aintsobad

Imposition 2012-Centralized Government

   If the states are so wise, why do so many keep passing same-sex union laws? What in the name of Jefferson Raving Davis is going on here?

   Ok, with that little aside aside, please let me take a moment to explain how centralized government works. First, you take a bi-cameral legislature and invest them with broad powers to borrow tons of money from foreign governments. You change the lower house every other year, only not really, and you change the upper house every six years, but not really. You establish a judiciary appointed for life by the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch, but not really. You nominate and elect a Head of Centralized Government (President) who, these days, inevitably runs as an anti-Washington, D. C., kind of guy.

   Then, you have them all live, work and babble profanely in the same small town on the Potomac River. Enormous amounts of money flow into this town, enormous amounts of money and power stay in this town and everybody who lives there works in some form of government, or wants to, like all the people in Orlando, Florida want to work for Mickey Mouse.

   Every four years a new group of men and women run against Washington, hate, I say, hate on Washington, all the while knowing the prize of their race is the right to live in Washington. You cannot run for the office, except as incumbent, without hating on Washington. If you are the incumbent executive, you have to hate on Congress, which, let's see, meets in, uh, wait for it, hold on a minute, yes, I see; Washington.

   And the American people are asked to believe during each election cycle that the fellow who wins the spot (all fellows so far) will immediately begin to dethrone himself as quickly as he takes office. This has not yet happened, but, like fifth marriages, hope trumps history every time. 

   Ronald Reagan had the well remembered line about the nine scariest English words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Then, God rest his Irish soul, Reagan tripled the national debt and grew the size of government to Oprah-like proportions.

   No one willingly surrenders caste. The fellows running for Head of the Central Government do intend their own evisceration. 

   Candidates run against Washington for the same reason PACs offer attack ads (Reagan ran exactly zero negative ads in his 1980 campaign). Attack ads appeal to non-thinkers. Attack ads do not allow the follow-up question. Attack ads stay on message. The candidates' applause line always has something to do with "Taking Back Washington."

   Which can mean anything. What it does not mean is the fellow who gets the office means to make it less important.

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

 

Imposition 2012-Mitt Madness

   For a basketball guy the first two days of the NCAA Men's Division I Championship Tournament (March Madness) makes the rest of a mostly dreary college season worthwhile. Set aside the Play-In games, which might be called "debates" if likened to the American political process and you get a big slice of Hoop's Heaven.

   That is, for the first two days. 

   One and Done, Two and Through, Too Many Developmental Leagues here and abroad, and you get a watered down version of what used to be in college basketball. The result is sad. A few Mormon seniors back from two year missions against a bunch of fresh faced, multi-talented kids in the early stages of prolonged adolescence, standing where Patrick Ewing and David Thompson once dribbled.

   For the first two days of the Tournament, you get the excitement of democratization and collegiality. The Richmond Spiders stand co-equal with the Duke Blue Devils. Towson State takes on Kansas, dreaming of the Sweet Sixteen. Murray State, Northeastern Widget University from Bratwhiler, Minnesota and all the rest take the stage for forty-eight hours of splash and dash, in your face dunks, some fundamental ball and an upset or two.

   Then, we are back to the mid-level athlete at the big schools, sanity returns, calm prevails and we start to need an umpire to yell, "Play Ball." Well, we need that, a sunny day and a hot dog.

   We get bored.

   We are past the first two days in the presidential primary season. Where once ten or twelve men and women stood, and others lurked, we have four white men sitting at a table in Arizona, all trying to decide who is the most conservative. Dark suits, red ties, cordial smiles, trying to look the right combination of hopeful, leaderly and inevitable.

   These four fellows are inevitable like the melting of the glaciers. Let it get hot enough and these guys start to drip water.

   We have had our two days of fun. Soon we will have someone who is a conservative's conservative or we will have someone the conservatives can hold their nose and vote for because they hate President Obama so much. He will be a white fellow, in a dark suit, red tie, happy family, nice smile. The mid-level shooters are about to take over and happy mediocrity will reign.

   What could mke it better? If one of the candidates starts to run a Post-Modern campaign with issues that matter, he might yet energize America enough to get out 50% of registered voters. What would that look like?

   He would be arguing band-width, not bail-outs. We are in an information age, digitalized to the point where we are about to run out of numbers and have to start importing them from China. China is putting huge money in band-width and tech in general. Why? It is just really, really important to get the news first and keep it to yourself the longest.

   He would be arguing for rare earth metal retrieval, the elements at the bottom of the periodic table. China has most of the world's current stream of magnets for instance and they are exporting less of them. No big deal, it is just your smart phone and laptop will not work without them. You will have a harder time playing Angry Birds.

   He would be talking about affordable education of a higher variety. More of our kids need to go to college but college is more and more expensive. More and more expensive. More and more expensive.

   He would accept the fate of centralized government rather than decry it. He is, after all, running for the title "Head of Centralized Government." Does anyone believe any of these fellows wants to spend millions to dethrone himself? Really?

   I have a few other issues but they must just be mine. Health care needs to be reformed and voluntary measures, gasp, do not seem to be doing it. Campaign finance reform is necessary, so help me Super-PACs, my hand is raised to you. Finance reform in general, to reward production, not market manipulation, is a great idea, but, apparently, a non-starter so far.

   There is a lot to do. I miss the first two days of the Campaign.

 

 Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Imposition 2012-Astute Readers Respond

 Astute reader K looks at my recent posts on how the GOP is savaging itself in the primaries and opines, "This seems typical for a party out of power." Or some such.

   Astute reader Michael looks at it and says, "You are not going far enough. We may be seeing a major party change in America, for about the seventh time in our history. Start thinking about that."

   Astute reader Todd scans the page and asks, "Where is the Twitter/Facebook connection? Get connected now, so someone can actually read this stuff."

   Other astute readers have offered some opinions my filters eliminate pretty fast.

   It is good to have astute readers.

   Let me point out a couple of things that are different this time around in the presidential election cycle. 

   The GOP, which depends heavily on evangelical Christians for their voting base, is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to find one they can stomach. There just is not a Protestant or Free Church candidate in the race or on the horizon. So, the party of Pat Robertson and James Dobson has to choose between Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Newt Gingrich, who is a repentant sinner, if he is to be believed, but who looks a lot like the old Newt on the stump. 

   Late in the day (but maybe not too late) comes Rick Santorum. This has not been a good year for guys named Rick in presidential politics. My own campaign never got going, not really, because I forgot to file all those papers and raise a kabillion dollars in a Super PAC. Sorry. The other Rick from Texas spent a few months raising money and a lot of time answering the question, "Are you really that stupid?"

   Governor Perry is not that stupid, by the way. Things speed up on the national stage.

   Absent a candidate acceptable to masses of evangelicals (Santorum comes closest but he has not exactly been fully vetted yet) the GOP needs a standard bearer who has a distinct message. The message must not be silly or over dramatic but must have the right mix of nerve and substance.

   Instead, the GOP has Mr. Romney, who fits the hierarchical structure in that he lost last time and is now endorsed by the man who beat him, Senator McCain, and who then lost to the man Mr. Romney will supposedly have to face in the fall, Mr. Obama. Anticipating his own inevitability Mr. Romney has started to run against Mr. Obama already, neglecting the apathy of his own party for his candidacy.

   This will not end well.

   Meanwhile, the world churns on, Arab Spring, Iranian Uranium Enrichment, European Debt Crisis, Wal-Mart moves to China and still no immigration bill and unemployment still above 8% in the US. The GOP candidates are doing what they know, which is typical, but the world is not typical any longer. The world has shifted its focus and the major parties in the US must change or go the way of the Whigs, the Progressive Republicans, the Bull Moose party and the Know-Nothings.

   Tomorrow, God willing, I will start to say how the change might come.

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

 

Yes, these are my ideas only, but the Twitter and Facebook buttons at the bottom of my posts now, for your convenience are there because of Dr. Todd Littleton, my guru, friend of twenty plus years and all around good guy. He told me this was going to get done...now. And look, it is done.

What a guy.

 

Imposition 2012-Roosevelt, Wilson, Lafollette, Taft

   Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican who occupied the White House for seven and a half years. He left it to William Howard Taft, a man the size of Rhode Island before all the beach erosion. Taft was a premier machine politician in the day when patronage was king. 

   Robert Lafollette was the hand-picked candidate of the Progressive Republicans for the 1912 presidential election. He was a stem-winding political orator with the support of all those who would have supported Teddy Roosevelt, except Roosevelt was not running again, would not run again, could not be inveighed upon to run again.

   Then, Taft let someone in his administration attack Teddy Roosevelt as a pawn of the giant steel trusts of J.P Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Teddy Roosevelt did not take kindly to being pilloried as a soft-minded fool deceived by the giants of industry. 

   Taft, who had grown so large his few friends feared for his life, had made an enemy of a friend. Teddy Roosevelt was not a good man for an enemy.

   Roosevelt began to leak word he might run. He just might run as a Progressive, if Lafollette would step aside. He would have to win the Plains States because the South was solid for the Democrats in those days and the Northeast was sewn up by Taft's partronage. Roosevelt would have to sweep the Plains states and then let the West decide. The West would swing the election if Roosevelt would run.

   And the West loved Teddy.

   And the final beneficiary of all this Republican schisming and buffoonery was Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Wilson distinguished himself as "statesmanlike" during the vicious Republican debates. His practical atheism did not much hurt him and his outright racism was a must where the Democrats were then solid.

   Roosevelt did run, after months of disclaiming his affection for the job. Taft defeated him at the Republican convention by parliamentary chicanery. Roosevelt ran anyway, on his own ticket, apart from Taft and the Republicans. Taft later whined that as many as a million Republicans had crossed over to vote Democrat because of their fear of the Progressives and as many more stayed home.

   Taft and Roosevelt lost to Wilson. Wilson led the nation in and through WW I and into the Treaty of Versailles. Exhausted, he suffered a crippling stroke, while yet in office. 

   The weather change in American politics became a general fusion of the Progressive Republicans and Moderate Democrats, out of which came the party shift during the Great Depression. Out of all this came another Roosevelt, Franklin, Democrat Ascendancy and the New Deal.

   In 2012, exactly a hundred years later, we may be watching another significant party change. The Republicans have savaged one another so badly they may have a brokered convention, with Senator Santorum playing the part of Teddy Roosevelt, Mitt Romney as the non-incumbet Taft and Mr. Obama, serene and somber, waiting on the wounded and divided to come out of the GOP convention, Wilsonian in his demeanor.

   In his second term, Mr. Obama will have to address the budget deficit with higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He will have to continue to prosecute the conflict with state sponsored terrorism around the world. The American system of health provision will be brought under stricter control or it will fall in on itself. 

   The GOP might have done this, as well, but it lacks the one leader. Mr. Gingrich has been here too long, Mr. Santorum has probably come too late and Mr. Romney has no clearly stated purpose for running for the White House, except he seems to want to be President. This will not do.

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Although opinions here are mine alone, I wish to offer this insight for a few recent posts. My history major friend, Michael Reynolds, of Marion, Ohio, caused me to think of the party shifts in American presidential politics. I curse you for this, Michael, as you have kept me up late at night reading and rereading some of the great texts. And you have made me think. Curse you. Curse you.

Imposition 2012-A Muslim and a Mormon

   Senator Rick Santorum attacked President Obama's theology this weekend. The surging Pennsylvania Senator cited President Obama's "crazy theology," not "based on the Bible," a theology that "elevates the earth over man." 

   Senator Santorum came back to say he did not question the President's faith. He does accept the President as a Christian.

   I am personally glad we got that all settled before the general campaign begins. Perhaps we will not have to hear about Mr. Obama's Muslimness anymore if Mr. Santorum continues his successful campaign against the undeniably Mormon Mr. Romney.

   Imagine, in America, a general presidential campaign where we must choose between a Muslim and a Mormon. The horror. 

   Mr. Santorum, a devout Roman Catholic, is obviously positioning himself as an acceptable religious choice between two seeming extremes. A fellow with a Muslim sounding name, ebony of skin, against a rock-jawed Mormon, who is either from Mexico, Michigan or Massachussetts,  are the supposed front runners, though Mr. Romney is faltering badly for someone who has spent so much money.

   We are going to have to argue religion before this ends. Religious people will get a chance to answer some tough questions. We can do the nation a favor if we answer them thoughtfully and well.

   Mr. Obama is not a Muslim. He is a baptist kind of Christian, won to faith in Jesus Christ by his pastor, who is apparently a veteran of the USMC, loud and sometimes profane. You remember the video, I suppose.

   Mr. Romney is a Mormon, from a long line of Mormons. He is supposedly a devout Mormon,  but not fanatical. It appears Mr. Romney is also a "Moderate Republican" who can "govern from the center" but he is also "severely conservative," which may or may not be akin to being "severely addled," or "severely odd," or even "severely hypocritical."

   Mr. Santorum is a devout Catholic. As such he would accept the pronouncements of the Pope as a god on earth, the papal bulls from previous ages, the church councils and then the Bible, complete with the extra fourteen books of the Apocrypha, including Bel and the Dragon. 

   Mr. Obama is a Christian with a solid family life and a good education. He came from the depths of society to get an Ivy League education and win the presidency. He is a decent man with good basketball skills. I still don't know why he smokes cigarettes.

   Mr. Romney is an adherent of Mormon theology, which is a work in progress. Mr. Romney's theology includes beliefs that Jesus and Satan are brothers, his own soul was pre-existent and, if he does well, he will one day be God over his own world. In the governor's office in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney enacted universal health care which became the model for the federal government's revised health care reform plan. Apparently, except for controlling health care costs, Romney-care is doing a lot of good for the people of Massachusetts.

   Mr. Santorum is a former Senator from the state of Pennsylvania, defeated by Robert Casey, Jr, in 2006, by a margin of 59% to 41%. Mr. Santorum's anti-abortion, anti-birth control, deficit reduction and strong early stand against Iran's hawkishness mark him as a conservative's conservative. In the debates he did not show himself as particularlys statesman like but he may have just reflected his opposition. At the very least, one would have to say he did better than Mr. Perry, has less baggage than Mr. Gingrich and did not try to effect a $10,000 wager while on stage. 

   Mr. Santorum also has a long standing marriage and a large family. No one has seriously questioned his personal morality.

   In the 2008 election we saw one man run as a Post-Modern, Mr. Obama. We saw a refined woman run as a Modern, Mrs. Clinton. We watched one man run as a Traditional, Mr. McCain. The nominative clash in 2012 will apparently feature a Roman Catholic, Mr. Santorum, a Mormon, Mr. Romney, and a Free Church Baptist Christian, Mr. Obama. If the election is decided on who has the least crazy theology, which one will America choose?

   Let us hold out some hope that the election is no decided on Popes, Temples or Profane Preachers. 

Imposition 2012-A Democratic Government and a Moral Economy

   We have dreamed for some time of an America with a democratic government and a moral economy. Representative democracy is difficult, unwieldy and frustrating. A moral economy is not achievable without stringent regulation.

   A moral economy under a democratic government would be strictly regulated rather than sporadically punished and reluctantly rescued from it own excesses. Competition ought to be promoted but not at the expense of workers, or, worse, those whose skill sets do not fit the current economy. 

   An economic engine or institution that is "too large to fail" is a trust, or a monopoly. Democratic government has recognized the danger of trusts in a representative democracy for decades. In fact, the presidential administrations most admired by most Americans are those that set limits on trusts, regardless of party. Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were Democrats; all of them were trust busters. 

   There were others.

   As the GOP splits into two factions, Progressive and Reactionary, assuring the Democrats the White House, the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate in 2012, it would be well to remember this lesson of history. A moral economy is not a managed economy so much as it is a regulated economy, with institutions kept small enough they can fail if they are inept or crooked, without taking the rest of us down.

 

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Imposition 2012-The Obama Failure

   President Obama had a signficant opportunity to change the way America overcompensates persons who make their living from "money instruments." There is little doubt a change needed to be enacted. A multi-billionaire, Warren Buffett, even called for higher tax rates on his bracket. 

   President Obama chose Timothy Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers to be his primary economic advisor and left Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, while setting Paul Volcker aside, again. Geithner and Summers were Wall Street Insiders with a long history of failures and overcompensation. Bernanke should have been set aside for Volcker, who was a hard money, hard credit man during his time at the Federal Reserve, meaning he knew a nation could not borrow its way out of debt.

   The White House spent a great deal of time sending mixed signals to the major players. GM was bought out and its chairman forced out of office, though he had led four hundred thousand employees who made over seven million units. The Obama belief seemed to be this; those who work in the fictional fields of CDOs and CDSs are geniuses, while hard industry leaders are morons.

   Mr. Obama could have reversed the field in the major American lending institutions to the more established standards of banking, involving things like collateral. Instead, he let Tim Geithner convince (then)n Senator Chris Dodd to amend pending lending regulations to prevent any cap on compensation for top financial executives, effectively pursuing "business as usual." 

   Mr. Obama out-Republicanned the Republicans in the matter of financial regulation. He utterly failed the people who elected him. In addition, Mr. Obama proved his 2008 campaign slogans about "hope" and "change" were only slogans.

   For all that, the GOP cannot put forward a man or woman willing to run who can beat Mr. Obama this fall. Let us hope Mr. Obama does better for the country in his second term.

 

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Imposition 2012-Ron Paul, the Libertarians, the Tea Kettle Party (Just Blowing Off Steam) and the Occupiers (Physically Present, Morally Vacuous)

   Perhaps it is a Party Shift we are seeing. The GOP and the Democrats are one party, now, which should be called Huge Money. Perhaps we are seeing a nascent movement, out of which will come a "You Gotta Throw Us a Bone Now and Then" party.

   In November, Mr. Obama will win reelection because the GOP cannot find a person to run against him who is both electable and different from Mr. Obama. Again. Mr. Romney invented socialized medicine as governor of Massachusetts. He invested heavily in deregulation while at Vulture Capital. He and Mr. Obama disagree about the size of tax cuts for the rich and corporations but  not about the cuts themselves.

   One party. Huge Money. Super-Pacs. Free speech but at a huge cost.

   Perhaps the Libertarians, Occupiers and Tea Partiers are the tip of the globally warming iceberg. They agree on some key areas, like foreign policy (no more adventurism) while we spend our treasure on the home front. The Occupiers want jobs, as do Libertarians and Tea Party folks. Some of their people move back and forth interchangably, with one over-arching motif. They all feel left out of the process by the Democrats and the GOP. 

   We have not actually seen a full party shift since Teddy Roosevelt. If he had not died, Teddy might have been president again. His Progressive Party might have made a real change in national interests prior to WW I. 

   Kept out of leadership (but forced to pay) long enough, even sheep like Americans will eventually decide utitility is diminishing at the margin. Perhaps all of these "movements" fueled by social networking are actually one movement. Perhaps these are the "Fed Ups."

 

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Imposition 2012-Ron Paul and the Libertarians

    In personal polling, Republicans say the most important thing in a relationship is to have someone who agrees with them.

   This explains Mitt Romney.

   Mitt agrees with everybody on everything. Everything. All Republican ideas are Mitt's ideas. At the Conservative Assembly last weekend, he agreed, in order, with Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain and Sarah Palin. Sarah said Mitt did not agree with her and that it was too late for someone to walk in talking like a conservative or trying to spin his record to look like a conservative and she meant Mitt.

   Mitt agreed with her.

   So, we have figured out Mitt and his appeal.

   The two main contributions of the Romney campaign, no, three, are these:

   We now know about Private Equity firms. PE firms buy a company, borrow money against its assets, push in new management, take management fees and then declare bankruptcy when the old firms fail because of all the new debt brought in by the PE companies.

   We know now about Super-PACs. Super-PACS take in enormous amounts of money, tax deductible, but not regulated. They can literally change the face of elections by the excercise of very expensive free speech. One starts to see what McCain-Feingold was all about.

   We now know all the words to "America the Beautiful."

   Thanks, Mitt.

   What about Ron Paul? Dr. Paul does not really agree with the Democrats but he really does not agree with the GOP. What in the name of Harold Stassen is he doing at the Republican debates?

   Ron Paul is actually recreating the Reagan Republicanism that Reagan mostly talked about but did not enact. Ron Paul is trying to out-Reagan Reagan.

   For Libertarians, necessity is a virtue. The push of history is based on hard personal experiences in the past they have overcome with hard work, individualist initiative and pluck. This is precisely what Stephen Colbert mocks in the title of his book, I Am America. And So Can You.

   Or some such thing. 

   Libertarians hate any kind of social collective. Facebook must drive them insane, except that everyone gets to have their own account. For the Libertarian, their own early suffering is paramount in their politics, even if it is only imaginary. All altruism other than that which is personal and tactile is actually abuse of power masquerading as compassion.

   Here is their point (and it slogans well): Individuals can be heroes but only individuals who are heroic loners can be heroes. No one else is admirable, least of all those who would move forward in a united front. This makes winning elections enormously difficult because it makes it necessary for millions of rugged individualists to show up at the same place on the same day and do the same thing.

   Libertarianism works if the world is really big, loosely connected and with poor communication. If there are things like cell phones for ten year olds, lap top computers and moving pictures, Libertarianism is pretty much squashed. If we can see each other and unite around the most loosely held common needs, we need something more than slogans.

   When the planes hit the towers in New York, Texas saw it and sent aid. When American troops went into the Middle East, Texas did not get to say, "Well, after all, those weren't our towers."

   We are stuck with each other. Deal with it. Rugged individualism is on the way out. Collectivism, in the guise of large political parties, is the wave of the present. 

   You can like Ron Paul. You can independently celebrate some of his ideas and the way he energizes people with ideas.

   You just cannot vote for him.

   Seriously.

 

 

Opinions here are mine alone.

Imposition 2012-The Libertarians and the GOP

   Libertarians live on ideas. They may not be strict Contrarians but Libertarians are drawn to ideas. They do not subscribe, which a large portion of Republicans say is their most desired trait in a mate or a friend or a candidate. Libertarians are not Subscribers.

   Yes, I prefer people who do their own thinking. Subscribers, perpetual non-thinkers, are not my kind of minds.

   However, there is a difference between different thinking and dangerous thinking. The Foreign Policies of the Libetarians give me pause because, I think, they are more dangerous to the world than the Mayan calendar.

   So, the GOP does not benefit from the incursion of the Ron Paul Libertarians as they do from the Tea Party. The last new idea from the Tea Party was "We Hate Obama." Libertarians have tons of new ideas, most of them thoroughly unworkable and all of them somewhat off center.

   Libertarians say, "No more foreign aid. No more. Not a penny. Not to anyone."

   Really? No aid to Israel? Elect that. 

   Slogans as political thought sound really, really good. No foreign aid.

   Of course, without American aid, Israel ceases to exist, much to the chagrin of Holy Land Tourists, Evangelical Preachers and, well, American Jews. 

   Utopianism, as with all Isolationism, only works if the world is not connected. Distances have to be vast and information hard to get. This is not the world we live in today. The Contrarian, Isolationist, Utopian imagination (Read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead) idolizes the individual, be it citizen or nation, but such imagination is dangerous in the real world. Libertarian thinking can bring about irreversible events with cataclysmic consequences.

   If, for instance, a nation dependent on American aid stops getting that aid, it is impossible to recreate that nation after its neighbors rush in to destroy it. The nations that do not fall because we withdraw then look to other supporters who can rush in for pennies on the dollar bringing with them all their influences. 

   The GOP does not do itself any favors leaning on the Libertarians. I am not sure America would benefit from their thinking, either.

 

 

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.