Category Archives: Political philosophy

SOLUTIONS ARE NOT THE ROAD TO POWER, A CRISIS IS

The Republicans caved when Boehner offered a tax increase for the rich.  Obama said no and offered nothing in return.  The Republicans caved on the debt limit.  Obama said no and offered nothing in return.  An uncompromising stance is a win-win for the president.  Either he gets 100% of what he wants or he gets a crisis, a crisis that the majority will see as Republican caused.  Resolution isn’t the road to more power; a crisis is.

Obama may not know (or care) how an economy works but he does know how to get elected and how to maximize his power.  He is the product of democracy predicted by both Plato and Aristotle.  One who is put in power by the masses due to his ability to charm them, not for his knowledge and ability to govern for their benefit.

The community organizer will certainly take us to the brink and maybe over.  Our best hope is that he sees a last minute compromise as a dramatic way to claim he fought to the bitter end then finally saved the country from the radical right.

WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN VIEW OF AMERICAN POLITICS?

Before you can answer the question “What is the European perspective of the United States” you need to ask “Which Europeans?”.  Those who lived behind the infamous Iron Curtain have a very different view from those that were never trodden into de facto poverty under the Marxist Socialist Soviet boot.  They see where we are going because they have been that route.  Thanks to the PowerLine here is a sample of a common view from Eastern Europe.

An editorial from the Czech newspaper Prager Zeitungon:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.  Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.  The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

This sentiment is nowhere to be found in countries like Germany, France or Spain.  If you have been there and suffered it, you know it when you see it.  If you haven’t, you don’t.

GIMME THAT OLD TIME SECESSION…

Sing along now,

Gimme that old time secession,

Gimme that old time secession, (louder)

Gimme that old time secession,

It was good enuf for the Founders and Silas,

It was good enuf for the Founders and Silas, (everyone now)

And it is good enough for me.

The whole idea seems radical, doesn’t it?  Ron Paul doesn’t think so.  He says the idea of citizens, now some from every state using petitions to appeal to the federal government “is as American as apple pie and George Washington.  The founders believed in it, there’s no prohibition in the Constitution against secession,”

The petitions are not an expression of a genuine wish to secede and break up the union.  No group loves a united America more than these signers.  The petitions are an alternative to a demonstration.  They are expressions of a serious grievance and a reminder to Washington that if Washington takes governance away from the people, the people have a way of taking it back.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence reads in part,

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The president and his administration are radical, self-declared in effect by the president’s own words when he pledged to completely transform the nation.  Compare the president’s promise to the petitioner’s goal of returning the nation to adherence to the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Founder’s and then tell me, who are the radicals?

IT WAS NOT ONLY ABOUT STUFF

Rush Limbaugh and much of the punditry have been charging forth with the exclamation that Obama’s victory was all about “free stuff.”  It was about free stuff but it wasn’t all about free stuff.

If it were all about free stuff how would you explain George Soros.  He didn’t back Obama to get a free phone and food stamps.  If color didn’t play a part how do you explain why 97% of voters in 13 heavily black Philadelphia districts voted for Obama?  If it was all about getting free stuff how do you explain the overwhelming support of millionaires and billionaires in Hollywood who stand to see their net incomes disproportionately reduced by Obama’s vow that he will raise their taxes?

It was about free stuff from phones to Obamacare, but it was also about color, guilt and a collection of true believers, the supporters who Lenin dubbed useful idiots.  The election was about a lot of things.

When over the years you have lost academia, the youth, the main stream media, the entertainment industry, voting immigrants, the Jewish vote and even the conservationists, by what reasoning do you think you can win an election against a black man who, in addition to the above has over 90% of the black vote?

The Great American Experiment lifted more people out of poverty than any other form of government in history but now we are going to try something else.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill the voters have chosen to abandon the path of unequal prosperity and start down the road to equal misery.

AMERICA LOST THE ELECTION

When as man as dishonest as any who has ever held the office, with an economic record as dismal as that of the last four years, a man who refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel because he disdains the country he aspires to lead, a man who chose as his mentor a preacher who called in no uncertain terms upon God to bring damnation on America, when the people elect and then re-elect such a man to the Presidency you know you are no longer living in the land envisioned by the founders.  You are no longer living in an America as you have always known it.

Tuesday marked the start of the Post-American period for the United States.  Benjamin Franklin feared it; sages from Aristotle to Tocqueville predicted it; Democracy guaranteed it; too few people understand it; Barack Obama neither caused it nor led it.  He simply is presiding over the culmination of it.

It would take a thick book and a half to explain it but I will be foolish enough to try to do it in one paragraph.

Aristotle was the first to say that Democracy would bankrupt a society.  Karl Marx promoted the process with the populist theme “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  Today the same philosophy is expressed in the simple phrase Social Justice, which is defined as equal wealth for all.  Government is the vehicle for reaching that goal by taxing wealth away from those who produced it and re-distributing it to those who did not.  In any society achievers will be outnumbered by the masses and Aristotle warned that the masses would eventually deplete the national treasury by voting the wealth of the nation unto themselves and then squandering it.  He called it “the ultimate greed.”

It’s a slow process in a country with a large and prosperous middle class.  Freedoms must be taken away slowly and dependence created gradually.  It has been said that “The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”  If Socialism is the ultimate greed then Obamacare was the ultimate deception.  It’s primary purpose was dependance, not healthcare.

How will it all end?  That’s the ultimate question.  Democratic countries like Spain, France and Greece have been ravished by overspending.  Unemployment is worse than it is in the United States.  The governments are literally running out of money to pay for benefits the people have come to believe really are entitlements.  The people riot, demonstrate and take to the streets demanding change then vote for a man like Hollande who promises to bring about the desired change by accelerating the very policies that caused the problem in the first place.

I am 81 years of age and will never know how it ends, but my grandchildren will.  That’s why my tagline reads “Driven by love of country and concern for its people, both present and yet to be.”

THE WORD “AUSTERITY” IS PROPAGANDIC

Many words are chosen and brought into common use to further an agenda.  Our favorite example is “Capitalism”, a term that implies a system based on money, a system based on wealth.  Thus a system which is based on the freedom of everyman to exchange goods and services with his neighbor has become known by a name that implies something quite different.  The word “Capitalism” comes with an agenda.  Words that come with an agenda are propagandic.  Most people would look unfavorably on a system built around wealth but who could be against a system built on ‘pleasant companionship with friends or associates’?  There was a reason Karl Marx chose to identify the two systems as Capitalism and Socialism rather than as Free Markets and Government Controlled.

Now we look at “austerity.”  Say what you will about European Socialism, it does provide a comfortable life style.  Savor six week vacations, short working hours, retirement at age 55 on a government guaranteed income sufficient to live in modest comfort.  Some would argue that you give up many individual freedoms in exchange for that.  However, I ask how can you give up something you never had?

Merriam-Webster defines austerity as “stern and cold in appearance or manner, giving little or no scope for pleasure.”  That is not at all what advocates of “austerity” in Europe are calling for.  What they want is a responsible government that does not spend what it doesn’t have.  Yet they allow themselves to be known by a word that would identify them as seeking an uncaring government that leaves little or no scope for pleasure.  Thus applied, the word austerity is propagandic.

The irony of propagandic is the acceptance and use of words by the targets against whom the term was coined.  Even Milton Friedman called the Free Market system Capitalism.

 

REAGAN vs. OBAMA ON THE ECONOMY

President Obama often asks the voters to understand that he inherited a very bad economy, and he did. But in many ways it was not as bad as the economy Reagan inherited from Carter.

On Reagan’s Election Day in 1980, unemployment was at 7.5 percent and headed for 10.8 percent; inflation was at 12.5 percent, headed for 13.6 percent, and interest rates were at 15.5 percent, headed for 21.5 percent by Christmas, well before Reagan was sworn in.

Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent and no inflation problem. Inflation was only 1.1 percent in comparison to the crushing 21.5 percent left by Carter. By the time Reagan was sworn in in January business men, farmers and home buyers (if you could find one) were paying 23 to 24 percent interest rates on loans.

Reagan wasted no energy on blaming Jimmy Carter. He approached the problem by lowering marginal tax rates in gradual steps over three years. He eased the regulatory burden on businesses, making it simpler to open or expand a business. His infectious optimism reminded people “the best is yet to come.” America was still “the shining city on the hill,” and Reagan reversed the country’s mood from a Carter-induced “malaise” to a can-do spirit.

In stark contrast, Obama did just the opposite with predictable results. He increased the regulatory environment increasing the cost and difficulty of opening or expanding a business. He introduced new law burdening business with new costs that are significant and beyond measurability at the same time. He fought for a return to higher taxes before acquiescing. Obama made his belief clear that America never was a shining city on a hill; it was a country in need of complete transformation. For America’s leader to wear a flag pin on his lapel was to honor a nation that was undeserving of such respect, a country that was in no way exceptional.

Reagan’s policies worked. By the end of his first term, inflation was down, employment was up, the economy was in good shape again and the mood of the nation had gone from morose to bright and cheery. In the bid for a second term, Reagan won every state with the sole exception of Minnesota.

Today we are where we are because of the president we picked in 2008, not because of what he inherited.

This post was adapted on an article by Peter Hegseth.