Wanna hear a joke?
Unemployment is high in America.
How high is it?
It's so high even the dishonest government measurement of unemployment clocks it above 7%. Oh, and yo' mama so fat they count her as two unemployed people.
In a time of high unemployment and flagrant government oafishness like Obamacare, it isn't surprising to hear murmurings about how we "need a businessperson in office." He'll know how to get the economy going! Romney tried leaning on this, and for years Donald Trump had used it to generate publicity.
Businesspeople can't improve the government. Part of the reason businesspeople can achieve things is because they don't have to get votes. Businesspeople only have to provide products. They don't have to whisper sweet nothings in consumers' ears. You can be unlikable and still monumentally successful as long as people like your products. See Steve Jobs.
Politicians have to sugarcoat. They have to whisper sweet nothings. They have to appear likeable. Politicians themselves are the product. That means is they have to lie constantly. The "which candidate would you rather have a beer with" matters big time. In 2008, apart from the media's pornographic love affair with the symbolism of Barack, I think a big part of his prevailing is that every non-lesbian (and probably most lesbians) would rather drink with Barack than Hillary. Barack is probably an interesting enough guy to have a Guinness with. Hillary is lame enough to turn wine into seltzer.
Also, when a CEO promises a new iPhone, he actually has to deliver a new iPhone. He can't not provide one and then just claim he did. He won't have a million propagandizing media subnormals working 'round the clock to convince the nation he provided this nonexistent iPhone. People will notice the lack of a new iPhone and punish him by buying his competitors' phones.
A politician can say he's going to do something like close Gitmo and then simply not do it. Almost nothing ever happens when a politician breaks a promise. People are trained to expect broken promises from politicians (or at least politicians who aren't members of "their" party). CEOs and businesspeople don't have this luxury. If anything, folks are trained to complain vociferously to businesspeople ("the customer is always right"). Therefore, businesspeople have to follow up to some extent on their promises, or else customers and activist shareholders will topple them. See JC Penney.
Once a politician is in office, he is there for at least two years. Unlike a CEO, you're stuck with him. Sometimes you're stuck with him for four or six years, so he can go right on lying for his entire reign, and there is nothing that can be done about it. A businessperson's approval rating results in immediate profits and losses, and he can be put out of business or fired from the CEO position in a matter of months, not years. Parties of all political persuasions are always complaining about voters' short attention spans. They're right. If a guy is in office six years there is plenty of time for each storm to blow over and be forgotten. In business, even a short term storm can topple someone in no time flat. If that businessperson could count on six years of tenure, chances are his sins would be forgotten the way they are for politicians.
CEOs and businesspeople almost never have the advantage of a monopoly. Government by its very definition is a monopoly. There is one DMV. There is one police force. You can only have two Senators in each state. There is no such thing as an upstart third, fourth, or fifth Senator who can suddenly appear and immediately start taking market share. There is no limit to how many different smartphone brands there can be, which is why CEOs and businesspeople must be nimble and responsive to customers if they are to survive. Government, and its mascots in the Congress and White House, is a monopoly, and it acts like one. A politician with the greatest business background still couldn't do anything to change the clumsy, unaccoutable nature of monopolies. The only thing he could do once in office is privatize everything, and forgetting for a moment that that is impossible under our current system, what politician is going to ride in and start diluting his own power by privatizing everything? The last President to use anti-government rhetoric was Reagan, and as we all know he greatly expanded the government.
By believing a businessperson is going to fix government, market-minded people are adopting the same defective mentality as the most anti-business egalitarian: assuming if we could just get the right person in there, things would be better. Wrong. The institution itself isn't fixable. Getting a different mascot to be its face won't render it fixable.
I've heard champions of the marketplace say it is the only real democracy, the only place where you truly have a voice. The reason that is so is because it is democracy without force. Government is nothing but monopoly and force. Government is democracy without the whole "having a voice" part.
Showing posts with label mitt romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mitt romney. Show all posts
Saturday, November 23, 2013
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. Saturday, October 13, 2012
Pay to play God
When you're marooned in a pointless political conversation (i.e., every political conversation), an easy way to agree to disagree is to say: "The problem with politics today is that it is all controlled by special interests." This will help you shift the conversation to more important topics, like whether or not women should be allowed to drink Old Fashioneds.
Bashing special interests is a staple of every politician on every campaign trail:
I'm going to stand up to special interests.
For too long now, there has been too much money coming from special interests.
Unlike my opponent, I'm not beholden to special interests.
Of all the red meat talking points, this one might be the filet mignon. Everyone loves it.
"Special interests" are the money people who put politicians in office; the people who do the most to hire Eric Cantor or Harry Reid for the job. The word hire is appropriate.
What happens when you, a non-politician, get hired? You are expected to perform a task, regardless of how you feel about it. Your employer pays you, so in so many words he controls what you do. To keep getting that paycheck, you will recite slogans you don't believe in, follow rules that make you retch, and associate with people who if it weren't for the shared paycheck would be your sworn enemies. Why do you do all these things that run counter to your values? Because you want to keep collecting checks. That's part of what it is to have a job; bending to other people's rules and preferences in exchange for cash.
And like a politician, you lie to get the job. You lie and embellish during the interview process to get the job. You greatly overstate your previous achievements when campaigning for yourself. Some achievements you just invent altogether. Sound familiar?
Right now some dunce is reading this and is no doubt breaking out in a cold, duncy sweat: "Screw that, I own my own business! I'm my own boss!"
Not so fast lyric from a Beyonce song. You might own your own business and sing "My Way" on karaoke night, but your customers are the boss. Let's say you have a kitchen renovation business. You might hate zinc countertops. But if all the people having their kitchen redone read an article in the New York Times telling them that zinc countertops have a centering effect on urban middle children between the ages of 25-47 months, you're either going to install zinc countertops or you're going to be on a breadline. It is that simple.
If a teacher's union or oil company pays a politician a bunch of money, they aren't doing it because they like him or care about "the greater good" (whatever that means). They're doing it to hire him to perform the tasks they want performed...votes in their favor...subsidies in their direction. Money exchange=expectation of service. No one ever gives money just because. This is true of every scenario in life, politics included. The special interest groups paid Eric Cantor to do a job and they expect him to do it. If the Grand Union of Lesbian Podiatrists gives a wad of cash to Eric Cantor and he continually votes against their interests, he is breaking the deal, and he'll be fired. GULP will do whatever it can to hire someone else. Same thing that happens to you when you disobey your boss.
That is why people go to fundraisers. That is why you give money and go to rallies with your dopey signs. You too are trying to be a "special interest." Unfortunately for you, you as a special interest aren't special enough to matter. Most of you are just mad because you're losing.
And we're not just talking about the dreaded super PACs. A huge collection of grannies sending in five dollar donations to save social security (which imposes a huge cost on younger, working age people who didn't exactly sign up for it), is also a political donor/special interest situation. Perceived voting blocs also spark whoring and duplicity.
You want politicians to be just like you? Well friend, they already are. Whoever pays them gets to tell them what to do. You tell everyone you're an independent, uncompromising maverick who marches to his own drum. Then the manager at the restaurant where you work schedules you to wait tables on Super Bowl Sunday. No Super Bowl party for your independent ass. You're going to be the help at someone else's party that day. Because he said so.
I'm glad I brought up the Super Bowl, because I know someone is going to try to counter this by saying, "Hey, I'm a taxpayer, so I pay Eric Cantor's salary!" Reminds me of the sports fan who thinks he controls Mark Sanchez. Yes, in a roundabout way, you pay Mark Sanchez's salary, but Woody Johnson, the Jets owner, is the one who pays Mark Sanchez directly and handsomely. Sorry Jim The Twice a Decade Jets Game Attendee, but Mark Sanchez is going to defer to Mr. Johnson over you, and Eric Cantor is going to do the same with the folks that pay him the most. And unless a lot of Jim The Twice a Decade Jets Game Attendees rise up and do something big (rather than just complain on sports radio), it is going to stay that way.
It shouldn't take a wonk to realize that he who pays the piper the most picks the tune. Actually, most wonks seem to understand this even less than regular people. Same goes for political junkies who love to tell everyone how "aware" they are. Remove the jargon and tell them plainly that a politician accepts a check and behaves like any other hired gun and their face becomes as empty as the prospects for changing the political system.
I don't blame politicians for any of this. I blame voters for expecting it to be any other way.
Bashing special interests is a staple of every politician on every campaign trail:
I'm going to stand up to special interests.
For too long now, there has been too much money coming from special interests.
Unlike my opponent, I'm not beholden to special interests.
Of all the red meat talking points, this one might be the filet mignon. Everyone loves it.
"Special interests" are the money people who put politicians in office; the people who do the most to hire Eric Cantor or Harry Reid for the job. The word hire is appropriate.
What happens when you, a non-politician, get hired? You are expected to perform a task, regardless of how you feel about it. Your employer pays you, so in so many words he controls what you do. To keep getting that paycheck, you will recite slogans you don't believe in, follow rules that make you retch, and associate with people who if it weren't for the shared paycheck would be your sworn enemies. Why do you do all these things that run counter to your values? Because you want to keep collecting checks. That's part of what it is to have a job; bending to other people's rules and preferences in exchange for cash.
And like a politician, you lie to get the job. You lie and embellish during the interview process to get the job. You greatly overstate your previous achievements when campaigning for yourself. Some achievements you just invent altogether. Sound familiar?
Right now some dunce is reading this and is no doubt breaking out in a cold, duncy sweat: "Screw that, I own my own business! I'm my own boss!"
Not so fast lyric from a Beyonce song. You might own your own business and sing "My Way" on karaoke night, but your customers are the boss. Let's say you have a kitchen renovation business. You might hate zinc countertops. But if all the people having their kitchen redone read an article in the New York Times telling them that zinc countertops have a centering effect on urban middle children between the ages of 25-47 months, you're either going to install zinc countertops or you're going to be on a breadline. It is that simple.
If a teacher's union or oil company pays a politician a bunch of money, they aren't doing it because they like him or care about "the greater good" (whatever that means). They're doing it to hire him to perform the tasks they want performed...votes in their favor...subsidies in their direction. Money exchange=expectation of service. No one ever gives money just because. This is true of every scenario in life, politics included. The special interest groups paid Eric Cantor to do a job and they expect him to do it. If the Grand Union of Lesbian Podiatrists gives a wad of cash to Eric Cantor and he continually votes against their interests, he is breaking the deal, and he'll be fired. GULP will do whatever it can to hire someone else. Same thing that happens to you when you disobey your boss.
That is why people go to fundraisers. That is why you give money and go to rallies with your dopey signs. You too are trying to be a "special interest." Unfortunately for you, you as a special interest aren't special enough to matter. Most of you are just mad because you're losing.
And we're not just talking about the dreaded super PACs. A huge collection of grannies sending in five dollar donations to save social security (which imposes a huge cost on younger, working age people who didn't exactly sign up for it), is also a political donor/special interest situation. Perceived voting blocs also spark whoring and duplicity.
You want politicians to be just like you? Well friend, they already are. Whoever pays them gets to tell them what to do. You tell everyone you're an independent, uncompromising maverick who marches to his own drum. Then the manager at the restaurant where you work schedules you to wait tables on Super Bowl Sunday. No Super Bowl party for your independent ass. You're going to be the help at someone else's party that day. Because he said so.
I'm glad I brought up the Super Bowl, because I know someone is going to try to counter this by saying, "Hey, I'm a taxpayer, so I pay Eric Cantor's salary!" Reminds me of the sports fan who thinks he controls Mark Sanchez. Yes, in a roundabout way, you pay Mark Sanchez's salary, but Woody Johnson, the Jets owner, is the one who pays Mark Sanchez directly and handsomely. Sorry Jim The Twice a Decade Jets Game Attendee, but Mark Sanchez is going to defer to Mr. Johnson over you, and Eric Cantor is going to do the same with the folks that pay him the most. And unless a lot of Jim The Twice a Decade Jets Game Attendees rise up and do something big (rather than just complain on sports radio), it is going to stay that way.
It shouldn't take a wonk to realize that he who pays the piper the most picks the tune. Actually, most wonks seem to understand this even less than regular people. Same goes for political junkies who love to tell everyone how "aware" they are. Remove the jargon and tell them plainly that a politician accepts a check and behaves like any other hired gun and their face becomes as empty as the prospects for changing the political system.
I don't blame politicians for any of this. I blame voters for expecting it to be any other way.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Romney isn't Reagan; He's Dewey
Romney, like all Republican hacks, says the word "Reagan" almost as often as he says "the." Mitt uses "Reagan" likes it's a comma. In reality, Mr. Romney has much more in common with a certain Thomas E. Dewey of DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN fame.
Both had been presidential bridesmaids before. Dewey made an unsuccessful run for President in '44 (and in '40). Romney made an unsuccessful run in '08.
Both men ran on the heels of a Republican surge in Congress. Both surges were described by those doing the surging as "a mandate." In Dewey's day, the '46 elections were said to be a mandate on the New Deal. In Romney's time, the '10 elections were supposedly a mandate on programs like Obamacare (how uncomfortable for Mr. Romneycare).
Both faced a beleaguered incumbent. At one point in '48, Truman sported an approval rating of 36%.
Both were liberal (by Republican standards) governors of famously liberal states (Dewey New York, Mitt Massachusetts); making them suspicious to Republicans elsewhere in the country. Perhaps this is part of the reason their opponents focused their campaigns on the desperate need to "nominate a real conservative;" making the races a bit of an "anyone but Romney/Dewey affair." In 1948 Dewey's opponents even convened to construct a delegate strategy to stem "the Dewey blitz." They failed.
Both were accused of insufficiently differentiating themselves from the incumbent; basically offering a series of overly cautious "me-tooisms." This approach made it easier for Truman to seem like a tough talker, and will likely afford Obama the same opportunity. Don't be surprised if before long we're hearing, "Give 'em Hell, Barry!"
The big difference is that Dewey was very much expected to win. No one expects Mitt to steamroll Barack. So Romney can reference Reagan all he wants. The rest of us know how this movie ends. The headline this November will be OBAMA DEFEATS ROMNEY.
Both had been presidential bridesmaids before. Dewey made an unsuccessful run for President in '44 (and in '40). Romney made an unsuccessful run in '08.
Both men ran on the heels of a Republican surge in Congress. Both surges were described by those doing the surging as "a mandate." In Dewey's day, the '46 elections were said to be a mandate on the New Deal. In Romney's time, the '10 elections were supposedly a mandate on programs like Obamacare (how uncomfortable for Mr. Romneycare).
Both faced a beleaguered incumbent. At one point in '48, Truman sported an approval rating of 36%.
Both were liberal (by Republican standards) governors of famously liberal states (Dewey New York, Mitt Massachusetts); making them suspicious to Republicans elsewhere in the country. Perhaps this is part of the reason their opponents focused their campaigns on the desperate need to "nominate a real conservative;" making the races a bit of an "anyone but Romney/Dewey affair." In 1948 Dewey's opponents even convened to construct a delegate strategy to stem "the Dewey blitz." They failed.
Both were accused of insufficiently differentiating themselves from the incumbent; basically offering a series of overly cautious "me-tooisms." This approach made it easier for Truman to seem like a tough talker, and will likely afford Obama the same opportunity. Don't be surprised if before long we're hearing, "Give 'em Hell, Barry!"
The big difference is that Dewey was very much expected to win. No one expects Mitt to steamroll Barack. So Romney can reference Reagan all he wants. The rest of us know how this movie ends. The headline this November will be OBAMA DEFEATS ROMNEY.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Every year is an election year
How many times have you been watching the news and heard a reporter/pundit say something like, "But don't expect anything to be done about it any time soon. After all, it's an election year."
Elections are purported to be this sacred ritual we're supposed to honor and participate in. Yet the skeptical tone of the "it's an election year" line tells you all you need to know about elections; sorry voters, can't expect anything practical this year. Why not? Because this year we're holding those holy elections you're conditioned to revere!
Leaving aside what this says about the fatal flaws of elected government, today's 24/7 news cycle and the constant need for content means that for all practical purposes, now every year is an election year, so the likelihood of government honesty is even lower. There are no "off years" where officials might temporarily abstain from the more conspicuous pandering of the campaign trail, which at least theoretically would allow adult thinking to sneak into the process.
Simply put: the political junkiedom/news entertainment trend that has spawned this 24-hour news monstrosity is making the political process even more cynical and duplicitous. Far from being "watchdogs," the "political junkies" and news celebs have actually made it harder for the Washington shills to take a day off from shilling.
I suppose I should lament this development, but as it is the news celebrities and their glassy-eyed patsy fans who are often the most zealous about declaring it our "duty" to vote, it is more fun to sit back and watch them transparently betrayed by the process they celebrate.
Elections are purported to be this sacred ritual we're supposed to honor and participate in. Yet the skeptical tone of the "it's an election year" line tells you all you need to know about elections; sorry voters, can't expect anything practical this year. Why not? Because this year we're holding those holy elections you're conditioned to revere!
Leaving aside what this says about the fatal flaws of elected government, today's 24/7 news cycle and the constant need for content means that for all practical purposes, now every year is an election year, so the likelihood of government honesty is even lower. There are no "off years" where officials might temporarily abstain from the more conspicuous pandering of the campaign trail, which at least theoretically would allow adult thinking to sneak into the process.
Simply put: the political junkiedom/news entertainment trend that has spawned this 24-hour news monstrosity is making the political process even more cynical and duplicitous. Far from being "watchdogs," the "political junkies" and news celebs have actually made it harder for the Washington shills to take a day off from shilling.
I suppose I should lament this development, but as it is the news celebrities and their glassy-eyed patsy fans who are often the most zealous about declaring it our "duty" to vote, it is more fun to sit back and watch them transparently betrayed by the process they celebrate.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Anyone but Obama (or anyone else)
Mitt Romney's main selling point is that he supposedly has the best chance of beating the incumbent. It is not unlike Bob Dole in '96 (remember being instructed to "VOTE FOR A WINNER" back then?); horrible candidate, but bland enough not to scare voters away. I don't have a calculator handy, but I don't recall Mr. Dole doing very well.
Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all riding various strains of the supposed anti-Washington surge. I don't deny that this surge exists, but when you see how little candy it takes to lure supposedly small government Tea Party-types into the white vans of "movement conservatism," it is impossible not to laugh (seriously, I have tried).
Assisting Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in this toothless anti-Washington backlash are familiar small-government mascots like Steve Forbes. And what is the primary message of these mascots? Doesn't matter which Republican is nominated...we just have to beat Obama! Gotta get a Republican back in! The fact that Republicans flooded back into Congress in 2010 without so much as causing an intermission in the Obama Circus never seems to come up...
Turn on Republican radio. Watch Fox. Count how many times you hear about the evils of "bureaucrats," "politicians" and "Washington-types." And what do these rants ultimately conclude? Put your faith in Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich; all long-time bureaucratic, politicking Washington-types.
Tea Partiers; at least try to notice the paradox. The notion that it will make such a difference having Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich in Washington shows a faith in Washington not unlike what inspires Obama's supporters. So much for opposing D.C.
Blindly believing that crowning a Republican means the end of Obama's machinations not only defies recent history (2010); it defies the history of elected government. But keep telling Obama supporters they need to "brush up on their history."
These "two" sides deserve each other.
Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all riding various strains of the supposed anti-Washington surge. I don't deny that this surge exists, but when you see how little candy it takes to lure supposedly small government Tea Party-types into the white vans of "movement conservatism," it is impossible not to laugh (seriously, I have tried).
Assisting Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in this toothless anti-Washington backlash are familiar small-government mascots like Steve Forbes. And what is the primary message of these mascots? Doesn't matter which Republican is nominated...we just have to beat Obama! Gotta get a Republican back in! The fact that Republicans flooded back into Congress in 2010 without so much as causing an intermission in the Obama Circus never seems to come up...
Turn on Republican radio. Watch Fox. Count how many times you hear about the evils of "bureaucrats," "politicians" and "Washington-types." And what do these rants ultimately conclude? Put your faith in Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich; all long-time bureaucratic, politicking Washington-types.
Tea Partiers; at least try to notice the paradox. The notion that it will make such a difference having Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich in Washington shows a faith in Washington not unlike what inspires Obama's supporters. So much for opposing D.C.
Blindly believing that crowning a Republican means the end of Obama's machinations not only defies recent history (2010); it defies the history of elected government. But keep telling Obama supporters they need to "brush up on their history."
These "two" sides deserve each other.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Why Obama Will Be Reelected
Things are looking woeful for Mr. Obama. The economy has people gagging. The country’s credit rating was just reduced to AA. Jimmy Carter references are in the air. So why don’t I think the President is vulnerable?
All a Republican candidate can bring to the table is the promise of fiscal austerity. Couldn’t be a worse time for such a platform. Unemployment is high. Do you really think a majority of voters is going to get psyched about someone they think might snip their unemployment benefits?
The insolvency of Social Security/Medicare is finally being examined openly. Seniors are a serious voting bloc. Do you honestly expect those cash-strapped seniors, who don’t have a job market to fall back on, to come out in force for someone promising to “make the tough choices” on entitlements?
Sure, the recent Republican momentum has been built on the promise of smaller government. Trying to make that translate at the Executive level is a quick campaign bus ride to defeat. It wasn’t even effective enough to lock up the Senate.
Yes you say, but the debt downgrade has made everyone aware that we need fiscal austerity. Won't that be attractive to voters? No. Since when are voters rational? These adjustments have been needed for decades, yet Americans have continued voting for promises that can't be kept. What is going to make them forward-thinking now? Nothing. It is not "different this time."
Of course government is out of control. It always is. That doesn’t mean small government is going to capture voters’ imaginations. The average voter has never heard of Henry Hazlitt. He isn’t familiar with the idea of the public sector crowding out the private one. Even if he is and is concerned about it, if he thinks he is one missed unemployment check away from the Grapes of Wrath, he isn’t going to buckle down and vote for the long term. In the worst job market since World War II, talk of “boot straps” and “rugged individualism” is going to nudge more than enough people to the blue side of the aisle.
The other usual Republican plank is foreign policy. The country isn’t too excited about war these days. Even the attempts to incite people against Iran are being drowned out by the horrible economic headlines. And now that America's banana republic budgets are being discussed around dinner tables across the nation, highlighting the cost of war is no longer taboo, so if it becomes a choice between someone promising to spend on war or someone promising to spend on Medicare, war guy loses. The only foreign bogeyman that might be suitable for tricking voters is China, because the China bogeyman would be easy to scapegoat for America's rotting economy. I don’t see the Republican nominee pushing that one too far however, because unlike Afghanistan or Iran, China can actually fight back.
You ask: Why couldn’t a Republican just run on a more “moderate” platform? Because if he did, then he would be too similar to Obama, so who would rally behind him? No one. “Moderate” Republicans fail every time. Romney, who inspires no one, is being groomed for the nomination. The American electoral system is a zero sum game where turnout is king, and no one stampedes to vote for centrists. Someone like Michele Bachmann might alienate more people, but she would at least generate a high turnout. The same can’t be said of Romney (am I the only one who thinks Mitt is doing a Frank Drebin impression?).
Speaking of turnout, in '08 the young went for Obama in a big way. They might be less gaga for him this time, but c'mon, are they suddenly going to become zealots for Romney?
Obviously, not one promise made by either candidate is going to be kept. That has nothing to do with this discussion. We’re talking about whose lies are going to be the most persuasive.
Someone might ask me, “Okay then, who are you going to vote for?”
I don’t believe in voting.
Oh no, don’t tell me you’re one of those people!
I feel the same way about you.
http://twitter.com/#!/greatmikepayne
All a Republican candidate can bring to the table is the promise of fiscal austerity. Couldn’t be a worse time for such a platform. Unemployment is high. Do you really think a majority of voters is going to get psyched about someone they think might snip their unemployment benefits?
The insolvency of Social Security/Medicare is finally being examined openly. Seniors are a serious voting bloc. Do you honestly expect those cash-strapped seniors, who don’t have a job market to fall back on, to come out in force for someone promising to “make the tough choices” on entitlements?
Sure, the recent Republican momentum has been built on the promise of smaller government. Trying to make that translate at the Executive level is a quick campaign bus ride to defeat. It wasn’t even effective enough to lock up the Senate.
Yes you say, but the debt downgrade has made everyone aware that we need fiscal austerity. Won't that be attractive to voters? No. Since when are voters rational? These adjustments have been needed for decades, yet Americans have continued voting for promises that can't be kept. What is going to make them forward-thinking now? Nothing. It is not "different this time."
Of course government is out of control. It always is. That doesn’t mean small government is going to capture voters’ imaginations. The average voter has never heard of Henry Hazlitt. He isn’t familiar with the idea of the public sector crowding out the private one. Even if he is and is concerned about it, if he thinks he is one missed unemployment check away from the Grapes of Wrath, he isn’t going to buckle down and vote for the long term. In the worst job market since World War II, talk of “boot straps” and “rugged individualism” is going to nudge more than enough people to the blue side of the aisle.
The other usual Republican plank is foreign policy. The country isn’t too excited about war these days. Even the attempts to incite people against Iran are being drowned out by the horrible economic headlines. And now that America's banana republic budgets are being discussed around dinner tables across the nation, highlighting the cost of war is no longer taboo, so if it becomes a choice between someone promising to spend on war or someone promising to spend on Medicare, war guy loses. The only foreign bogeyman that might be suitable for tricking voters is China, because the China bogeyman would be easy to scapegoat for America's rotting economy. I don’t see the Republican nominee pushing that one too far however, because unlike Afghanistan or Iran, China can actually fight back.
You ask: Why couldn’t a Republican just run on a more “moderate” platform? Because if he did, then he would be too similar to Obama, so who would rally behind him? No one. “Moderate” Republicans fail every time. Romney, who inspires no one, is being groomed for the nomination. The American electoral system is a zero sum game where turnout is king, and no one stampedes to vote for centrists. Someone like Michele Bachmann might alienate more people, but she would at least generate a high turnout. The same can’t be said of Romney (am I the only one who thinks Mitt is doing a Frank Drebin impression?).
Speaking of turnout, in '08 the young went for Obama in a big way. They might be less gaga for him this time, but c'mon, are they suddenly going to become zealots for Romney?
Obviously, not one promise made by either candidate is going to be kept. That has nothing to do with this discussion. We’re talking about whose lies are going to be the most persuasive.
Someone might ask me, “Okay then, who are you going to vote for?”
I don’t believe in voting.
Oh no, don’t tell me you’re one of those people!
I feel the same way about you.
http://twitter.com/#!/greatmikepayne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)