...or I could ask the most hated question of all... Why ask why?
I would like so much to add some kind of historical back light to this argument, but as I told Ryan last week in a phone conversation, I can't for the life of me come up with a parallel in American history. Never in the most frenetic of FDR's 100 Days, (pick any of the four) did he suggest a bailout. He simply pumped billions (even in 1930's money) of Federal dollars into domestic works projects.
Which, I may add, is STILL not a bad idea, and a damned sight better than throwing close to a trillion away to bail out things that maybe shouldn't be fixed.
I mean seriously, what better way to re-establish faith in the economy, and I mean the rock solid blue collar shopping at Wal-Mart kind of faith than a federal plan to rebuild (pick your dilapidated domestic infrastructure... Mass transit, freeways, bridges, energy production, the list goes on...) over a set period of time for some serious coin? McCain say "Okay, here's $100 billion over five years for freeways. Here's $100 billion over five years for coal to gas refineries. Here's $100 billion over five years for high speed bullet train mass transit in the Northeast Corridor." And we've only spent 34% of the bailout cash!
I don't mean to beat the dead horse of New Deal 2008 but at least This plan has historical precedence for 1) success, and 2) re-establishing faith in the economy. THIS is the leadership we've been crying for. Who'd have thought it would look almost REACTIONARY compared to what is happening now.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Is Beijing two I's, or one?
Good round (and I fixed the link in the original post, so you can now listen to the first soundbite, as well as HERE).
Now, whether the answer as to why Westerners are trending socialist is my explanation or yours (the most probable scenario being that it is a combination, as we both laid out complex answers to an uber-complex problem), I now wonder if there is any chance of "arresting" its' development. Can this trend be stopped? Certainly you were right that those nations and continents with the most rapidly developing economies are those not following the current Western example. That was the US (and in large part still is ... for now). But if they are trending towards an optimal environment for economic expansion, and we and our "old men" in Europe (our traditional allies) are doing the opposite, wouldn't it be wise to fear for our own future? Military dominance is only as good as the economy that supports it. So, what to do? I can only hope that good, common sense, traditional men step forward to lead us away from such socialist nonsense. Because that is the real key to whether a civilization lives or dies ... good men must be ever ready to step forward when needed. Walk through Arlington, and that point will be driven home. Let us all pray we still have a few "greatest generations" left in us.
Now, whether the answer as to why Westerners are trending socialist is my explanation or yours (the most probable scenario being that it is a combination, as we both laid out complex answers to an uber-complex problem), I now wonder if there is any chance of "arresting" its' development. Can this trend be stopped? Certainly you were right that those nations and continents with the most rapidly developing economies are those not following the current Western example. That was the US (and in large part still is ... for now). But if they are trending towards an optimal environment for economic expansion, and we and our "old men" in Europe (our traditional allies) are doing the opposite, wouldn't it be wise to fear for our own future? Military dominance is only as good as the economy that supports it. So, what to do? I can only hope that good, common sense, traditional men step forward to lead us away from such socialist nonsense. Because that is the real key to whether a civilization lives or dies ... good men must be ever ready to step forward when needed. Walk through Arlington, and that point will be driven home. Let us all pray we still have a few "greatest generations" left in us.
Hmmm...
I can't find anything in what you wrote to argue with... they are all valid and well-laid out thoughts and ideas.
I will take a moment to note one thing that came to mind while I was reading your post, though...
The "guilt" factor may be over-stated. Here in the US, we have the national shame of slavery and segregation for nearly the entire first 200 years of our history. We have the genocide promoted by the Federal government on the native peoples of the current 50 states for the first 150 years of our history.
Now, as real and tangible as these crimes are... do they explain our drive to "fix" society's failings? Canada is far more socialist then we are... and they never suffered slavery, or segregation, and they defined Indian rights to their wayward neighbors to the south from the very beginning. No nation has a greater shame on it's collective conscience than South Africa... and they are NOT trending to socialism, even when compared to the US. Then you have Germany (the only nation to rival South Africa in its historic injustice) actually setting the bar for continental socialistic development.
I still tend to think that the nations that ACCEPT socialism have a societal history of strong governmental control... UK, Germany, Italy, France, Russia, Austria, Scandinavia (all of them). Nations that are trending towards socialistic government (like the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico) NOW are those where "liberal" parties are working to consolidate power in one place.
Nations trending AWAY from socialism (South Africa, India, Japan, and yes... perhaps even CHINA!) are the ones developing the fastest growing, most dynamic economies on the planet. These are the economies that we will be competing with the MOST in the net 100 years, NOT the EU, or Russia, or South America... it will be a dynamic, individualist India, China and Africa.
I will take a moment to note one thing that came to mind while I was reading your post, though...
The "guilt" factor may be over-stated. Here in the US, we have the national shame of slavery and segregation for nearly the entire first 200 years of our history. We have the genocide promoted by the Federal government on the native peoples of the current 50 states for the first 150 years of our history.
Now, as real and tangible as these crimes are... do they explain our drive to "fix" society's failings? Canada is far more socialist then we are... and they never suffered slavery, or segregation, and they defined Indian rights to their wayward neighbors to the south from the very beginning. No nation has a greater shame on it's collective conscience than South Africa... and they are NOT trending to socialism, even when compared to the US. Then you have Germany (the only nation to rival South Africa in its historic injustice) actually setting the bar for continental socialistic development.
I still tend to think that the nations that ACCEPT socialism have a societal history of strong governmental control... UK, Germany, Italy, France, Russia, Austria, Scandinavia (all of them). Nations that are trending towards socialistic government (like the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico) NOW are those where "liberal" parties are working to consolidate power in one place.
Nations trending AWAY from socialism (South Africa, India, Japan, and yes... perhaps even CHINA!) are the ones developing the fastest growing, most dynamic economies on the planet. These are the economies that we will be competing with the MOST in the net 100 years, NOT the EU, or Russia, or South America... it will be a dynamic, individualist India, China and Africa.
Connecting the dots ...
The thrust of my question seems, to me, unanswered.
I do think it is a sharp observation to note the false impression that "society" is successful, rather then the individual person. Undeniably true. But I think there is something "grander" at play here with our current trend towards "collective" solutions, then your proposition's properly identify. And when I say "our" I mean to include continentals - Europeans. It is my observation that we are simply a generation or two behind their lead in terms of the rampant nationalization of what were traditionally individual responsibilities, the most explicit example being health care. It has been noted that the Democrat Party has put the US on a European model fast boat to socialism, whereas Republicans are simply loading us onto a slower boat. I find that unfortunately astute.
Now, I am not discounting your points about the impact the US union movement had on, and I'm paraphrasing you, somewhat legitimizing a collectivist mentality in the US (with the understanding it was an earnest attempt to balance unchecked corporate SOP at the time). Neither am I discounting the fact that the idea of a socialist Utopia has historically been a part of modern man's struggle to identify how societies should be organized (each and every time ending in failure for precisely the reasons you listed). However, it occurs to me that there is something bigger at play with wealthy, successful, Western democracies. There has to be a reason that as a nation (I'll use the US as an example) we have ended up in 2008 with socialism going mainstream. In our genesis we are put on a course that demands personal liberty and accountability, then continue on with that as the founding principle of our society with it correcting egregious sins such as slavery and racial discrimination along the way. And all that time although "socialist Utopia" movements and orators have come and gone, they were largely relegated to the margins of US society. But at some point (and to pick a specific year may be a fool's errand) we seem to have hit an economic success rate, so high as a country, so unprecedented in human history, that socialism began to creep into the mainstream in order to ensure that "everybody" is partaking.
Perhaps we can identify its start in the US with the Great Society. Fellow conservatives would be tempted to start with the New Deal. However I do not - FDR, while certainly enlarging the governments role in economic crisis solving, was doing so in reaction to a real crisis, The Great Depression. LBJ, in what marks in my opinion the US slide into legitimizing socialism in the mainstream, was an attempt to react to a perceived wrong. He, and his supporters "felt" something must be done by the government to ensure not just equal opportunity to wealth, but equal OUTCOME, seemingly even regardless of effort. And once we were on the path to government "guarantees" of outcome, we stayed. Now I'm going to exempt Reagan in large part, but virtually each and every PoTUS starting with LBJ, regardless of Party, decided to use the federal government to correct what they (or the popular movement of the time which they as president either bought into or caved into) perceived as socioeconomic injustices. And that leads me to the larger point ...
Within Western democratic wealthy nations there seems to be a marker laid down at some point in their history (as a democracy) in which either from a collective guilt over race relations or some other form of economic "shame" over their father's success "on the backs of others", they reach a point that guaranteeing "equal" rights is no longer good enough. Simply ensuring that regardless of race, minority status, gender, or economic lot your born into, YOU have a fair and protected shot to use your God given talents to succeed. That idea becomes no longer good enough. Evening the playing field and eliminating discrimination is seen as insufficient to wipe history's slate clean. And as a society these Western nations seem to buy into the idea that because of past sins (be they slavery or unchecked corporate/industrial policies towards the poor) that something "special", above and beyond ensuring equal rights and equal access to success, must be granted in order to "make up" for the sins perpetrated against minorities and the working poor. Enter the Great Society; welfare; affirmative action; medicare; medicaid; free public housing; free preschool; etc, etc, etc. Each and every one aimed at helping groups that were once either exploited or flat out discriminated against. But no longer were they aimed at ensuring equal opportunity, but rather at ensuring equal results.
Now, does every elected official today advocate government sponsored socioeconomic solutions to problems because they still feel a collective "shame." No. But once Western socialism got a foothold under the guise of correcting past sins, it became the norm. And worse, it became the norm for how politicians got reelected. You start out wanting to do something "special" for segments of society that were especially discriminated against (based on race or economic status) and you end up with the idea 2 generations later that anytime there is a problem, more government is the solution. And not just for the formerly oppressed or exploited, but for everyone for no other reason then they successfully navigated the birthing canal and evacuated the womb. Every necessity of life is perceived as a government guaranteed right, rather then a personal responsibility.
The question is, how do we reverse that trend? Hell, the GOP seems to have bought into it, at least somewhat. Twice, in my opinion, a stop gap was put on this trend since the time of LBJ. Once in the executive branch with Ronnie. And once in the legislative branch with the 1994 congress (welfare reform etc). But the trend was merely paused, not stopped. And here today we stand with the supposed heir to Reagansim (Mac even calls himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution") offering $300 billion for bad mortgages. And our socialistic trend looks radically right-winged compared to Europe's. And as I said, the scary prospect is that we are merely a generation or two behind their lead.
So I have given my opinion as to why the West is trending towards socialism. The question now is how do we arrest it and go in reverse so that "equal opportunity" is prized and protected, rather then the doomed to fail attempts at guaranteeing "equal results."
I do think it is a sharp observation to note the false impression that "society" is successful, rather then the individual person. Undeniably true. But I think there is something "grander" at play here with our current trend towards "collective" solutions, then your proposition's properly identify. And when I say "our" I mean to include continentals - Europeans. It is my observation that we are simply a generation or two behind their lead in terms of the rampant nationalization of what were traditionally individual responsibilities, the most explicit example being health care. It has been noted that the Democrat Party has put the US on a European model fast boat to socialism, whereas Republicans are simply loading us onto a slower boat. I find that unfortunately astute.
Now, I am not discounting your points about the impact the US union movement had on, and I'm paraphrasing you, somewhat legitimizing a collectivist mentality in the US (with the understanding it was an earnest attempt to balance unchecked corporate SOP at the time). Neither am I discounting the fact that the idea of a socialist Utopia has historically been a part of modern man's struggle to identify how societies should be organized (each and every time ending in failure for precisely the reasons you listed). However, it occurs to me that there is something bigger at play with wealthy, successful, Western democracies. There has to be a reason that as a nation (I'll use the US as an example) we have ended up in 2008 with socialism going mainstream. In our genesis we are put on a course that demands personal liberty and accountability, then continue on with that as the founding principle of our society with it correcting egregious sins such as slavery and racial discrimination along the way. And all that time although "socialist Utopia" movements and orators have come and gone, they were largely relegated to the margins of US society. But at some point (and to pick a specific year may be a fool's errand) we seem to have hit an economic success rate, so high as a country, so unprecedented in human history, that socialism began to creep into the mainstream in order to ensure that "everybody" is partaking.
Perhaps we can identify its start in the US with the Great Society. Fellow conservatives would be tempted to start with the New Deal. However I do not - FDR, while certainly enlarging the governments role in economic crisis solving, was doing so in reaction to a real crisis, The Great Depression. LBJ, in what marks in my opinion the US slide into legitimizing socialism in the mainstream, was an attempt to react to a perceived wrong. He, and his supporters "felt" something must be done by the government to ensure not just equal opportunity to wealth, but equal OUTCOME, seemingly even regardless of effort. And once we were on the path to government "guarantees" of outcome, we stayed. Now I'm going to exempt Reagan in large part, but virtually each and every PoTUS starting with LBJ, regardless of Party, decided to use the federal government to correct what they (or the popular movement of the time which they as president either bought into or caved into) perceived as socioeconomic injustices. And that leads me to the larger point ...
Within Western democratic wealthy nations there seems to be a marker laid down at some point in their history (as a democracy) in which either from a collective guilt over race relations or some other form of economic "shame" over their father's success "on the backs of others", they reach a point that guaranteeing "equal" rights is no longer good enough. Simply ensuring that regardless of race, minority status, gender, or economic lot your born into, YOU have a fair and protected shot to use your God given talents to succeed. That idea becomes no longer good enough. Evening the playing field and eliminating discrimination is seen as insufficient to wipe history's slate clean. And as a society these Western nations seem to buy into the idea that because of past sins (be they slavery or unchecked corporate/industrial policies towards the poor) that something "special", above and beyond ensuring equal rights and equal access to success, must be granted in order to "make up" for the sins perpetrated against minorities and the working poor. Enter the Great Society; welfare; affirmative action; medicare; medicaid; free public housing; free preschool; etc, etc, etc. Each and every one aimed at helping groups that were once either exploited or flat out discriminated against. But no longer were they aimed at ensuring equal opportunity, but rather at ensuring equal results.
Now, does every elected official today advocate government sponsored socioeconomic solutions to problems because they still feel a collective "shame." No. But once Western socialism got a foothold under the guise of correcting past sins, it became the norm. And worse, it became the norm for how politicians got reelected. You start out wanting to do something "special" for segments of society that were especially discriminated against (based on race or economic status) and you end up with the idea 2 generations later that anytime there is a problem, more government is the solution. And not just for the formerly oppressed or exploited, but for everyone for no other reason then they successfully navigated the birthing canal and evacuated the womb. Every necessity of life is perceived as a government guaranteed right, rather then a personal responsibility.
The question is, how do we reverse that trend? Hell, the GOP seems to have bought into it, at least somewhat. Twice, in my opinion, a stop gap was put on this trend since the time of LBJ. Once in the executive branch with Ronnie. And once in the legislative branch with the 1994 congress (welfare reform etc). But the trend was merely paused, not stopped. And here today we stand with the supposed heir to Reagansim (Mac even calls himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution") offering $300 billion for bad mortgages. And our socialistic trend looks radically right-winged compared to Europe's. And as I said, the scary prospect is that we are merely a generation or two behind their lead.
So I have given my opinion as to why the West is trending towards socialism. The question now is how do we arrest it and go in reverse so that "equal opportunity" is prized and protected, rather then the doomed to fail attempts at guaranteeing "equal results."
Furthermore...
A fundamental flaw in the perception of society has always been that society itself is wealthy, rather than the citizens that make up that society.
For example, the US has long been rumored to have "streets paved with gold" to the poor and down-trodden of Europe and the Far East, for at least the last 150 years. From as long ago as the early 1700's, because grants of land were available to immigrants, the perception has been that the New World was rich. To immigrants from the poorer regions of Europe, the labor needed to clear, plow and sow 10 to 20 acres of land was not all that much more than they were already giving to simply pay their rents to aristocratic landlords... the difference was that the land was now theirs (or would be after 5 years of labor, in the case of Virginia) and the rewards of working those 10 acres are ALL the farmers, where less than 1/7 was towards the farmer's living in Scotland, Ireland, Bohemia, Yorkshire, or Brittany (the rest going for rents and fees). For the same basic agrarian labor output, the return was at least (by my simple math) six times greater... not counting the fact that the land is THEIRS, not some distant, elevated landlord.
This process was slower in Europe than it was here, but once the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, there WERE parts of Europe where success could be found OFF the land. Coventry, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Brussells, Hanover, and Cherbourg are all good examples of the regions of Europe where LOCAL labor benefited from the increased wages and opportunity, but where IMMIGRANT labor was taken advantage of. By that same time in the US, the land grants had stopped, and the same process had begun here... local populations in places like New York, Boston, coastal Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania saw industry bring countless new jobs and workers to local businesses, driving prices (and discrimination) UP while the "capitalist" system kept wages artificially low.
This problem was corrected (in most cases) by the WORKERS taking action against unjust labor practices in a COLLECTIVE manner... and thus, the UNION movement was born. Thus, the primary failing of laisses faire capitalism shows itself in the inability of the wealthy owners of industry to manage and regulate their profits in a way that rewards the laborer and builds incentive to provide the labor. Most European and American government's supported this purely profit-driven mode of industry, until such time as unions made a big enough impact on profit. THIS is how the "collective" mentality came into it's own.
Men like Blanc, Marx and Engels put pen to paper and brought the beginnings of "socialism" into the mainstream. Men like Lennin, Trotsky, Kiev, Stalin, and Luxemburg (a woman, I know) did everything in their power to bring that vision into reality... but with NO success. Socialist states HAVE existed, and still do today (obviously, or we wouldn't be discussing this topic)... but "pure socialism" i.e. communism, goes against the very grain of human nature, and thus is perpetually doomed to failure.
Government's role in the lives of everyday citizens should not exceed that of a national regulatory purpose. To regulate the PEACE and SECURITY of a society. To regulate the INDUSTRY and COMMERCE of a nation, so that all people are afforded the same opportunity at employment and success. To regulate and provide for JUSTICE through the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW.
This REGULATION is best achieved (history shows us) through the provision of Government to guaranty as many individual RIGHTS as possible, while limiting as few collective rights as is necessary for the common good of society. This is (in my opinion) the failing of the current Democratic Party platform here in the US.
For example: To guaranty that the RIGHTS of non-Christian citizens are not hindered or limited, it seems to be the determined course of action of the DNC to LIMIT as many Christian expressions of faith as possible, while providing for as many non-Christian expressions of faith as possible. No crosses, creches, Christmas trees, or carols in Lansing, MI for Christians... but everyone gets to hear the Islamic "call to prayer" five times a day over the public broadcast speakers. Public schools in San Diego, CA provide no time or opportunity for children to place their hand over their heart and pledge allegience to "one nation, under God", but ALL classes are interupted so that Muslim kids can hit their knees while facing Mecca.
These are but a few of the examples ANY of us could give of the FAILING of the moto "Majority Rule, Minority Rights". It was not that long ago (some of us are old enough to remember it) that Democrats living in the Deep South fought (literally, FOUGHT) to keep the "rights" of minorities as limited as humanly possible... even where those minorities constituted a popular MAJORITY (Stark County, MS, for example). In fact, the ICON of the Dems, Jack Kennedy, sat in the Oval Office exactly at this time in Americna history... and did very little to correct it. His FIRST priority was to do all in his power to curb SOCIALISM as a global force, and his SECOND priority was to keep a balanced budget and LOWER taxes.
Ironic, huh?
Now, I have focused on the US-side of this sort of discussion. Europe has it's own story to tell, but as that story is all but irrelivant in my eyes while discussing what is best for THIS country, I'll leave that for the likes of Pelosi and Dean to further.
For example, the US has long been rumored to have "streets paved with gold" to the poor and down-trodden of Europe and the Far East, for at least the last 150 years. From as long ago as the early 1700's, because grants of land were available to immigrants, the perception has been that the New World was rich. To immigrants from the poorer regions of Europe, the labor needed to clear, plow and sow 10 to 20 acres of land was not all that much more than they were already giving to simply pay their rents to aristocratic landlords... the difference was that the land was now theirs (or would be after 5 years of labor, in the case of Virginia) and the rewards of working those 10 acres are ALL the farmers, where less than 1/7 was towards the farmer's living in Scotland, Ireland, Bohemia, Yorkshire, or Brittany (the rest going for rents and fees). For the same basic agrarian labor output, the return was at least (by my simple math) six times greater... not counting the fact that the land is THEIRS, not some distant, elevated landlord.
This process was slower in Europe than it was here, but once the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, there WERE parts of Europe where success could be found OFF the land. Coventry, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Brussells, Hanover, and Cherbourg are all good examples of the regions of Europe where LOCAL labor benefited from the increased wages and opportunity, but where IMMIGRANT labor was taken advantage of. By that same time in the US, the land grants had stopped, and the same process had begun here... local populations in places like New York, Boston, coastal Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania saw industry bring countless new jobs and workers to local businesses, driving prices (and discrimination) UP while the "capitalist" system kept wages artificially low.
This problem was corrected (in most cases) by the WORKERS taking action against unjust labor practices in a COLLECTIVE manner... and thus, the UNION movement was born. Thus, the primary failing of laisses faire capitalism shows itself in the inability of the wealthy owners of industry to manage and regulate their profits in a way that rewards the laborer and builds incentive to provide the labor. Most European and American government's supported this purely profit-driven mode of industry, until such time as unions made a big enough impact on profit. THIS is how the "collective" mentality came into it's own.
Men like Blanc, Marx and Engels put pen to paper and brought the beginnings of "socialism" into the mainstream. Men like Lennin, Trotsky, Kiev, Stalin, and Luxemburg (a woman, I know) did everything in their power to bring that vision into reality... but with NO success. Socialist states HAVE existed, and still do today (obviously, or we wouldn't be discussing this topic)... but "pure socialism" i.e. communism, goes against the very grain of human nature, and thus is perpetually doomed to failure.
Government's role in the lives of everyday citizens should not exceed that of a national regulatory purpose. To regulate the PEACE and SECURITY of a society. To regulate the INDUSTRY and COMMERCE of a nation, so that all people are afforded the same opportunity at employment and success. To regulate and provide for JUSTICE through the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW.
This REGULATION is best achieved (history shows us) through the provision of Government to guaranty as many individual RIGHTS as possible, while limiting as few collective rights as is necessary for the common good of society. This is (in my opinion) the failing of the current Democratic Party platform here in the US.
For example: To guaranty that the RIGHTS of non-Christian citizens are not hindered or limited, it seems to be the determined course of action of the DNC to LIMIT as many Christian expressions of faith as possible, while providing for as many non-Christian expressions of faith as possible. No crosses, creches, Christmas trees, or carols in Lansing, MI for Christians... but everyone gets to hear the Islamic "call to prayer" five times a day over the public broadcast speakers. Public schools in San Diego, CA provide no time or opportunity for children to place their hand over their heart and pledge allegience to "one nation, under God", but ALL classes are interupted so that Muslim kids can hit their knees while facing Mecca.
These are but a few of the examples ANY of us could give of the FAILING of the moto "Majority Rule, Minority Rights". It was not that long ago (some of us are old enough to remember it) that Democrats living in the Deep South fought (literally, FOUGHT) to keep the "rights" of minorities as limited as humanly possible... even where those minorities constituted a popular MAJORITY (Stark County, MS, for example). In fact, the ICON of the Dems, Jack Kennedy, sat in the Oval Office exactly at this time in Americna history... and did very little to correct it. His FIRST priority was to do all in his power to curb SOCIALISM as a global force, and his SECOND priority was to keep a balanced budget and LOWER taxes.
Ironic, huh?
Now, I have focused on the US-side of this sort of discussion. Europe has it's own story to tell, but as that story is all but irrelivant in my eyes while discussing what is best for THIS country, I'll leave that for the likes of Pelosi and Dean to further.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Good post!
One of your best, I think...
This deserves more time and thought than I am able to give it right now, but I will share with you the thoughts I have and the direction I will initially take as I ponder the question Ryan asks...
More than 35% of modern Europe was raised under Soviet-era communism. This is no excuse, but it might lend an explanation for the propensity (if not out-right dependence) on "big" government.
The process by which east and west were "merged" into simply Europe since 1990 has made for MASSIVE efforts on the part of governments from the English Channel to the Volga River, and as much of these efforts have worked, it reinforces the perception that government can fix anything.
Nearly 50% of Europe no longer remembers the threats posed by the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact as a fact of daily life, but all are living the benefits of only mildly-socialist democratic republicanism. All have a parlimentary system of government that lends itself to "party" affiliation far more strongly than we do here in the States... and these parties maintain control (in most cases) within massive multi-party election systems, where the only manner a party can gain and hold control is to deliver on promises very nearly ALWAYS in the short-term.
Off to run errands... more later...
Good post!
This deserves more time and thought than I am able to give it right now, but I will share with you the thoughts I have and the direction I will initially take as I ponder the question Ryan asks...
More than 35% of modern Europe was raised under Soviet-era communism. This is no excuse, but it might lend an explanation for the propensity (if not out-right dependence) on "big" government.
The process by which east and west were "merged" into simply Europe since 1990 has made for MASSIVE efforts on the part of governments from the English Channel to the Volga River, and as much of these efforts have worked, it reinforces the perception that government can fix anything.
Nearly 50% of Europe no longer remembers the threats posed by the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact as a fact of daily life, but all are living the benefits of only mildly-socialist democratic republicanism. All have a parlimentary system of government that lends itself to "party" affiliation far more strongly than we do here in the States... and these parties maintain control (in most cases) within massive multi-party election systems, where the only manner a party can gain and hold control is to deliver on promises very nearly ALWAYS in the short-term.
Off to run errands... more later...
Good post!
Why is the West trending socialist?
Seriously. Put aside American politics, it appears to me that each of the democratic (small "d") Western nations are trending towards big government solutions, lavish welfare states, and the emphasis on personal reliance for the simple necessities of life shifted to faceless bureaucrats all under the guise of "compassion." Is it simply the fate of all successful democracies? Is it our own wealth that has caused us to believe that LITERALLY no child (nor man nor woman) will be left behind, regardless of effort? Have we bought into the idea over time, as a collective conscience, that any nation free or otherwise can indeed "eliminate" poverty? Have we become that naive? Acquired that much hubris?
I offered the thought some days ago that the infatuation with what Barak Obama represents was a cyclical phenomenon within the US, and used Carter as an example. I think I was wrong. Why? What has Bush offered as a solution to societies ails? No Child Left Behind; prescription drug benefits; the 860 billion dollar incursion into the private sector by the federal government. This nation is trending towards nationalization policies regardless of which Party assumes control of the White House or Congress. And as if an on the ropes poker player John McCain has come over the top of Bush's last bet to not only call, but raise an additional $300 billion in tax payer dollars in order to nationalize bad mortgages. We all know of Europe's ails - welfare sates (in its technical definition, not just the common US political usage) that require an ever broadening tax base, even if that base must be imported. What has happened to the mighty, dominant, wealthy West that it looks more and more to its' collective governments ideas on collectivism?
Is it our hemispheric hang over on how we arrived at that great wealth? Slavery, segregation, brutal assertion into the US Western lands and Europe's imperial sins? Is this causing a sort of PC reckoning as we, with each generation, attempt to prove "see, we ARE good people, look how generous we are?" If so, that guilt ridden approach to our very existence is a prescription for societal suicide.
As I asked myself these questions on the way to work the other day, I found comfort in the oddest of places - NPR. When I was in freshman college US History I once wrote a report on the career of William Jennings Bryant. I just found his populist messages, and his ever present ability to articulate them, fascinating. Fascinating, I should say, in how much I disagreed with him. However, I found in reading his writings and speeches he to be a powerfully committed man that simply loved America, but thought it was better then it was behaving toward rural farmers. An earnest loyal opposition whom would cause his foes to be up late the nights before a debate encounter. Scared Bryant would play them the fool, for once he began his speeches had a dominating profile. Ultimately "the people", in their wisdom, chose to not elect him president, even though he gave them that opportunity to choose no less then three times, he,he. It always stuck with me, the passion of a man I vehemently would have disagreed with were I using some pigeon's feather, an ink well, and parchment to communicate my dislike to my fellow Bund members at the turn of the last century (perhaps it is why I tend to befriend those with whom I politically disagree, he). At any rate, as I was driving I finally was able (outside of the military) to witness first hand a useful employment of my tax dollars.
In a segment that runs just seconds over 15 minutes NPR celebrated the 100 year anniversary of the presidential political soundbite. In 1908 Democrat William Jennings Bryant faced Republican William Howard Taft. Now up to this time it was considered "unseemly" for the actual candidates to campaign for themselves. Political subordinates preformed this duty. But Bryant decided to break with this tradition, and hopped on a locomotive utilizing his greatest asset - his voice. Reportedly he spoke to "millions" of people. Then a funny thing happened. Some people approached him and explained the success of a new invention sweeping into households across the nation - the phonograph. The problem was, however, that the device would hold only 2 minutes worth of recorded sound. Political speeches in this age could go on for hours, and Bryant was particularly able to go on much longer then that. "No problem" he uttered. He promised to get the message down to a succinct 2 minutes. And thus the political soundbite was born.
Of course Bryant caught all hell for engaging in this "low brow, unseemly" behavior, even from his own Party. But guess what? The political message was a hit. People loved having a potential president's voice in their very own home, almost as if it was a privilege. Taft, despite his many ridicules for that very action of Bryant's, was forced to respond. He too would cut his own 2 minute political message. Now, live from 1908, listen to the first political soundbite. For any one historically oriented it is a particular treat to hear the actual voice of men you've only read about. Imagine having Leonidas on tape, rallying his Spartan troops ... William of Wallace ... Caesar ... Alexander. True, neither of these men would come to affect history in a way such as these names, but one would become president of a nation that indeed has shaped history in the most dramatic of ways.
Now ... you may ask why all this gave me comfort. Taft's position, the one he felt important enough to give in his one and only 2 minute message? It was about how ill fated it would be for capitalist banks of democratic nations to be invaded by the federal government. Apparently this was all the talk. Now setting aside what happened between then and 1929, it gave me at least SOME solace that our grandfather's father's faced, and overcame, some of the same problems we face now.
I offered the thought some days ago that the infatuation with what Barak Obama represents was a cyclical phenomenon within the US, and used Carter as an example. I think I was wrong. Why? What has Bush offered as a solution to societies ails? No Child Left Behind; prescription drug benefits; the 860 billion dollar incursion into the private sector by the federal government. This nation is trending towards nationalization policies regardless of which Party assumes control of the White House or Congress. And as if an on the ropes poker player John McCain has come over the top of Bush's last bet to not only call, but raise an additional $300 billion in tax payer dollars in order to nationalize bad mortgages. We all know of Europe's ails - welfare sates (in its technical definition, not just the common US political usage) that require an ever broadening tax base, even if that base must be imported. What has happened to the mighty, dominant, wealthy West that it looks more and more to its' collective governments ideas on collectivism?
Is it our hemispheric hang over on how we arrived at that great wealth? Slavery, segregation, brutal assertion into the US Western lands and Europe's imperial sins? Is this causing a sort of PC reckoning as we, with each generation, attempt to prove "see, we ARE good people, look how generous we are?" If so, that guilt ridden approach to our very existence is a prescription for societal suicide.
As I asked myself these questions on the way to work the other day, I found comfort in the oddest of places - NPR. When I was in freshman college US History I once wrote a report on the career of William Jennings Bryant. I just found his populist messages, and his ever present ability to articulate them, fascinating. Fascinating, I should say, in how much I disagreed with him. However, I found in reading his writings and speeches he to be a powerfully committed man that simply loved America, but thought it was better then it was behaving toward rural farmers. An earnest loyal opposition whom would cause his foes to be up late the nights before a debate encounter. Scared Bryant would play them the fool, for once he began his speeches had a dominating profile. Ultimately "the people", in their wisdom, chose to not elect him president, even though he gave them that opportunity to choose no less then three times, he,he. It always stuck with me, the passion of a man I vehemently would have disagreed with were I using some pigeon's feather, an ink well, and parchment to communicate my dislike to my fellow Bund members at the turn of the last century (perhaps it is why I tend to befriend those with whom I politically disagree, he). At any rate, as I was driving I finally was able (outside of the military) to witness first hand a useful employment of my tax dollars.
In a segment that runs just seconds over 15 minutes NPR celebrated the 100 year anniversary of the presidential political soundbite. In 1908 Democrat William Jennings Bryant faced Republican William Howard Taft. Now up to this time it was considered "unseemly" for the actual candidates to campaign for themselves. Political subordinates preformed this duty. But Bryant decided to break with this tradition, and hopped on a locomotive utilizing his greatest asset - his voice. Reportedly he spoke to "millions" of people. Then a funny thing happened. Some people approached him and explained the success of a new invention sweeping into households across the nation - the phonograph. The problem was, however, that the device would hold only 2 minutes worth of recorded sound. Political speeches in this age could go on for hours, and Bryant was particularly able to go on much longer then that. "No problem" he uttered. He promised to get the message down to a succinct 2 minutes. And thus the political soundbite was born.
Of course Bryant caught all hell for engaging in this "low brow, unseemly" behavior, even from his own Party. But guess what? The political message was a hit. People loved having a potential president's voice in their very own home, almost as if it was a privilege. Taft, despite his many ridicules for that very action of Bryant's, was forced to respond. He too would cut his own 2 minute political message. Now, live from 1908, listen to the first political soundbite. For any one historically oriented it is a particular treat to hear the actual voice of men you've only read about. Imagine having Leonidas on tape, rallying his Spartan troops ... William of Wallace ... Caesar ... Alexander. True, neither of these men would come to affect history in a way such as these names, but one would become president of a nation that indeed has shaped history in the most dramatic of ways.
Now ... you may ask why all this gave me comfort. Taft's position, the one he felt important enough to give in his one and only 2 minute message? It was about how ill fated it would be for capitalist banks of democratic nations to be invaded by the federal government. Apparently this was all the talk. Now setting aside what happened between then and 1929, it gave me at least SOME solace that our grandfather's father's faced, and overcame, some of the same problems we face now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
