See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is 2008 to be a Transformational Election?
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008 ... _to_be_a_transformation_1.html
Published: May 21, 2008
Author: J.R. Dunn
Post Date: 2008-05-21 04:04:43 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 84
Comments: 6
This is supposed to be liberalism's year. We hear it from all sources on all points of the political spectrum. A miserable and disillusioned electorate, an energized base, an opposition both confused and demoralized - the 2008 election, we're assured, is the left's to lose. We hear talk of a transformational election, like that of FDR in 1932 and Reagan in 1980. An election that imposes a new political template across the country as a whole. Or in this case, reimposes it, since the "new" template would in fact be nothing more than another repetition of FDR's New Deal socialism and water. Republicans appear to concur. Newt Gingrich, back from wherever it is aging revolutionaries go, has directed the GOP (following close consultations with Madame Hillary) to change its ways to match new realities. A frightened Republican leadership has duly echoed him. No alternative has been suggested. There's little to do, it seems, but prepare for the deluge, and make plans to rebuild once the inevitable retreat begins. This contention has become so widespread that it's achieved the status of a received truth, with the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there's one problem with it: if the American left is in such great shape, why are all their programs collapsing? The left moves by distinct and separate campaigns, a remnant of its origins as a revolutionary movement during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Overriding goals exist, but progress in fulfilling them is marked by limited, precisely targeted efforts carefully mapped out and executed for a particular effect. Some last only a few months, others a year or so, some for several years. For a time, they become the focus of general effort, widely discussed in the media, on the Net, and in offices, coffee shops, and diners across the country (it's always fun seeing grassroots lefties become "experts" on topics they'd never heard of a month earlier when one of these campaigns starts rolling). The same slogans are uttered, the same factoids repeated. Often conservatives play a valuable role by debating the issue on prepared ground, responding precisely the way leftists guessed they would. Al Gore's global warming is a perfect example, a long-term program designed to push several separate agendas -- political control, economic centralization, and the Green worldview -- under the umbrella of "saving the planet". In environmentalism alone we have had endless campaigns of this type, involving electromagnetic fields, Alar, dioxins, PCBs, acid rain, global cooling, and overpopulation all the way back to the Ur-campaign attacking DDT. The same process can be found in any field in which the left is active, including foreign policy, health care, the economy, law, race relations, and onward. There are inevitably several such efforts going on at once, and when we look at the current batch, we find, remarkably enough, abject failure across the board. Iraq has set the tone. The American left intended to ride the Iraq "disaster" to victory on all fronts, giving them a lock on political power unseen since the beginning of the Reagan era. That dream ended with the success of General David Petraeus's surge strategy, which rousted Al Queda in Iraq with humiliating swiftness and thoroughness. Mention of Iraq then became scarce in the media and among left-of-center politicians. There was a flurry of excitement a few weeks ago with "failure" of the Iraqi government's effort against the Shi'ite militias in Basra and Sadr City. But it lasted only days until it became apparent that something else was going on: that government forces were in fact engaged in a "cut and reduce" strategy, in which limited objectives are taken one after the other, rather than the swift, once-and-for-all sweep characteristic of Western forces. This is a common technique in Eastern warfare (Byzantium was conquered in exactly this fashion), and one that appears to work: Moqtada al-Sadr, the chief irritant, has steadily given ground, and the recent "truce", utilizing the good offices of Iranian middlemen, was effectively dictated by the Maliki government. Iraq is one step closer to pacification, and once again unsuitable for public discussion among decent people. (The American media has consistently misread Iraqi intentions and capabilities throughout this war, discussing the government and people as if they were average Americans and events were taking place in the area around Dubuque.) But it didn't end with Iraq. In fact, the past year has seen a general collapse of liberal programs unmatched since the 60s and one that may well be unprecedented in such a short span of time. Global Warming was one of the more successful efforts at Green propaganda over the past decade, one that has paid a number of dividends (including financial). The science underlying warming was simplistic and badly worked out, and could not be expected to prevail for any extended period (e.g., the claim that CO2 was a major driver of global temperature, when in fact such elements as solar radiation, earth's orbital variations, and water vapor are all more important). The facts caught up with global warming last year. It became common knowledge that the earth's temperature had remained constant since 1998, a problem compounded by a sudden drop in global temperature of nearly a degree and a half Fahrenheit. Neither development was predicted by any climate researcher's model, nor could they be made to fit any accepted warming theory. The only alternative was the desperate adaption of an argument derived from a recent scientific paper released by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, contending that the Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillation is holding temperatures down and will continue to do so until at least 2015. (Just in time to save the polar bears, too.) Though warming advocates will not admit it, this represents a surrender flag -- what kind of overwhelming, universal climatic determinant is overthrown by a single oceanic variation? A more convincing explanation lies in the "quiet sun" thesis -- the contention that we're moving into a lengthy period of reduced solar activity. A few more cold winters will tell the tale. Ethanol -- in its own way an offshoot of the warming panic, ethanol represents the latest "solution" to an environmental menace. None of these have ever been made to work (past environmental problems have almost universally been solved through conventional means), and ethanol is no exception. In short form: mandates for ethanol in gasoline to fight "global warming" and ease U.S. oil imports. The percentage of corn so used grew to one-third of last year's harvest. Coming during a shift in global agricultural markets and amid several unrelated agricultural difficulties, the ethanol mandates triggered a worldwide rise in grain prices that nearly doubled the cost of food in the U.S. and, far worse, created near-famine conditions in a number of marginal nations. It has become clear that the entire effort is little more than a gesture -- ethanol cannot lower atmospheric CO2 (quite the contrary, according to some studies), and cannot replace any substantial amount of imported oil. But it is a gesture that threatens lives, and as such comprises a serious political scandal. The U.S. relieves famines, it does not cause them. An action that reverses this expectation is an action that will have to be answered for in the public sphere. We have not heard the last of the ethanol scandal. The "Recession" -- like global warming, the Great Recession of 2008 is a catastrophe that has not lived up to its billing. The economy is often a winner for American liberals (somewhat mysteriously, considering their actual history of economic ineptitude). Talk of recession began last summer, in the midst of a 4.9% economic growth rate, and continued through the new year. Signs of economic distress due to loose credit policies were taken as clear evidence of the "recession's" arrival. George Soros and both Democratic candidates -- Madame Hillary in particular -- hailed it as something along the lines of the Second Coming. They were echoed by almost the entire legacy media (Particularly the AP's Jeannine Aversa, who has been awarded legendary status by NewsBusters and the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web as the Cassandra of the third millennium. There wasn't a single dip that Aversa didn't see as a "chasm", a bad day in the market that wasn't a "nightmare", a slowdown that didn't become a "collapse". Somebody should give her a reality show.) A classic recession was unlikely for a number of reasons: recessions are rarities during wartime. It would also be unusual for one to occur little more than five years after the last. Nor do recessions usually spring from weaknesses in a single sector. And as the year has progressed, so the specter of a full-blown recession has receded. The growth rate remains an anemic but still positive 0.6. The unemployment rate remains below average historical levels at a little over 5% The Dow Jones industrials has consistently remained in the 12,000 range, inching its way back up to 13,000. Onlookers of such varied backgrounds as Robert J. Samuelson, Lawrence Kudlow, and John Lott agree that no recession has as yet occurred. (Though Kudlow did hedge at one point in April.) An economic slowdown is another story, one that would have served Democratic purposes admirably. But instead they played the recession card and are now stuck with it. We could go one to other, less critical ploys: the claim for mounting American unpopularity on the international scene, which doesn't look quite so compelling with the elections of Sarkozy, Merkel, and Berlusconi. Or the very public and utterly unwarranted humiliation of Colombia and its government, which, with the exposure of Democratic ally Hugo Chavez as aggressor and terror sponsor, could very easily be turned into an issue. This is what the GOP is running against: people who want to lose a war, who are keeping alive an environmentalist scam, who (as a byproduct of that scam) have created conditions of serious hunger across the world, and who would not mind seeing a recession in the U.S., no matter how many people it hurts. How do you lose against a hand like this? You lose by throwing your cards down and collapsing under the table whining about being forced to play at all. That's what the GOP is doing -- it can't be described in any other way. This paralysis is nothing new; it was more than evident in the pre-2006 GOP congress (if a single useful measure -- say, a bill addressing illegal immigration -- had been passed in 2006, the GOP would likely have not lost all those seats). Republicans have never been willing to play the political game by real-world rules. If this list of liberal felonies were extended backward -- say, to the 1960s (and what a job that would be!) -- how many of them would the left have been forced to answer for? A handful, at best. And those almost exclusively by individuals such as Ronald Reagan and the younger, vital Newt Gingrich, seldom by the GOP as a whole. Almost without exception, liberals have been allowed to take utterly obnoxious stances -- supporting the Viet Cong, abolishing DDT, undermining U.S. efforts against the Soviets -- and after they blow up, simply brush themselves off and walk away. They are never called to account, never made to explain themselves, never forced to mount a defense. Look once again at Iraq. Liberals were wrong about the war, wrong about Al-Queda, wrong about the Iraqi people, the government, and most recently, wrong about the Shi'ite militias. And they were wrong in a way that exacted a clear price, one that undermined the efforts of their own country, encouraged its enemies, and cost the lives of many innocent bystanders. Yet no one in the political sphere (partially excepting Joe Leiberman) has challenged them on it. Both Obama and Hillary are still repeating the same nonsense about immediate, unilateral retreat, based on mythology that was never true and has been disproven a dozen times over. And they will go straight into the general election saying the exact same thing, well aware that no one will call them on it. The American left is not made to eat its failures. This must change. The only entity capable of forcing that change is, unfortunately, the Republican Party. So the GOP must take steps: it needs to shed its invertebrate qualities and become an opposition party worthy of the name. To give up its sense of entitlement, which wrecked both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole and will wreck John McCain if allowed half a chance. To cease expecting anybody to hand them victories, to stop running from the fight, to stop ducking the sharper aspects of politics. To start playing the political game the way it has to be played. The Democrats deserve to hurt for the actions they take and the stances they embrace. (A simple way of doing that would be to nail both Democratic candidates on the ethanol question.) This year offers an excellent opportunity. The recent liberal record represents unusual failure, incompetence, and inhumanity, even by their customary standards. If the GOP can't make an impact with that kind of material, they'll never make an impact at all.
Poster Comment: With the exception of the Iraq War, this is pretty accurate. This poster still opposes the Iraq War because it did not need to be fought. Unfortunately, the public at large is coming around to where this article is, despite opposition from some of us who are unchanging in our position on it. As for recession, if you trust their figures, we will avoid one. If you don't trust their figures, it has already come. So, will a spineless GOP take the advice here and actually get into the game? Probably not.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: mirage (#0)
During the past year, soybeans have increased 85% in price, corn 72%, and wheat 68%. Prices for iron ore, steel and hard commodities have experienced similar price inflation. Gasoline prices are up almost 40%, natural gas about 50%, and heating oil about 90% over the past year. Now please explain to me how average people working at average jobs and having to spend their paychecks on things like FOOD and GAS and UTILITIES are feeling so very enriched by the "growth" in the GDP?
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
If you trust *their* figures, gas prices went down last month and we have tame (4%) inflation. If you don't trust *their* figures, we've got roaring inflation going on and we're pretty well screwed. GOP needs to get in the game or it will become a bad memory as the Democrats try and impose wage and price controls once things REALLY get out of hand. We all know how well that worked when Nixon tried it, don't we? The GOP has a solution on tap named Dr. Ron Paul, but lack the guts to utilize that solution. All they need to do is make a declaration that they'll put Paul in charge of the Government's Fiscal House. There is a possibility he would accept such a post if it came with teeth and a declaration that Paul can chew McCain's ass off as he pleases. But that would make too much sense so of course it won't be done.
Now please explain to me how average people working at average jobs and having to spend their paychecks on things like FOOD and GAS and UTILITIES are feeling so very enriched by the "growth" in the GDP?
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
#3. To: mirage (#2)
Pride comes before the fall. The GOP would rather eat broken glass than embrace RP's political ideals. The Bushovick party demands more power for the state. Still, I can't help somewhat agreeing with a friend who thinks the "R"s are throwing the election because they know the economy is tanking and wnat a "D" in office when things really get bad. Turning the next POTUS into another Jimmy Carter.
The GOP has a solution on tap named Dr. Ron Paul, but lack the guts to utilize that solution.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me.
"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
#4. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#3)
Since the campaign season started, that's been something I've been thinking about. The next President will be running from crisis to crisis. I'm not so sure that the next President will be a Jimmy Carter. More likely, it'll be a Herbert Hoover. "Obamaville" has a better ring to it than "McCaintown" if you think about it. Assuming Obama wins and the economy goes completely into the crapper, what do you think the likelihood of another African-American President will be -- ever? This is just one reason why I want to see Obama go down in flames. If things tank and if Obama is in the White House, the black community in the USA will never be able to live it down, especially since they went so overwhelmingly for him. Likewise the Europeans and the Media since they're ga-ga over him. Americans tend to brand their distinctively successful losers for decades if not centuries and they tend to remember who the enablers were as well and brand them as losers for decades as well. If Obama loses in the primary, it spurs him on for the next cycle or spurs someone else. But right now, things are precarious. This is not the time for the "First Black President" if things are going to fall apart. Still, if the GOP would be the GOP, some of this can be mitigated. Farm subsidies should be killed so that more supply will come to market thereby driving down the price of agricultural goods. Farmers and agribusiness will have to cultivate their land to make up the lost money from subsidies. The subsidies can be put back in place later if prices drop too far or they can be modified to put a floor in just like they were originally intended to do. Any excess after the subsidy removal can be purchased by the Government and stored. The USA used to do that. It doesn't any longer. There is no grain in storage anymore. If we get a crop failure, we're screwed. A bit of storage is cheap insurance against famine. Ethanol subsidies should be curtailed or killed so that corn re-enters the food markets and drives grain prices down. We're distilling and driving on 1/3 of our corn crop right now with more to be converted into fuel in the near future. These types of 'solutions' used to be GOP platform planks - removing farm subsidies, using money wisely, etc. Reminds me of a great Reagan quote that needs to be modified for the 21st Century: Still, I can't help somewhat agreeing with a friend who thinks the "R"s are throwing the election because they know the economy is tanking and wnat a "D" in office when things really get bad. Turning the next POTUS into another Jimmy Carter.
"I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me."
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
#5. To: mirage (#4)
Agreed. I'd think the same would apply to Hillary as well. "There, you got your woman president and now the DOW is at 5,000 and gas is $7.00 a gallon. Can we have another another well connected gray haired white guy take charge again?" The party hacks love power, but I can't shake the image of the "R"s leting the "D"s take the economic bullet and then trying to come back into power in 2012 with 30 second youtube ads featuring footage of downtrodden folks living in Hillaryvilles. Farm subsidies should be killed so that more supply will come to market thereby driving down the price of agricultural goods. Farmers and agribusiness will have to cultivate their land to make up the lost money from subsidies. The subsidies can be put back in place later if prices drop too far or they can be modified to put a floor in just like they were originally intended to do. This triggered a thought. I say kill farm subsidies, but at the same time make farmers exempt from all income, sales, and property taxes. Lower overhead would allow them to survive lower prices at market. The above would require some belt tightening in DC and various state capitals. What gets me is when I listen to the puppets running for office, all they talk about is how the American people must make new sacrifices. There is not one world about American government sacrificing anything. 2008 a transformational election? Hardly. My one and only hope to come out of this is that maybe a few more people will see that the system is 100% broken and more drastic measures will be needed to fix it.
Since the campaign season started, that's been something I've been thinking about. The next President will be running from crisis to crisis. I'm not so sure that the next President will be a Jimmy Carter. More likely, it'll be a Herbert Hoover. "Obamaville" has a better ring to it than "McCaintown" if you think about it. Assuming Obama wins and the economy goes completely into the crapper, what do you think the likelihood of another African-American President will be -- ever?
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me.
"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
#6. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#5)
That in itself would make a transformation. I don't see where programs or bureaucrats have to sacrifice anything myself as well. The fat cats will take their fancy pay raises and we get stuck with the tab for their "legacies" like former Klansman Robert Byrd and having his name plastered all over West Virginia. For farmers to be exempt from taxes would be difficult at best due to agribusiness out in the fields. You can't exactly exempt them, so you'd have to have a "family farm" law. In Oregon we are a "Right to Farm" state. Even out in suburbia, you can plow up your lawn and plant corn and there is nothing anyone can say to you about it.
2008 a transformational election? Hardly. My one and only hope to come out of this is that maybe a few more people will see that the system is 100% broken and more drastic measures will be needed to fix it.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest