberalism…. If that is the case, your beef is with the American people, not with modern liberals."Fallacy. You aren't even addressing the point that I made, which was a philosophical or ideological one, i.e., a type of claim made by liberalism.
LikeLike
"Troll – my apologies if I misconstrued your statement. [Note: that's not a Washington style apology along the lines of if I have offended anyone, I apologize.] I took your statement to mean that you felt that our most important freedom is economic liberty. I do profoundly disagree with that sentiment."You are correct, I think the most important freedom is economic liberty. When asked what I look for in a Presidential candidate, I responded with "Someone who believes that government is the number one inhibitor of our most important freedom, economic liberty." I never commented on when of if I think that freedom has been jeapordized, minimized or even increased. No offense was taken by your comment however.I also think that we are now, finally, in a position to roll back modern Liberalism by, hopefully, having the Supreme Court overturn that November 9th, 1942 disaster, Wickard v Filburn
LikeLike
"yes, and modern conservatism amounts to a neo-anarchic revival. Every man for himself!"What modern conservatives are advocation a neo-anarchic revival and what does that mean, in a practical sense?
LikeLike
FB:I took your statement to mean that you felt that our most important freedom is economic liberty. I do profoundly disagree with that sentiment.As always, I suppose it depends on what one means, but if one removes economic freedom, what meaningful freedom could be said to exist?
LikeLike
The statement that "modern liberalism has decided that we were never intended to have economic liberty at all" is not true. As long as we're talking about fallacies, I'll classify that one as a straw man.BB
LikeLike
" What modern conservatives are advocation a neo-anarchic revival and what does that mean, in a practical sense?"It is hyperbolic nonsense, much like the excerpt to which I replied.
LikeLike
Re: Wickard v Filburn — the various hospital groups cited it in a defense of the ACA's individual mandate in their amicus brief.http://www.aha.org/content/11/110408-amicus.pdf
LikeLike
NoVa,Another reason to utterly despise that decision.
LikeLike
"It is hyperbolic nonsense, much like the excerpt to which I replied."My comment was hardly hyperbolic nonsense. I'll invoke personal experience. I went to a fancy law school and have been around fancy liberal lawyers and historians for a long time, and I've sat through, read, and participated in many debates in which the liberals contend that the Constitution does not protect economic liberty. You could say that this is one of the most fundamental tenets of modern freedom theory. It takes the position that economic liberty is entirely negotiable and up for grabs through the political system. There's plenty of literature out there making such arguments. It is standard liberalism today.
LikeLike
By that metric, standard conservatism today is a neo-anarchic return to might makes right.
LikeLike
Scott – It's an interesting question and I do think that there are cases of increased economic freedom without concomitant increases in political or religious freedom. Past examples would include the Republics of Korea (S. Korea) and China (Taiwan). Both were quite free markets. Both were also authoritarian regimes. Chile under Agusto Pinochet is another example I would cite. The Chilean model for a retirement system has received admiring reviews. I would hope that other aspects of Pinochet's regime would receive less approval.Correct me if I'm wrong, but many draw a direct correlation between government expenditures and economic freedom. I did live in the UK for about 4 years. I would much rather live in the EU than in Hong Kong (tops of the Index of Economic Freedom, but its economic freedom hangs by a thread in my view). Heck, I'll take the UK at #16 over Bahrain at #10. Let's consider Costa Rica at #49 (67.3 rating) vs. Saudia Arabia (#54, 66.2). Both countries are given similar ratings by the Heritage Foundation. Does anyone seriously think that Saudis are as free as Ticos? My wife wouldn't be whipped for driving over to school and picking up the kids at school in San José, Costa Rica. I wouldn't advise trying the same thing in Riyadh.Incidentally, the US ranking for economic freedom has been in the high 70s for the last two DemocratIC administrations and was in the low 80s for the Bush 43 administration. For all the apocolyptic rhetoric, I'm evidently now 2% less free than I was in 2008.Yes, I think that various freedoms are severable. There is less freedom of religion in Israel than in the United States. I was a little less free in Costa Rica (only Catholic priests can marry, everyone else needs a lawyer). There is virtually none in Saudi Arabia. BB
LikeLike
bsimon:By that metric, standard conservatism today is a neo-anarchic return to might makes right. Can you give an example of the kind of "might makes right" conservatism you are talking about?
LikeLike
Don't know how I typed "modern freedom theory" above; that should be "modern liberal legal theory."What I'm saying here is not controversial. It is a cornerstone of liberal constitutional theory since the New Deal. You could say, it is the core of the New Deal Supreme Court revolution: the Constitution does not protect economic freedom. The federal government can prohibit you from growing wheat. It can forbid you from entering into contracts it thinks are bad. It can force you into a national retirement system and take your money to fund other people's retirement. All of this rests on a general premise that we have only what economic freedom the government decides we should have. I realize there is an instinct to deny and contest everything, but this is the entire premise on which the New Deal and overturning of previous precedent was built, and it is central to a modern liberal interpretation of the nation the Founders supposedly envisioned.
LikeLike
FB:I do think that there are cases of increased economic freedom without concomitant increases in political or religious freedom.Sure, but what's more relevant to what I said would be examples where freedom apart from economic freedom exist. I think that in the absence of economic freedom, other freedoms become relatively insignificant. Being able to go to a church or a temple or a mosque as and when one wishes is certainly desireable, but not especially useful if one is forced to depend on the whims of politicians for one's ability to obtain food and shelter.I did live in the UK for about 4 years. I would much rather live in the EU than in Hong Kong I've lived in both places, and Hong Kong most deifinitely has (or had, while I was there) more freedom than the UK. There are lots of reasons to prefer the UK (or more widely the EU)over Hong Kong, but the relative absence of freedom is surely not one.BTW, I lived in Hong Kong before, during and for 2 years after the handover to China, and as far as everyday life went, nothing changed. And my understanding from people I know who are still there is that nothing much has changed since I left. It may be the case that, due to the nature of the Chinese government, freedom in HK is somewhat more precarious than that which exists in the UK, but to say that it "hangs by a thread" suggests to me you aren't very familiar with the situation there.
LikeLike
"By that metric, standard conservatism today is a neo-anarchic return to might makes right."Not unless you are calling the republic of the Founders paleo-anarchic.
LikeLike
Btw, it is ironic that the left never realizes that populist left-wing politics and constitutional theory is itself based on the principle of might makes right. It's right to plunder "the rich" just because we can.
LikeLike
I'm well aware of the situation in Hong Kong. Prior to the handover of Hong Kong, I would agree with you. It is unlikely that the Party would kill the goose that lays its golden eggs. Should it prove desirable, Hong Kong's freedoms would be eliminated as swiftly as in the rest of the PRC. It's surprising that you find equivalence between a long-standing parliamentary democracy and an authoritarian regime.As for examples of political freedom without economic freedom, that's exactly why I cited the EU or Costa Rica. I hear quite a few people yammering on about tyranny with reference to Obama. [C-SPAN listener here.] If we're on the way to tyranny, the EU must already be there. Well, I'm done for the day. Time to go crush more American dreams as a leech on the buttocks of the American people. In my case, it's making Power Point slides for pointless reviews.BB
LikeLike
FB:I'm well aware of the situation in Hong Kong.Then it is surprising that you chacterize the situation there as freedom "hanging by a thread".It's surprising that you find equivalence between a long-standing parliamentary democracy and an authoritarian regime.Well, I guess I just don't see the point in denying reality just because I don't like the nature of the Chinese government. If an equivalence exists, my denying it won't change the fact.And while there are of course many substantive differences between the parlaimentary democracy in the UK and the authoritarian regime in China, the maintenance of freedom in Hong Kong – which is of course what we were talking about – is not one. Under the latter Hong Kong citizens have retained the same freedoms that they posessed under the former.I hear quite a few people yammering on about tyranny with reference to Obama.But I am not one. I hear quite a few people yammering on about how Bush was a civil liberty-destroying fascist, but until I hear you say such a thing I won't base my comments to you on the assumption that you are one.
LikeLike