First off, I'm not a libertarian; I'm best described as a centrist, a mix of classical liberal (partially libertarian) and progressive. Nonetheless, I still attended Ron Paul's political rally on Friday night at the University of Houston. While I agree on more or less half of what he says, I found out three things by attending last night: why he appeals to the point where his supporters are rabid and would damn near defend him to the death, how he is actually similar to Barack Obama despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and why I would most likely not vote for him in the general election.
Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped, and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.
I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.
The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.
Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.
I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.
His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.
Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.
Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.
While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.
The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.
Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.
So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Freakolitics, Part I
This series may or may not continue, but I figure I would write this to prove somewhat of a point.
This was a network that was, in a way, libertarian in nature. It had a very decentralized arrangement; you as the audience had the power to do whatever you wanted, and you more or less did whatever you pleased so as long as you were not ruining the experiences for others in the audience. More or less, the decentralized network administration depended on numerous constituent players playing fair. Unfortunately, the reality of this happening broke down, this setup wreaked of instability, and, finally, caused a massive revolt and subsequent drain in the audience.
This other network was organized like a strong federal government. It was a highly centralized tight setup, where this network's administrators made changes whenever they wanted, at many times to the chagrin of the audience. However, because this network more or less perfected the model of extending and enhancing your personal life structure instead of trying to enhancement through expansion (which was the model of the aforementioned network), the administrators knew they had an arrangement that was too good to be disrupted by audience disgust. It managed to become the most powerful network on earth.
I should mentioned that now the first network I mentioned actually took on the second network's approach of a much more centralized arrangement and it managed to slowly start regenerating audience growth.
What are these networks, you ask?
The former network I mentioned is Myspace; the latter network is Facebook.
This was a network that was, in a way, libertarian in nature. It had a very decentralized arrangement; you as the audience had the power to do whatever you wanted, and you more or less did whatever you pleased so as long as you were not ruining the experiences for others in the audience. More or less, the decentralized network administration depended on numerous constituent players playing fair. Unfortunately, the reality of this happening broke down, this setup wreaked of instability, and, finally, caused a massive revolt and subsequent drain in the audience.
This other network was organized like a strong federal government. It was a highly centralized tight setup, where this network's administrators made changes whenever they wanted, at many times to the chagrin of the audience. However, because this network more or less perfected the model of extending and enhancing your personal life structure instead of trying to enhancement through expansion (which was the model of the aforementioned network), the administrators knew they had an arrangement that was too good to be disrupted by audience disgust. It managed to become the most powerful network on earth.
I should mentioned that now the first network I mentioned actually took on the second network's approach of a much more centralized arrangement and it managed to slowly start regenerating audience growth.
What are these networks, you ask?
The former network I mentioned is Myspace; the latter network is Facebook.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Emotional Politics and the Real Political Enemy of Everyday Americans
Once upon a time, when the United States was in its most nascent form, it was largely reason, not emotion, that dominated American politics. The greatest illustration of this political exercise was indeed the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which established the current U.S. Constitution, where delegates and leaders convened from across the country for one predominant reason, amongst others: the Articles of Confederation was simply not working and a grossly ineffective form of government for the United States.
I want to note something before I go any further -- when I say governing by reason, I mean this as governing with critical thinking and making decisions due a conclusion brought on by critical thought, as opposed to a pure emotional reactionary form of governing. "Emotional governing", as what I call it (though someone may have already beat me to the punch with that terminology) is needless to say, dangerous. More on this shortly.
It's actually galvanizing what governance based on reason, not emotion could actually accomplish. Another example -- which this time I am going to go outside of the United States -- would be Canada's debt crisis of the early 1990s, which was the ultimate result of government expenditure was disproportionate to not only what the Canadian government could afford, but what the national tax base and what the provinces could truly flip the bill for. Chretien's Liberal Party adopted what was then a revolutionary concept of Canada's stalwart left-leaning party: fiscal conservatism. This approach was based on reason, not emotion -- the ruling party was willing to put aside ideology for the greater good for an entire country. If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party did the exact same thing (oh, you know "compromise"), then I think there would be widespread wagers across the country on mutually assured, doomsday destruction.
Fine, fine, maybe that was a little bit too much of hyperbole. Yet, one thing that concerns me, and I'm seeing this on both sides of the ideological divide, that emotional gratification, with using political ideology as a front, has been the driving force of American politics for the past century plus.
Now, some good has come out of emotional governance. Declared wars -- such as the First and Second World Wars (especially the latter with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941) -- were emotional statements. Government moves during the Civil Rights Era was a product of an emotional crusade (amongst other things, notoriously), because the more antagonistic state governments were making their own emotional stand. Conversely, however, there are scores of other examples where bad has emerged from emotional governance -- Jim Crow laws, gay marriage bans, undeclared wars -- just to name a few.
However, don't get me wrong, this is not intended to be a history lesson. This is intended to be a contemporary lesson. Here we are, with another election being tagged "the most important election of our generation", with just about every single political faction in this country looking to make an emotional statement on things such as economic inequality, social inequality, nationalism, "American values", and other issues, real and purported. So here we are, with tenured politicians from the left and right expressing themselves to voters as "saviors", "rescuers", and "enlightened individuals". This is disgusting and disturbing politics. Sure, there may be some good of it, such as pushing us to critically think about some issues, however, we're steered into an emotional response, instead of a response derived from reason. Let's look at it:
However, the biggest political enemy that everyday Americans have is not the politicians...it's everyday Americans. How, you ask?
By playing right along with emotional driven politics too many times of the time.
I want to note something before I go any further -- when I say governing by reason, I mean this as governing with critical thinking and making decisions due a conclusion brought on by critical thought, as opposed to a pure emotional reactionary form of governing. "Emotional governing", as what I call it (though someone may have already beat me to the punch with that terminology) is needless to say, dangerous. More on this shortly.
It's actually galvanizing what governance based on reason, not emotion could actually accomplish. Another example -- which this time I am going to go outside of the United States -- would be Canada's debt crisis of the early 1990s, which was the ultimate result of government expenditure was disproportionate to not only what the Canadian government could afford, but what the national tax base and what the provinces could truly flip the bill for. Chretien's Liberal Party adopted what was then a revolutionary concept of Canada's stalwart left-leaning party: fiscal conservatism. This approach was based on reason, not emotion -- the ruling party was willing to put aside ideology for the greater good for an entire country. If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party did the exact same thing (oh, you know "compromise"), then I think there would be widespread wagers across the country on mutually assured, doomsday destruction.
Fine, fine, maybe that was a little bit too much of hyperbole. Yet, one thing that concerns me, and I'm seeing this on both sides of the ideological divide, that emotional gratification, with using political ideology as a front, has been the driving force of American politics for the past century plus.
Now, some good has come out of emotional governance. Declared wars -- such as the First and Second World Wars (especially the latter with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941) -- were emotional statements. Government moves during the Civil Rights Era was a product of an emotional crusade (amongst other things, notoriously), because the more antagonistic state governments were making their own emotional stand. Conversely, however, there are scores of other examples where bad has emerged from emotional governance -- Jim Crow laws, gay marriage bans, undeclared wars -- just to name a few.
However, don't get me wrong, this is not intended to be a history lesson. This is intended to be a contemporary lesson. Here we are, with another election being tagged "the most important election of our generation", with just about every single political faction in this country looking to make an emotional statement on things such as economic inequality, social inequality, nationalism, "American values", and other issues, real and purported. So here we are, with tenured politicians from the left and right expressing themselves to voters as "saviors", "rescuers", and "enlightened individuals". This is disgusting and disturbing politics. Sure, there may be some good of it, such as pushing us to critically think about some issues, however, we're steered into an emotional response, instead of a response derived from reason. Let's look at it:
- There's the end of American unilateralism. We don't critically address it, but we panic over it -- all the while at the same time cry that other countries must strive for greater self-sufficiency and follow "America's example". Uh...
- There's the fact that financial system collapsed in 2008, and yet while I am in favor of Keynesian principles, it's fairly clear that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration acted on emotion and emotion alone.
- The health care bill might just be the biggest emotional statement of the past 25 years politically -- on both sides of the aisle.
- Leaders be damned if they would even critically look at the fact that the deficit is more of an issue with revenue than it is with spending, brought to us in part by clusterfuck tax code.
- There's no legitimate, secular reason from banning gay marriage. Gay marriage bans, and legalization, may be the greatest social emotional statements of the 21st century.
- The Republican presidential nomination race has degraded into a caricature of post-truth politics (Romney), outright demagoguery (Santorum), elitism (Paul), and hypocrisy (Gingrich).
- The Democratic Party, for the past four decades the alleged defenders of individual rights, stood by idly with NDAA.
- The Republican Party and Democratic Party do more to obstruct each other than to find solutions to alleged problems.
However, the biggest political enemy that everyday Americans have is not the politicians...it's everyday Americans. How, you ask?
By playing right along with emotional driven politics too many times of the time.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
How Antipathy Has Fueled - and Will Doom - the Republican Party
I attended a political lecture given by William Galston tonight here at the University of Houston. Dr. Galston is a former public policy advisor to former President Bill Clinton and a noted progressive.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
The End of American Unilateralism
There's two emerging forces taking shape in the United States today -- one is a force that recognizes that American unilateralism can lead to disastrous consequences; that recognizes government and policy should aim for realism, not idealism; and that there is a definitive line between sound patriotism and irrational, idealistic, and illogical nationalism. The other force is rooted in a deep insecurity held by the current generation of this country, with visions of the United States being on the decline with elevated unemployment, stagnating wages, a dysfunctional government, and countries such as China, India, and Brazil emerging as influential world economies along with being even bigger players on the foreign policy scene.
I read Fareed Zakaria's (who is emerging as my favorite political writer of all time) Washington Post column, which is in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, in response to his quip that Barack Obama believes that "...this century is the post-American century". Zakaria appropriately derided the GOP front runner's sentiments, criticizing it as narrow-minded fodder and stressing that the reality is that the "age of American unipolarity -- which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is over." This is true. Zakaria's book takes the position that the United States should not necessarily feel threatened, but more or less should embrace the emerging success of the aforementioned countries.
The irony of the nationalist-fueled campaigns that the Republican Party candidates have waged is that they constantly invoke the historical foundations of American values, yet at the same time will deny that not even the United States is immune to what history has proven time and time again -- that unilateralism and unipolarity is not perpetual. It's a lesson that Spain learned in the 17th and 18th centuries, that France learned after Waterloo, and what Britain learned after the two World Wars. Not to mention the American system, which for years upon years was touted as the socioeconomic model that everyone should follow, was soon embraced by China (slightly), India (somewhat), and Brazil, amongst others, and its no surprise why those countries are where they are now.
Yet, at the same time, there's something else at play when it comes to the decline of American unilateralism and unipolarity -- the perpetual case of insecurity that, in truth, is displayed but not often discussed in the way that it actually needs to be discussed. Ideally, a nation's foreign policy would to be coordinate the interests of their own country into mutually beneficial and peaceful international relationships. I stress ideally. With unilateralism and unipolarity, this is not the case. The European imperialist drive from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century is a perfect example of this. Britain built an empire over two centuries that proved to be unsustainable in just a short decade plus after the conclusion of World War II. Napoleon's unipolar drive for France only lasted a little more than a decade. We all know what happened to Spain. In short, having a foreign policy that aims to do more or less anything and everything to make sure that the pendulum perpetually swings into your nation's favor is almost always going to do more long term harm than good. The insecurity that fuels the idea that a country needs to do anything and everything to maintain their position at the top of the mountain is driven by nationalist pride. Throughout the course of history that course of action has proven to eventually catch up with the country sooner or later.
Despite not being their biggest fan, I recognize that President Obama, along with Representative Paul, have somewhat a grip on this new reality. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with bringing an end to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that is a stalwart for neoconservative thinking. It did not do any favors for the United States before and it certainly won't do any favors for the United States now or in the future.
I read Fareed Zakaria's (who is emerging as my favorite political writer of all time) Washington Post column, which is in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, in response to his quip that Barack Obama believes that "...this century is the post-American century". Zakaria appropriately derided the GOP front runner's sentiments, criticizing it as narrow-minded fodder and stressing that the reality is that the "age of American unipolarity -- which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is over." This is true. Zakaria's book takes the position that the United States should not necessarily feel threatened, but more or less should embrace the emerging success of the aforementioned countries.
The irony of the nationalist-fueled campaigns that the Republican Party candidates have waged is that they constantly invoke the historical foundations of American values, yet at the same time will deny that not even the United States is immune to what history has proven time and time again -- that unilateralism and unipolarity is not perpetual. It's a lesson that Spain learned in the 17th and 18th centuries, that France learned after Waterloo, and what Britain learned after the two World Wars. Not to mention the American system, which for years upon years was touted as the socioeconomic model that everyone should follow, was soon embraced by China (slightly), India (somewhat), and Brazil, amongst others, and its no surprise why those countries are where they are now.
Yet, at the same time, there's something else at play when it comes to the decline of American unilateralism and unipolarity -- the perpetual case of insecurity that, in truth, is displayed but not often discussed in the way that it actually needs to be discussed. Ideally, a nation's foreign policy would to be coordinate the interests of their own country into mutually beneficial and peaceful international relationships. I stress ideally. With unilateralism and unipolarity, this is not the case. The European imperialist drive from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century is a perfect example of this. Britain built an empire over two centuries that proved to be unsustainable in just a short decade plus after the conclusion of World War II. Napoleon's unipolar drive for France only lasted a little more than a decade. We all know what happened to Spain. In short, having a foreign policy that aims to do more or less anything and everything to make sure that the pendulum perpetually swings into your nation's favor is almost always going to do more long term harm than good. The insecurity that fuels the idea that a country needs to do anything and everything to maintain their position at the top of the mountain is driven by nationalist pride. Throughout the course of history that course of action has proven to eventually catch up with the country sooner or later.
Despite not being their biggest fan, I recognize that President Obama, along with Representative Paul, have somewhat a grip on this new reality. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with bringing an end to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that is a stalwart for neoconservative thinking. It did not do any favors for the United States before and it certainly won't do any favors for the United States now or in the future.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
A Tale of Three Candidates
I've come to a realization about the three current front runners of the race for the Republican nomination. It might be a conclusion some of you have reached or may be none of you have reached.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Could we learn something from the Canadian model?
I came across a highly interesting column concerning early 1990s Canada, who which saw their debt to GDP ratio skyrocket, slow growth stemming from high interest rates, and downgrades by the major credit rating agencies. Canada's welfare state grew under Prime Ministers William Lyon Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, and Brian Mulroney, but reached a point that by the 1980s, fiscal issues stemming from the expansive social programs along with the slowing growth were looming and would eventually explode heading into the 1990s. Further exacerbating this issue was the weakness of the Canadian dollar.
After a Liberal Party budget released in 1994 to widespread criticism for the fact that it still included spending increases despite the numerous reforms that were included in the budget package, Chretien, then Finance Minister Paul Martin, and the rest of the Liberal Party broke out the scissors, shears, axes, chainsaws -- whatever adjective that describes cutting that you want to use -- and took to reducing Canada's debt.
Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio reached its all time peak in 1995-96 in the midst of the implements of the cuts. Growth actually did stagnate, according to a CBIC study, whenever Martin called for widespread spending freezes in 1996. Chretien would push for departments to cut budgets -- which ranged from as little as 5% to as much as 65%. In addition, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases were 7 to 1, as Chretien would note in his interview with Reuters it was about "what was needed most." The spending cuts did have adverse effects as Canada's Medicare system suffered budget cuts that lengthened medical waiting lists (which is what you hear of constantly when United States conservatives deride the Canadian healthcare system) and put many provinces in a serious bind as they depended on the federal government for funding of some services.
The final component of the turnaround came when the Bank of Canada lowered interest rates in 1996, allowing Canada to finally reap the benefits of the fairly positive global economy, spurred by the United States and China's economic growth. Canada's budget returned to black ink in 1997 and remained so until the global financial crash and North American auto industry crash of 2008 and 2009. There's also the fundamental difference between the Canadian outcome from the recession as opposed to the outcome in the United States -- Canada emerged from it a year later as the most fiscally healthy country of all the G7 nations.
There are two key things about the success of Canada -- for one, the Canadian government scaled back to a more manageable proportion of size and role versus population it is supposed to serve. Let's not get confused here -- Canadian social programs are held to high regard and are fairly popular in Canada, even though some of the Canadians I spoke to complain about the Goods and Service Tax. In addition, and probably the most important thing, is that the Canadian government was largely united in tackling the deficit.
However, here in the present-day United States, we're treated to ideological warfare between a left that is sick of concessions and a right that is exercising reactionary power play. Austrian economists such as presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) argue for spending cuts, tax cuts, and reduced government while Keynesian economists such as Nobel laureate professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that argue against draconian cuts because of the harm they would do to the economy. I cite Paul as an example because Paul has demonstrated to be the only person on the Republican side that truly has an understanding of economic theory. I cite Krugman, not because of him being a Nobel Prize winner in economics, but because he is the largest trumpeter for the mixed economy.
The Canadian government's austerity push in the mid-1990s proved both of them to be right. As stated before, spending freeze mandates and tax cuts actually stagnated Canadian economic growth (proving Krugman right), while at the same time allowed the Canadian government to become leaner and more efficient (proving Paul right). However, the fundamental difference was how instrumental the central bank was in Canada's recovery -- something that would be to the chagrin of Paul, but not exactly -- the Bank of Canada decided to finally rectify years of poor monetary policy by reducing interest rates. The Federal Reserve's monetary policy is pointless -- low interest rates really only work when banks see credit extension as an asset and not a liability.
The true value of Canada's turnaround is not necessarily about luck; its about how political leaders put aside ideology for the greater good of a nation in recognition of what needed to be done. The Liberal Party cutting spending is similar to the Republican Party reversing Bush era tax cuts, but as much as the Liberal Party hated to do it (as then Finance Minister Paul Martin once disclosed), the Party had to set aside its ideological platform of social welfare expansion for the greater good of Canada. The Liberal Party actually demonstrated that neither political party has been able to demonstrate down here -- putting aside a staunch ideology stance to bring needed stability to the country instead of only having a narrow minded view through the eyeglasses of their beliefs as to how to achieve it. The greatest failure, in my opinion, of Washington these days is that a political party's need to triumph in political chess is outweighing getting anything done -- especially in the case of the Republican Party.
There was an additional footnote that Chretien and others noted that politicians can still win elections despite massive austerity measures. However, one thing that kept Chretien in power for 10 years as Prime Minister was the growth of the Canadian economy in the late 90s to the early 2000s. If people can see a beneficial payoff of a given administration, then people will keep that administration in power. People saw the payoff in keeping Ronald Reagan in power in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2004.
So what is the greatest lesson that can be learned from the Canadian austerity model of the 1990s? Its not the spending cuts and tax cuts and those said cuts exceeding, by proportion, increased taxation. The reason why the measures taken by the Liberal Party of the mid-1990s worked for Canada is because Canada provided a welfare state that was way too big for a population to be able to pay for and had an economical system that allowed for the federal government to carry too much weight in the mixed economy balance. The issue in the United States is less about the welfare state and more about entitlement spending and an eroding tax base augmented by a complicated tax code that actually does more bad than good to the fiscal health of the United States. The biggest lesson learned is that the controlling Liberal Party set aside ideology to solve a problem. The United States government needs to solve problems first and worry about how that problem solving abides to ideology second (preferably, not really worry about it at all). A continued failure to do that will only exacerbate problems and quite possibly lead the United States to that "decline" from the perch of secured supremacy in an insecure world.
After a Liberal Party budget released in 1994 to widespread criticism for the fact that it still included spending increases despite the numerous reforms that were included in the budget package, Chretien, then Finance Minister Paul Martin, and the rest of the Liberal Party broke out the scissors, shears, axes, chainsaws -- whatever adjective that describes cutting that you want to use -- and took to reducing Canada's debt.
Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio reached its all time peak in 1995-96 in the midst of the implements of the cuts. Growth actually did stagnate, according to a CBIC study, whenever Martin called for widespread spending freezes in 1996. Chretien would push for departments to cut budgets -- which ranged from as little as 5% to as much as 65%. In addition, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases were 7 to 1, as Chretien would note in his interview with Reuters it was about "what was needed most." The spending cuts did have adverse effects as Canada's Medicare system suffered budget cuts that lengthened medical waiting lists (which is what you hear of constantly when United States conservatives deride the Canadian healthcare system) and put many provinces in a serious bind as they depended on the federal government for funding of some services.
The final component of the turnaround came when the Bank of Canada lowered interest rates in 1996, allowing Canada to finally reap the benefits of the fairly positive global economy, spurred by the United States and China's economic growth. Canada's budget returned to black ink in 1997 and remained so until the global financial crash and North American auto industry crash of 2008 and 2009. There's also the fundamental difference between the Canadian outcome from the recession as opposed to the outcome in the United States -- Canada emerged from it a year later as the most fiscally healthy country of all the G7 nations.
There are two key things about the success of Canada -- for one, the Canadian government scaled back to a more manageable proportion of size and role versus population it is supposed to serve. Let's not get confused here -- Canadian social programs are held to high regard and are fairly popular in Canada, even though some of the Canadians I spoke to complain about the Goods and Service Tax. In addition, and probably the most important thing, is that the Canadian government was largely united in tackling the deficit.
However, here in the present-day United States, we're treated to ideological warfare between a left that is sick of concessions and a right that is exercising reactionary power play. Austrian economists such as presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) argue for spending cuts, tax cuts, and reduced government while Keynesian economists such as Nobel laureate professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that argue against draconian cuts because of the harm they would do to the economy. I cite Paul as an example because Paul has demonstrated to be the only person on the Republican side that truly has an understanding of economic theory. I cite Krugman, not because of him being a Nobel Prize winner in economics, but because he is the largest trumpeter for the mixed economy.
The Canadian government's austerity push in the mid-1990s proved both of them to be right. As stated before, spending freeze mandates and tax cuts actually stagnated Canadian economic growth (proving Krugman right), while at the same time allowed the Canadian government to become leaner and more efficient (proving Paul right). However, the fundamental difference was how instrumental the central bank was in Canada's recovery -- something that would be to the chagrin of Paul, but not exactly -- the Bank of Canada decided to finally rectify years of poor monetary policy by reducing interest rates. The Federal Reserve's monetary policy is pointless -- low interest rates really only work when banks see credit extension as an asset and not a liability.
The true value of Canada's turnaround is not necessarily about luck; its about how political leaders put aside ideology for the greater good of a nation in recognition of what needed to be done. The Liberal Party cutting spending is similar to the Republican Party reversing Bush era tax cuts, but as much as the Liberal Party hated to do it (as then Finance Minister Paul Martin once disclosed), the Party had to set aside its ideological platform of social welfare expansion for the greater good of Canada. The Liberal Party actually demonstrated that neither political party has been able to demonstrate down here -- putting aside a staunch ideology stance to bring needed stability to the country instead of only having a narrow minded view through the eyeglasses of their beliefs as to how to achieve it. The greatest failure, in my opinion, of Washington these days is that a political party's need to triumph in political chess is outweighing getting anything done -- especially in the case of the Republican Party.
There was an additional footnote that Chretien and others noted that politicians can still win elections despite massive austerity measures. However, one thing that kept Chretien in power for 10 years as Prime Minister was the growth of the Canadian economy in the late 90s to the early 2000s. If people can see a beneficial payoff of a given administration, then people will keep that administration in power. People saw the payoff in keeping Ronald Reagan in power in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2004.
So what is the greatest lesson that can be learned from the Canadian austerity model of the 1990s? Its not the spending cuts and tax cuts and those said cuts exceeding, by proportion, increased taxation. The reason why the measures taken by the Liberal Party of the mid-1990s worked for Canada is because Canada provided a welfare state that was way too big for a population to be able to pay for and had an economical system that allowed for the federal government to carry too much weight in the mixed economy balance. The issue in the United States is less about the welfare state and more about entitlement spending and an eroding tax base augmented by a complicated tax code that actually does more bad than good to the fiscal health of the United States. The biggest lesson learned is that the controlling Liberal Party set aside ideology to solve a problem. The United States government needs to solve problems first and worry about how that problem solving abides to ideology second (preferably, not really worry about it at all). A continued failure to do that will only exacerbate problems and quite possibly lead the United States to that "decline" from the perch of secured supremacy in an insecure world.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Yes, media, Ron Paul is relevant
 |
| Official United States Congressional Photo of Ron Paul (2007) |
"We furnish the Presidential race." - Somebody in some media organization that decided that the most compelling presidential race will be the one that is the most salacious.
Maybe there is a point to Ron Paul being somewhat ignored by the mainstream media -- he currently does not lead in any of the major polls for Republican candidates and there's only moderate awareness of him compared to Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry. However, the truth is that the mainstream media shoves Romney, Cain, and Perry down our throats, along with Michelle Bachmann and Chris Christie, despite the fact that Bachmann is not even a relevant candidate and Christie has no intentions in running. Aside from the fact that Paul is the most prominent American libertarian since Barry Goldwater, Paul has very little the media would want to salivate over: he doesn't utter comments in stupidity (Perry), has no controversy surrounding his religion (Romney), and he does not have a catchy tax plan (Cain).
I have to applaud Ron Paul despite the fact that I disagree vehemently with his economic views. He doesn't live for the political sideshow, his views have been largely consistent, and for the most part he practices what he preaches. He never maxes out his Congressional office budget and he has not enrolled in any Congressional pension plan. There's nothing really controversial about him (okay, there was the newsletter issue that he actually handled pretty damn well in my book). Not even his comments about the United States involvement in the Middle East. He doesn't even live for the soundbite. He doesn't have any political feuds. At least Andrew Napolitano gives him face time.
Paul doesn't get any attention in any of the presidential debates, which is something I really don't get. Rick Santorum is a pop conservative, Bachmann uses too much hyperbole, Perry aims for shock value, Jon Huntsman is a narcissist, Gary Johnson is way out in left field, and Romney is actually a moderate who is trying way too hard to appeal to conservatives. Paul offers solutions and political beliefs that can be subject to debate on an intellectual level, which is something that cannot be said about the rest of the Republican candidates (all right, I'll give Romney some credit). As a corollary to that, Paul professes far superior knowledge of the issues and offers said solutions that are far more coherent. Whether or not media outlets such as Fox, CNN, or even Bloomberg are intimidated by Paul or just trying to milk Romney versus ______ so much is up to all of you to decide, though I'll personally vote for the latter.
Overall, besides the media's infatuation with Romney versus ________, the media's real issue with Ron Paul is that he's not really a pop candidate -- as in, a candidate that the media can easily make a generalization about. He's not a party personality or a personality of a movement. Or, in other words, he's Ron Paul, a libertarian, instead of Ron Paul, the GOP superstar or Ron Paul, the darling of the Tea Party. He is truly his own man and his own candidate and he refrains from political grandstanding and pandering so that he can score constituency points through the media. That's what his followers adore about him. Consequently, that's why the media seems bored with him.
Notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that if Paul got even more media exposure that he would be a candidate that would be setting the world on fire. Considering that he is the most coherent Republican presidential candidate, he probably would set the world on fire, at least for the GOP. However, it is clear that if Ron Paul's candidacy is not successful, then it will be largely the fault of the mainstream media, who the American public will turn to be educated about the candidates, that consistently push him to being the candidate for libertarian political underground. When considering that, it is a damn shame that the media is doing a disservice to the American public with the debates: the debates should be more about a forum to get to know where all the candidates stand and not a political grandstanding and pandering showcase.
Yet, while most of the country remains ignorant to Ron Paul, he still continues to raise money at an aggressive pace with a series of successful Internet-based money bombs and donation drives. Paul still has a populist appeal that could resonate with more and more voters as the primary season begins to heat up at the beginning of the 2012 calendar year. Make no mistake about it: despite the fact that he is not a media darling, he is still a relevant candidate. It's my hope, personally in at least for the sake of healthy, sensible American political discourse, that Paul does not remain lost in the shadows of political mainstream media engineering.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
So What Exactly Should Be The Size and Role of Government in the United States?
What should be the size and role of government?
The current picture of the United States is as follows: the nation as of the 2010 Census is inhabited by 311 million people, with 46 million Americans falling below the poverty line as of 2011 (granted the 14.3% of Americans living in poverty in 2010 is nowhere near the 22% that lived in poverty in 1960), with the top 20% controlling over 80% of the wealth as of 2007 (with the top 1% controlling 40% of it), and with the top 10% of income earners pulling in nearly half the wages paid out in the United States as of 2007. The latter two statistics haven't been seen since World War I. Middle class wages have largely stagnated and reports have sprung out that they have begun to drop; upper class wages have slightly dropped as well, but middle class erosion is at ten times the velocity of the upper class.
It's not too surprising -- the American ideal is that if you work hard and become successful you should be able to reap the rewards from it. That's a fair argument, however, any rewards that you reap are at the expense of others. Elizabeth Warren is right -- no one in this country got rich by themselves. However, as the rich get richer, they are able to retain more of it and expand on it for that they can weather any increase in the cost of living to a degree that no one in the shrinking middle class can. Besides, the wealthy retains their purchasing power, despite their high tax rate (which remains lower than the peaks of the mid-20th century when it reached as high as 80-90% for millionaires, however, then just like now, despite the heavy taxation they still had more purchasing power than the majority swath of the population).
It is a consequence of the greatest peace time expansion in history back in the 1990s -- income did increase for Americans in the 1990s, however, cost of living increased faster, causing more and more middle class Americans to rely on credit, which caused more and more Americans to fall into debt when more and more Americans reached their limits in credit. Combine that with the emergence of the global marketplace, new technologies to replace labor, and companies realizing they can retain more earnings by paying less for labor by outsourcing it, ended up slowing down consumption. A downturn in consumption affects the middle class more than anybody because it is these wage and salary earners in the middle class that need the rest of the middle class to keep them employed.
As a consequence, its led to the expansion of the welfare state. Welfare spending has increased by 160%, nominally, in the years between 2001 and 2011; an illustration of an expanding role of government. Of course, the US population over that time period only grew by 10%. Numerous things lead to increased welfare expenditures, all of them well publicized to the point that I don't really need to repeat every single last one of them; but this is going to be continuously the reality of a country with disparity this bad.
Yes, it does seem like I have digressed to what I originally set out to discuss, but I have not -- this has everything to do with the role of government, because as much as middle class American despise and distrust the government, middle class Americans will turn to it because the middle class truly believes the challenges that they are facing currently are bigger than them. Americans don't necessarily want to pay for it, but they'll turn to it. And, as the vast majority of Americans see more and more of their collective wealth erode, they're going to raise their expectations as to how government should conduct themselves, and then react in anger when they do not feel that government is serving its purpose. It's always been like that. With the advent of the Internet and 24 hour news media, we're just a whole hell of a lot more aware of it.
Americans want the government to solve the health care issue. Americans want government to improve infrastructure. Americans want government to come up with a solution to the economy. Americans want government to ensure that when they get old, frail, and can't work, government will be there to provide them their safety net in income. If it was not the case, Americans would advocate for the dissolution of the three major entitlement programs, would not care if roads fell into disrepair or goods would not be able to efficiently move across the country, and Americans would chant for lassiez-faire economics until it makes a Democrat bleed to death from the ears. Americans aren't, no matter how loud the Tea Party is purported to be.
Yet, at the same time, we're debating what should be the size and role of government. What can be agreed on is that government should be there to ensure individual liberty. Believe it or not, that's actually the basic tenet of American liberalism (which, for example, if pop liberals are to truly adhere to true liberal philosophy then they would actually support gun rights). So, in theory, at least in my mind, the size and role of government should be proportional to what is necessary to ensure the individual liberties of 311 million Americans.
Not every American can elevate themselves up the class ladder and escape poverty. Not every American is going to be well enough to take care of themselves. This is a capitalist system: there are bound to be winners and losers, those that make money and those that don't. There will be those that will be self-sufficient and self-inefficient. There will be those that will be stuck depending on the government for an extended period of time because unfortunately they fell through the cracks. Long story short, there are those that cannot help the disadvantaged position that they have put in and in truth, that is the collective truth that makes up the lower middle class and the lower class that waddles in poverty.
But what constitutes individual liberty? The right to health care? The right to own guns? The right for government not to tax the living shit out of you even though taxation is actually necessary? The right to not infringe on your privacy? The right for you as a middle class American not to have your livelihood assaulted by the private sector that has proven not to be able to behave itself? Is it the right to even having a middle class? Do the lower class, especially the ones that cannot help their position, have a right to have a decent life provided to them by the government? And I could go on and on. I could further drivel into government's role in the economy, but I'll save that for another day.
I'm going to get to the whole point of this post: Americans -- from the constituency to the politicians -- have no collective fucking clue about what's the optimal government proportion of size and role to population. That's why you have two different political parties warring over ideology in Washington. It's why you have four predominant schools of political philosophical thought. It's why Sean Hannity has a career. It's why Fox News and MSNBC have regressed themselves into being ideological news outlets. It's why you're pissed at Bush, why you're pissed at Obama, and why we keep debating who's better out of Reagan and Clinton. That's why we have the current political climate and class warfare.
**Note: If you're wondering I didn't go on and on about how the wealthy factor into this it's simple: if there's a 80%/20% in split in wealth held by a 20%/80% split in the population, respectively, with a further 1%/99% split among that 20%, it's obvious that the wealthy are in the driver's seat.
The current picture of the United States is as follows: the nation as of the 2010 Census is inhabited by 311 million people, with 46 million Americans falling below the poverty line as of 2011 (granted the 14.3% of Americans living in poverty in 2010 is nowhere near the 22% that lived in poverty in 1960), with the top 20% controlling over 80% of the wealth as of 2007 (with the top 1% controlling 40% of it), and with the top 10% of income earners pulling in nearly half the wages paid out in the United States as of 2007. The latter two statistics haven't been seen since World War I. Middle class wages have largely stagnated and reports have sprung out that they have begun to drop; upper class wages have slightly dropped as well, but middle class erosion is at ten times the velocity of the upper class.
It's not too surprising -- the American ideal is that if you work hard and become successful you should be able to reap the rewards from it. That's a fair argument, however, any rewards that you reap are at the expense of others. Elizabeth Warren is right -- no one in this country got rich by themselves. However, as the rich get richer, they are able to retain more of it and expand on it for that they can weather any increase in the cost of living to a degree that no one in the shrinking middle class can. Besides, the wealthy retains their purchasing power, despite their high tax rate (which remains lower than the peaks of the mid-20th century when it reached as high as 80-90% for millionaires, however, then just like now, despite the heavy taxation they still had more purchasing power than the majority swath of the population).
It is a consequence of the greatest peace time expansion in history back in the 1990s -- income did increase for Americans in the 1990s, however, cost of living increased faster, causing more and more middle class Americans to rely on credit, which caused more and more Americans to fall into debt when more and more Americans reached their limits in credit. Combine that with the emergence of the global marketplace, new technologies to replace labor, and companies realizing they can retain more earnings by paying less for labor by outsourcing it, ended up slowing down consumption. A downturn in consumption affects the middle class more than anybody because it is these wage and salary earners in the middle class that need the rest of the middle class to keep them employed.
As a consequence, its led to the expansion of the welfare state. Welfare spending has increased by 160%, nominally, in the years between 2001 and 2011; an illustration of an expanding role of government. Of course, the US population over that time period only grew by 10%. Numerous things lead to increased welfare expenditures, all of them well publicized to the point that I don't really need to repeat every single last one of them; but this is going to be continuously the reality of a country with disparity this bad.
Yes, it does seem like I have digressed to what I originally set out to discuss, but I have not -- this has everything to do with the role of government, because as much as middle class American despise and distrust the government, middle class Americans will turn to it because the middle class truly believes the challenges that they are facing currently are bigger than them. Americans don't necessarily want to pay for it, but they'll turn to it. And, as the vast majority of Americans see more and more of their collective wealth erode, they're going to raise their expectations as to how government should conduct themselves, and then react in anger when they do not feel that government is serving its purpose. It's always been like that. With the advent of the Internet and 24 hour news media, we're just a whole hell of a lot more aware of it.
Americans want the government to solve the health care issue. Americans want government to improve infrastructure. Americans want government to come up with a solution to the economy. Americans want government to ensure that when they get old, frail, and can't work, government will be there to provide them their safety net in income. If it was not the case, Americans would advocate for the dissolution of the three major entitlement programs, would not care if roads fell into disrepair or goods would not be able to efficiently move across the country, and Americans would chant for lassiez-faire economics until it makes a Democrat bleed to death from the ears. Americans aren't, no matter how loud the Tea Party is purported to be.
Yet, at the same time, we're debating what should be the size and role of government. What can be agreed on is that government should be there to ensure individual liberty. Believe it or not, that's actually the basic tenet of American liberalism (which, for example, if pop liberals are to truly adhere to true liberal philosophy then they would actually support gun rights). So, in theory, at least in my mind, the size and role of government should be proportional to what is necessary to ensure the individual liberties of 311 million Americans.
Not every American can elevate themselves up the class ladder and escape poverty. Not every American is going to be well enough to take care of themselves. This is a capitalist system: there are bound to be winners and losers, those that make money and those that don't. There will be those that will be self-sufficient and self-inefficient. There will be those that will be stuck depending on the government for an extended period of time because unfortunately they fell through the cracks. Long story short, there are those that cannot help the disadvantaged position that they have put in and in truth, that is the collective truth that makes up the lower middle class and the lower class that waddles in poverty.
But what constitutes individual liberty? The right to health care? The right to own guns? The right for government not to tax the living shit out of you even though taxation is actually necessary? The right to not infringe on your privacy? The right for you as a middle class American not to have your livelihood assaulted by the private sector that has proven not to be able to behave itself? Is it the right to even having a middle class? Do the lower class, especially the ones that cannot help their position, have a right to have a decent life provided to them by the government? And I could go on and on. I could further drivel into government's role in the economy, but I'll save that for another day.
I'm going to get to the whole point of this post: Americans -- from the constituency to the politicians -- have no collective fucking clue about what's the optimal government proportion of size and role to population. That's why you have two different political parties warring over ideology in Washington. It's why you have four predominant schools of political philosophical thought. It's why Sean Hannity has a career. It's why Fox News and MSNBC have regressed themselves into being ideological news outlets. It's why you're pissed at Bush, why you're pissed at Obama, and why we keep debating who's better out of Reagan and Clinton. That's why we have the current political climate and class warfare.
**Note: If you're wondering I didn't go on and on about how the wealthy factor into this it's simple: if there's a 80%/20% in split in wealth held by a 20%/80% split in the population, respectively, with a further 1%/99% split among that 20%, it's obvious that the wealthy are in the driver's seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)