Margaret Thatcher was an advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Wasn't the first time she showed herself to be an champion of hysteria, but I think this particular bit of advocacy is what Americans should remember about Maggie. The fact that she had a lot of foolish company when she threw her weight behind this obviously preposterous endeavor does not mean it should be forgotten.
It has been amusing to hear Thatcher discussed as "an inspiration to women everywhere" by women whose heads detach from their necks at the very mention of W. Bush; her foreign policy soul mate. I thought a key part of the "WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN POWER" movement was that women would bring a different perspective to power. So why are women celebrating a woman who was interchangeable with Reagan and Bush? If women in power are going to be as craven and incompetent as men, how exactly is electing them a step forward?
Conveniently ignoring Thatcher's resemblance to Reagan and Bush simply because she was a woman in power is a classic example of the mania for diversity showing itself to be a beauty pageant rather than a campaign for increased substance. I hope I live long enough to see the first female leader on trial before the world for putting her citizens in deathcamps. I love a good spectacle, and I relish the thought of seeing a cryogenically frozen Gloria Allred thawed out to defend Hitlerette.
The global power paradigm continues to get more diverse, and yet F.A. Hayek continues to be proven correct: only the worst members of society succeed in politics.
Showing posts with label george w. bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label george w. bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Monday, December 3, 2012
The less intelligent of two evils
One of the major tactical blunders conservatives have made is focusing on individual
politicians rather than on ideas. This seems to have started with Clinton (maybe because by then the Cold War was over and that had defined much of their platform?). When Clinton took office, the primary criticisms we heard from conservatives related to his personal life; his eating habits, his marital pitfalls, etc. Very, very little discussion of his actual policies. The conservatism "opposition" to Clinton was more like a roast than a movement.
That's the problem. When you make the opposition all about individual politicians, what happens when that politician leaves? The foundation of your movement is suddenly gone. It is like the difference between spending and investing. While conservatives have been spending political capital focusing on the short term quirks of individual politicians, Democrats have been investing in the long term by making their opposition mostly about ideas that transcend individual politicians (climate change, "affordable healthcare,").
Yes, when Bush II was in office, there was plenty of focus on his accent, his speech pattern, his wild youth. But there was also constant discussion of his tax policies, social policies, and towards the end, his warmongering. Contrast that with the conservative obsession with Obama's birth certificate and alleged allegiance to Islam. Even the bashing of Obamacare largely came down to the idea-free slogan: "Obama's a socialist!"
The conservative focus on individual politicians isn't isolated to individual Democrats. They make their own campaigns about individual Republicans. Every campaign speech from a conservative mentions "Reagan Republicanism." No discussion of anything Reagan did; just a constant repetition of his name. Again, this is totally ineffective. An 18-year-old potential Republican voter doesn't care about Reagan. He could be made to care about a Reagan-related conservative idea...if one were actually presented to him.
In order to win a War of Ideas, you have to have some actual ideas. The closest thing Republicans have had to an idea is the War on Terror. And as voters have tired of it, all Republicans have done is double down (especially in '08).
Once more: climate change is a spreadable idea. Obsessing about Al Gore's personal carbon footprint isn't.
That's the problem. When you make the opposition all about individual politicians, what happens when that politician leaves? The foundation of your movement is suddenly gone. It is like the difference between spending and investing. While conservatives have been spending political capital focusing on the short term quirks of individual politicians, Democrats have been investing in the long term by making their opposition mostly about ideas that transcend individual politicians (climate change, "affordable healthcare,").
Yes, when Bush II was in office, there was plenty of focus on his accent, his speech pattern, his wild youth. But there was also constant discussion of his tax policies, social policies, and towards the end, his warmongering. Contrast that with the conservative obsession with Obama's birth certificate and alleged allegiance to Islam. Even the bashing of Obamacare largely came down to the idea-free slogan: "Obama's a socialist!"
The conservative focus on individual politicians isn't isolated to individual Democrats. They make their own campaigns about individual Republicans. Every campaign speech from a conservative mentions "Reagan Republicanism." No discussion of anything Reagan did; just a constant repetition of his name. Again, this is totally ineffective. An 18-year-old potential Republican voter doesn't care about Reagan. He could be made to care about a Reagan-related conservative idea...if one were actually presented to him.
In order to win a War of Ideas, you have to have some actual ideas. The closest thing Republicans have had to an idea is the War on Terror. And as voters have tired of it, all Republicans have done is double down (especially in '08).
Once more: climate change is a spreadable idea. Obsessing about Al Gore's personal carbon footprint isn't.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Romney should have used some of his money to buy a calculator
Today I read a line in the New York Times saying that Obama's easy win is the result of the
"McGovern coalition coming of age." I would say the victory is the
result of trends predating 1972.
Forty+ years of turning public schools into factories for manufacturing politically correct robots has worked. Doctrinaire egalitarianism now starts in kindergarten, not college. College is merely the honeymoon after thirteen years of egalitarian courtship. Today even cultural conservatives unthinkingly use the language their opponents have prescribed for them.
Why haven't conservatives won a lasting battle in thirty+ years? Under Bush II, when supposed conservatives had all three government branches, the government expanded dramatically. The clock was hardly “turned back.” Why?
Because the war of ideas was lost a very long time ago, through the children. The very premise of even nominal conservative government could only be upheld so long as there were enough Americans with a less jaundiced view of pre-sixties America to keep voting to preserve what was left of it. They are now dead or outnumbered.
Home schoolers comprise a very small sliver of the population, and they are viewed with some suspicion (even by some conservatives). The vast majority attend public schools, where the war of ideas is long over. Yet conservatives continue to pat themselves on the back each time some minuscule home school "victory" happens somewhere. And they complain about liberals being unable to do math...
Forty+ years of turning public schools into factories for manufacturing politically correct robots has worked. Doctrinaire egalitarianism now starts in kindergarten, not college. College is merely the honeymoon after thirteen years of egalitarian courtship. Today even cultural conservatives unthinkingly use the language their opponents have prescribed for them.
Why haven't conservatives won a lasting battle in thirty+ years? Under Bush II, when supposed conservatives had all three government branches, the government expanded dramatically. The clock was hardly “turned back.” Why?
Because the war of ideas was lost a very long time ago, through the children. The very premise of even nominal conservative government could only be upheld so long as there were enough Americans with a less jaundiced view of pre-sixties America to keep voting to preserve what was left of it. They are now dead or outnumbered.
Home schoolers comprise a very small sliver of the population, and they are viewed with some suspicion (even by some conservatives). The vast majority attend public schools, where the war of ideas is long over. Yet conservatives continue to pat themselves on the back each time some minuscule home school "victory" happens somewhere. And they complain about liberals being unable to do math...
The conservative platform as it now exists can't be
effectively transmitted to children. Vague lines like "class warfare"
and "We're on the road to socialism!!!" aren't ideas, and certainly
have no resonance with kids. Liberal principles are easily converted into
talking points that can be repeated and spread. Example: Climate change and its
implications is an idea. Saying it doesn't exist isn't. A kid can't really make an "I don't believe in climate change"
macaroni and paste mosaic for his parents' refrigerator (and if he did his teacher would flunk him).
As for entrepreneurship being "the American
dream," most humans don't have the constitution to be entrepreneurs. Most
people hate their boss (they see themselves as the little guy oppressed by
their boss), so pinning your fortunes on a campaign that emphasizes bosses as
"the backbone of America" is numerical folly. Saying
"entrepreneurs built this country" makes many younger people
automatically think wicked robber barons. Saying "rugged individuals built
this country" makes many younger people automatically think murderous
pioneers (famed "pioneer" state Colorado went to Obama). Thus,
building your platform around these memes is a horrible strategy. America is a
mob rule republic. Numbers matter.
Nearly all of the money and cultural influence now resides
in NY, MA, DC, and CA. The most conspicuous liberals are elected there; Pelosi,
Schumer, etc. These politicians roughly reflect the opinions of those who set
the national agenda. This doesn't look likely to change.
The war of ideas is lost for conservatives, and with it the
numerical battle. John Galt ain't gonna show up to save anybody. Monday, May 14, 2012
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME (since the last one)!
If you live long enough, you get to see firsthand just how stupid people really are.
In the 2004 presidential election, the mantra was "anyone but Bush." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get John Kerry in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!
Now in 2012 the mantra among Republicans is "anyone but Obama." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get Mitt Romney in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!
Wow, two "most important elections of my lifetime" in just eight years. I guess no one expected me to live very long.
There is no such thing as a "most important election of a lifetime," because each election is exactly the same. Presidential elections alter nothing.
In 2008, the Obama Apostles ran to the polls seeking change! Instead of change, these adorable do-gooders have been treated to a delightful continuation of Bush's foreign policies (and aggressive interventionism certainly didn't start with Bush; the US has been an international occupying force since McKinley) and domestic brutality.
And those who claim Bush was a free market alternative to Obama seem to have missed his bailout of the banks and and the car companies.
Now if you're a young voter, say 20 or younger, you can't really be expected to appreciate the histrionics of 2004 or the fact that they are being repeated verbatim today. You have an excuse. This is the first MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME of your lifetime.
But if you are 26 or older, and a believer in the UNPRECENDENTED IMPORTANCE OF THIS ELECTION, you're at best a useful idiot (and probably a useless eater).
It does not matter who holds the musical chair in the Oval Office. Under Bush II, the Republicans captured all three branches of government. There was thundering talk from Republicans and Democrats about the dramatic implications for abortion!
Nothing happened. Nothing changed. The supposedly anti-abortion Republicans had control of all three branches of government and Roe vs. Wade escaped without a scratch on it. The Republican voters who thought this was their chance to stop abortion saw their efforts lead to a whole lotta nothing.
And all the Democratic voters who gnashed their teeth about the impending disappearance of Roe vs Wade thanks to Republican control...also wrong. Nothing happened. Nothing changed.
Take a breath. This is not the most important election of your lifetime. Every election is the same, and it is an airtight bet that each new president is going to be worse than his precedessor. Bamboozled voters sprint to the polls every four years, and appropriately utter the same line beggars use: "Gimme some change, gimme some change!" And like those unfortunate beggars (who also don't see their fortunes change), each time they are left holding an empty cup.
In the 2004 presidential election, the mantra was "anyone but Bush." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get John Kerry in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!
Now in 2012 the mantra among Republicans is "anyone but Obama." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get Mitt Romney in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!
Wow, two "most important elections of my lifetime" in just eight years. I guess no one expected me to live very long.
There is no such thing as a "most important election of a lifetime," because each election is exactly the same. Presidential elections alter nothing.
In 2008, the Obama Apostles ran to the polls seeking change! Instead of change, these adorable do-gooders have been treated to a delightful continuation of Bush's foreign policies (and aggressive interventionism certainly didn't start with Bush; the US has been an international occupying force since McKinley) and domestic brutality.
And those who claim Bush was a free market alternative to Obama seem to have missed his bailout of the banks and and the car companies.
Now if you're a young voter, say 20 or younger, you can't really be expected to appreciate the histrionics of 2004 or the fact that they are being repeated verbatim today. You have an excuse. This is the first MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME of your lifetime.
But if you are 26 or older, and a believer in the UNPRECENDENTED IMPORTANCE OF THIS ELECTION, you're at best a useful idiot (and probably a useless eater).
It does not matter who holds the musical chair in the Oval Office. Under Bush II, the Republicans captured all three branches of government. There was thundering talk from Republicans and Democrats about the dramatic implications for abortion!
Nothing happened. Nothing changed. The supposedly anti-abortion Republicans had control of all three branches of government and Roe vs. Wade escaped without a scratch on it. The Republican voters who thought this was their chance to stop abortion saw their efforts lead to a whole lotta nothing.
And all the Democratic voters who gnashed their teeth about the impending disappearance of Roe vs Wade thanks to Republican control...also wrong. Nothing happened. Nothing changed.
Take a breath. This is not the most important election of your lifetime. Every election is the same, and it is an airtight bet that each new president is going to be worse than his precedessor. Bamboozled voters sprint to the polls every four years, and appropriately utter the same line beggars use: "Gimme some change, gimme some change!" And like those unfortunate beggars (who also don't see their fortunes change), each time they are left holding an empty cup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)