George Rebane
Two intellectuals and students of the human condition – Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield and Yale’s Charles Hill – lend their considerable weight to the notion that we are beyond the tipping point to the promised “fundamental transformation” of America. By all accounts we have now failed the Grand Experiment envisioned by the Founders to answer the question of the ages – Can man govern himself? While the answer to that question is never final because the experiment is ever ongoing, they did provide us a magnificent tool to keep bringing back a ‘YES’ answer. It’s called the Constitution. Professor Mansfield tells us (‘The Crisis of American Self-Government’) that “the founders wanted people to live under the Constitution. But the progressives want the Constitution to live under the American people.”
Along this line Professor Hill talks about the American decline (‘World Order in the Age of Obama’) and says –
And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained. Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem.
RR readers know that one of the more successful Rebane Rules, long argued here, is ‘The most reliable predictor of progressives’ policies is the their common aim of weakening America’s influence on the world stage by removing all vestiges of the country’s exceptionalism.’ The reliability of this rule is doubled when used to predict which turns Team Obama will take in navigating the ship of state (see also 'Obamunism' in Glossary).
The uses of America’s energy abundance. In the same vein, there is a growing corpus of belief that America’s newly found gas and shale oil energy reserves will not be used to launch a new era of growth and prosperity for the country. Instead the wealth from those resources will be commandeered by the federal government under new powers that it will discover and relegate to itself. The entire scenario starts with President Obama having emerged from a second term victory to steer the country into a (hard to imagine) deeper fiscal thicket, whether by a rapid tumble over the approaching fiscal cliff, an extended version thereof, or a more torturous way.
Along this line Professor Hill talks about the American decline (‘World Order in the Age of Obama’) and says –
And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained. Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem.
RR readers know that one of the more successful Rebane Rules, long argued here, is ‘The most reliable predictor of progressives’ policies is the their common aim of weakening America’s influence on the world stage by removing all vestiges of the country’s exceptionalism.’ The reliability of this rule is doubled when used to predict which turns Team Obama will take in navigating the ship of state (see also 'Obamunism' in Glossary).
The uses of America’s energy abundance. In the same vein, there is a growing corpus of belief that America’s newly found gas and shale oil energy reserves will not be used to launch a new era of growth and prosperity for the country. Instead the wealth from those resources will be commandeered by the federal government under new powers that it will discover and relegate to itself. The entire scenario starts with President Obama having emerged from a second term victory to steer the country into a (hard to imagine) deeper fiscal thicket, whether by a rapid tumble over the approaching fiscal cliff, an extended version thereof, or a more torturous way.
The important thing to note here is that the country must be put into even more dire straits in order to marshal the sheeple into approving strong measures to save us from the follies that capitalism and its greedy rich have gotten us in. Obama will use executive orders and his stacked bureaucracy to milk enormous amounts of money from the energy companies made compliant by the realization that no one will drill for, transport, or process anything without a dearly earned White House imprimatur.
The bottom line is that Obama will seek a third term, and he will have a good chance of getting it because the growing ranks of the ignorant, unemployed, and discontented dependents on government transfer payments will scream to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. (Look for the revival of the most recent effort to do this that was introduced in Congress as HJ Res 5(111th) in 2009.) And California will again lead with its Democrat supermajorities that have now removed the last restraints on its rush and tumble into federalized socialism.
I am amused that among those who see the high likelihood of such a scenario (in its various forms) are some noted financial and investment gurus like Porter Stansbury and John Mauldin. These much-read prognosticators of the best places to put your money are telling their readers about how to take advantage of the new energy boom that will benefit a few select sectors beyond the federal government. In other words, there is still an opportunity to make a bundle as the country adjusts itself into a new form of a socially just autocracy.
All this is predicated on some as yet unknown strategy of being able to bail out with your bundle at the end. Because everyone knows that the haves will then be shorn of their filthy lucre if not simply marched to the wall. That part of the investment plan, even if known, is not widely published and for obvious reasons. Lifeboats have limited capacity, and there definitely is not room for all. (I described my own experience with two such ‘lifeboats’ during WW2 in ‘Last Train from Stettin’.)
An ongoing version of this is the predictable puzzle Britain’s progressive elites have recently encountered with its missing millionaires (here). That government’s solution was also to soak the rich, as all their entitlements (including nationalized healthcare) are now in their obvious slides to oblivion. Top tax rates were raised to 50%, causing the number of such millionaires to plunge from 16,000 to 6,000 in one percipitous year ending in 2011. The collectivist’s well-worn static analysis predicted the usual pro-rata increase of government revenues. Instead, the raising of tax rates razed government revenues from ₤13.4B to ₤6.5B, a loss of 51.5% from that pool. So again, there appears to be a way to skip out once the music stops (as Scandinavian countries have already discovered to their dismay).
All this is, of course, invisible to our progressive elites, as such information is never passed on by the country’s lamestream. In the meantime some other liberal economist – e.g. nobelist Krugman? – will once more excoriate those who are so foolish as to believe that increasing tax rates can negatively influence government revenues. And so we continue our march into the sunset.
[4dec12 update] On the road to fundamental transformation the Republicans' negotiating points with the much more sinister Obama administration may be summarized by the following American icon of perpetual perfidy.
The bottom line is that Obama will seek a third term, and he will have a good chance of getting it because the growing ranks of the ignorant, unemployed, and discontented dependents on government transfer payments will scream to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. (Look for the revival of the most recent effort to do this that was introduced in Congress as HJ Res 5(111th) in 2009.) And California will again lead with its Democrat supermajorities that have now removed the last restraints on its rush and tumble into federalized socialism.
I am amused that among those who see the high likelihood of such a scenario (in its various forms) are some noted financial and investment gurus like Porter Stansbury and John Mauldin. These much-read prognosticators of the best places to put your money are telling their readers about how to take advantage of the new energy boom that will benefit a few select sectors beyond the federal government. In other words, there is still an opportunity to make a bundle as the country adjusts itself into a new form of a socially just autocracy.
All this is predicated on some as yet unknown strategy of being able to bail out with your bundle at the end. Because everyone knows that the haves will then be shorn of their filthy lucre if not simply marched to the wall. That part of the investment plan, even if known, is not widely published and for obvious reasons. Lifeboats have limited capacity, and there definitely is not room for all. (I described my own experience with two such ‘lifeboats’ during WW2 in ‘Last Train from Stettin’.)
An ongoing version of this is the predictable puzzle Britain’s progressive elites have recently encountered with its missing millionaires (here). That government’s solution was also to soak the rich, as all their entitlements (including nationalized healthcare) are now in their obvious slides to oblivion. Top tax rates were raised to 50%, causing the number of such millionaires to plunge from 16,000 to 6,000 in one percipitous year ending in 2011. The collectivist’s well-worn static analysis predicted the usual pro-rata increase of government revenues. Instead, the raising of tax rates razed government revenues from ₤13.4B to ₤6.5B, a loss of 51.5% from that pool. So again, there appears to be a way to skip out once the music stops (as Scandinavian countries have already discovered to their dismay).
All this is, of course, invisible to our progressive elites, as such information is never passed on by the country’s lamestream. In the meantime some other liberal economist – e.g. nobelist Krugman? – will once more excoriate those who are so foolish as to believe that increasing tax rates can negatively influence government revenues. And so we continue our march into the sunset.
[4dec12 update] On the road to fundamental transformation the Republicans' negotiating points with the much more sinister Obama administration may be summarized by the following American icon of perpetual perfidy.
Nice pivot, but I didn't provide a link to a think tank. I provided a link to a recent piece by climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr regarding Hurricane Sandy.
~69% of voters in November just *knew* Sandy was the result of climate change. Do you, Joe?
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 07:58 PM
Greg--I was responding to Mikey's list, I did not see your post-- The Cato Institute is a think tank.. If you are asking me if I "knew" Sandy was the result of climate change; first it's not really a question but more of a playground taunt. Secondly to answer your taunt, I am not so narrow minded as to 100% believe anything. So why do you care so much about climate change. What have you got to gain or lose to be so adamant about your position anyway?
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 07 December 2012 at 08:14 PM
Of course a little rain never hurt the Philippines either, this last week.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 07 December 2012 at 09:01 PM
My personal interest is in tracking public opinion and analyzing the political impact. There is little doubt that it's swinging in a direction that will put the Repubs in a difficult position when it comes to policy in the next election. Even 48% of pubbers see solid evidence of warming.
"Eighty-five percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of warming, up from 77 percent last year; 65 percent of independents hold that view, up two percent from last year, while 48 percent of Republicans see solid evidence of warming, a five point increase over last year and 13 points higher than in 200"
It seems the opponents have shot their wad after making a big impact a few years ago. The Repubs really got singed in this election by sticking with unpopular beliefs something I'm sure they will not do again after the great upheaval that will surely be coming reestablishing the moderates in charge of the party.
As for the truth? "Earth Abides" It doesn't mean a rats ass what we think about it.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 December 2012 at 09:26 PM
Oh yes, relevant links
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/262109-poll-belief-in-global-warming-rises-across-political-parties
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/poll-half-of-republicans-believe-in-global-warming
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 December 2012 at 09:29 PM
It ain't gonna get hot enough to melt this www.usdebtclock.com
Posted by: TheMikeyMcD | 07 December 2012 at 09:33 PM
Because 'they' won't let me heat my home, decrease fire danger, etc due to BS science.
What have you got to gain or lose to be so adamant about your position anyway?
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 07 December 2012 at 08:14 PM
Posted by: TheMikeyMcD | 07 December 2012 at 09:38 PM
Gregory@04:54PM You are correct, I ment to write thousands, hands did not follow brain. Thanks for the correction!
Posted by: Russ Steele | 07 December 2012 at 10:17 PM
JoeK@06:43PM
You might want to read this: http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/the-wrong-solution/
Posted by: Russ Steele | 07 December 2012 at 10:25 PM
48% of the people wouldn't know scientific evidence if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.
From JK, "If you are asking me if I "knew" Sandy was the result of climate change; first it's not really a question but more of a playground taunt."
It's a question asked of voters in exit polling and you're doing your best to dodge it when asked. Why?
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 10:28 PM
Gregory
It doesn't matter, (48%) that's what the Repubs believe. This poll was not an exit poll, it was taken in Oct before Sandy.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 December 2012 at 11:02 PM
Paul, the poll I was citing was an exit poll.
People really are same gullible breed who thought the world was flat a few centuries ago, and they've been hearing the world is warming from so many well spoken Chicken Littles that they believe it. We really are coming into a cooling phase, and the only question is how much damage to our society will be suffered by the misallocation of resources before that gets turned around.
And it will turn around; the AGW scare is bad science driven by politics. People will not react well when they figure out they've been lied to, and my fear is that science will be so damaged that science won't be believed when a REAL crisis is foreseen.
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 12:28 AM
Re Gregory's 1228am - Greg reminds us of an important point that should cause all thinkers concern. Added to the nation's general dumbth, the eventual debunking of highly-touted AGW will be understood as yet another incidence of science crying wolf once too often, and thereby causing even more discounting of future more reliable calls. In the age of accelerating technology, the masses are being left behind at an astounding rate.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 08:53 AM
Gregory
Are these people the same gullible breed that supported WMD's as a reason to invade Iraq?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 09:09 AM
Speaking of dumbeth, here's immigrant capitalism gone wild: http://www.ems1.com/ambulances-emergency-vehicles/articles/1378585-Immigration-agents-arrest-man-accused-of-booting-ambulance/
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 08 December 2012 at 10:05 AM
Paul, you are a simple creature, aren't you?
Looking at the cast of characters and the source of corruption, I'd say there's a better alignment between AGW believers and folks who thought the UN Oil For Food (aka Oil for Palace's) was a model programme.
Even Kofi Annan's nephew was in on the take.
http://www.cfr.org/un/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631
http://www.wnd.com/2005/01/28707/
http://www.economist.com/node/10853611
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 01:16 PM
Sorry, that's Kofi Annan's *son*.
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 01:16 PM
Gregory
That's exactly the point I'm making. The jury for global warming has reported and is likely to effect elections and policy.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 01:18 PM
PaulE 118pm - Do I understand correctly that your only point is 'Forget the science debate, the know nothings have already been swayed to believe in AGW and support the nostrums for its reduction, so Que Sera, Sera.'?
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 01:26 PM
It isn't a jury, Paul, it's a mob, and it won't take much of a decrease in temps or increase in energy prices for the mob to turn.
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 01:41 PM
Pretty close George. Continue the science debate but who is going to carry the flag ?
Gregory, that is not the question I asked. Nearly 30% of the Republican electorate believe Obama is a Muslim. Are they part f the dumbo's referenced in this blog.
http://www.wheeljobcreation.org/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 01:51 PM
Thanks for the link Paul.
It's wonderful to see there are plenty of people out there willing to direct others lives. I can't wait to see their solution to the perceived population problem.
I hope I'm not on Obama's naughty and nice drone "Kill list".
Posted by: D. King | 08 December 2012 at 02:34 PM
D King
Whoops, that was the entirely wrong link. I intended to link the info about the Repubs who believe Obama is a Muslim Here it is.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-conservative-republicans-increasingly-believe-obama-is-muslim/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 04:18 PM
I thought the first link was funnier, Paul. A wonderful non-profitcommunity that has four whole blog posts in it's nearly a year of existence. How many fulfilling jobs is The Wheel responsible for now?
Non-profit in a more literal sense than they intended?
People are very tribal, and issues of tribe are not my interest. For one thing, they aren't falsifiable in the scientific sense. Catastrophic global warming, on the other hand, is.
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 04:37 PM
Re PaulE's 418pm - As the days pass, each one contains evidence that the man does not wish America well in the sense that it has been well. Perhaps those who believe that he is a Muslim are just pulling up the simplest explanation of why he is doing what he's doing (scientists call it the application of Occam's Razor). These people recall that devout Muslims adhere to the Quran's teachings about taqiyyah (q.v.) to promote Islam. Of course, there may be other explanations as simple or simpler. But I have a hard time believing that his actions are based on ignorance as to their effects.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 04:37 PM
Paul, those silly Repubs, they should know he has an enlighten progressive, "Muslim / American Kill List."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g&feature=player_embedded#!
Posted by: D. King | 08 December 2012 at 05:18 PM
While we're on the topic of the dumbing down of America you've got to include Birthers
"Among all Republicans, 45 percent believe he was born in another country, as do 45 percent of Tea Party supporters, the poll shows."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 06:44 PM
"While we're on the topic of the dumbing down of America you've got to include Birthers"
How so, Paul? Birthers and those who suspect Obama of secretly being Muslim are artifacts of the wall that's kept much of Obama's life off limits to the public. His is the least transparent life of any President to date.
It's easy for many to decide he has something to hide. It's arguable that it could as easily be a choice Obama's people made to marginalize those who would assume it's something being hidden.
The only real parallel to that in climate issues is that the warmists also keep much information private, sometimes by stonewalling on FOIA requests.
Climate science is science, a branch of physics. Family history isn't.
Posted by: Gregory | 08 December 2012 at 07:24 PM
PaulE 644pm - you are again demonstrating the chasm between two widely different logics that are held by the Left and Right. When you don't know how many states there are in the Union, you are most certainly ignorant, and very possibly also dumb. But as Greg (724pm) points out, doubting an assertion that has been backed by questionable evidence places you somewhere between skepticism and being prudent.
If you (and others) have been confounding such cases, then that again goes a long way to explain the country's problems, and the workings of the liberal mind. And BTW, these are definitely unsolvable problems for all of us.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 08:17 PM
So then I am justified in believing Romney is a tax cheat because he refused to release tax documents. Is there one legal document that Obama has failed to reveal?
Do any of you think that the internal vetting of Obama before he was selected to be a candidate for President would have overlooked a false birth date and place? Do you think they would have overlooked his being a Muslim? Really, this is the ruling class picking their choice to be the Republicrat president, someone they are going to but millions of dollars into supporting. Do you think they would be that careless? really!!!
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 December 2012 at 09:21 PM
So Obama is Muslim. He doesn't want anyone smoking dope (hashesh, favored Muslim libation for getting stoned) and he's droning the crap out of AL Qaeda and Taliban leaders. He's one hellova double agent, now isn't he?
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 08 December 2012 at 09:42 PM
PaulE 921pm - I don't think that the Democrats were careless at all with Obama, they put in exactly the man they wanted. As they have done with all the La Raza and MALDEF Hispanic members of Congress who regularly spew Reconquista rhetoric to their flocks.
While they have many similar operating procedures, there is a limit to the commonality of your Republicrats. In the end, Democrats and Republicans see very different futures for our Republic, as is apparent to anyone who reads and listens (as is also evident in the comment streams of RR).
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 09:44 PM
JesusB 942pm - In case you have missed it, Muslims killing Muslims for the greater cause is a common daily occurrence that requires no double agency at all. Islamic victory will come through colonization that is abetted by multi-cultural political correctness in the target countries. (e.g. check out the idiotic debates going on in connection with the trial of the murderous Major Hassan.) Al Qaeda and the Taliban are just useful idiots in Islam's greater scheme, as you yourself could tell through a little self-searching.
Do I know for certain that Obama is a Muslim - NO. But not knowing, do I believe that Obama would use Islamic colonization as part of his plan to fundamentally transform America - YES.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 December 2012 at 09:54 PM
Last call: O is an unlikely Muslim. Everything I have seen and read suggests he is an unrepentant athiest.
Posted by: L | 08 December 2012 at 10:39 PM
L 1039pm - Agreed. Currently my own likelihood distribution is 85% atheist, 10% Muslim, 5% Christian.
Posted by: George Rebane | 09 December 2012 at 07:58 AM
George
You are uncharacteristically naive when it comes to your assessment of the Republicans not being in the same end design as the Democrats. How else could you explain the unbelievably incompetent campaigns waged by McCain and Romney? Also, they are already throwing in the towel on '16.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regularly brushes off the idea of a 2016 presidential bid. But if she were to run, at least one prominent Republican thinks his party would be completely outmatched.
"The Republican party is incapable of competing at that level," Newt Gingrich said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/newt-gingrich-hillary-clinton-2016_n_2267256.html
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2012 at 10:36 AM
Obama is mostly likely agnostic, just like me. Our Teflon® Sierra Winter is just oh so normal. Tell it to anyone in the ski industry. It remind me of 1978-79, when the first flake feel at Northstar on New Year's Eve, and it all melted again three weeks later. A year later, after I had to sell out my franchise, marvelous winter, my buyer made a fortune.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 09 December 2012 at 10:52 AM
PaulE 1036am - Please connect the propositions 1) "the Republicans not being in the same end design as the Democrats", and 2) the Republicans having conducted "unbelievably incompetent campaigns (as) waged by McCain and Romney". I do admit being so naive as to 1) not seeing the connection, and 2) not seeing how the conduct of incompetent campaigns has anything to do with the adopted "end design" of a political party.
Posted by: George Rebane | 09 December 2012 at 11:54 AM
Paul, I just finished watching Meet the Press, and the Puffington Host spin wasn't the same as Gingrich's, who was just saying the campaign that just ended wouldn't work at all against Clinton. He was not saying he didn't think Republicans could field a candidate who could win, or that his party couldn't rise to the occasion in the next 3 years.
9:21 The issue wasn't whether the "ruling class" wouldn't vet their frontman (though I wouldn't vest them with the sort of super competence you seem to), it's whether the caginess over birth documents could be expected to spawn skeptics. The fact remains that when McCain, who was not born in the US, was challenged he produced images of an old document with signatures (what birthers might call the long form) and everyone agreed it was Kosher. When Obama was challenged, for quite some time the only document that was produced was a computer printout that even the Social Security Administration will not accept as valid if used when applying for benefits; they'd have had a SSA employee in Hawaii go pull the original.
That's not to say the birthers weren't mostly idiots, just that the circumstances bred skepticism.
Posted by: Gregory | 09 December 2012 at 12:49 PM
Speaking of the mostly idiots, what do they think the weather would be today had modern society been stopped in its tracks 20 years ago, with no more fossil fuel use and CO2 no longer rising?
Posted by: Gregory | 09 December 2012 at 01:00 PM
Paul, do you really think the Obama IRS would have allowed Romney to get away with being a tax cheat?
Posted by: Gregory | 09 December 2012 at 02:32 PM
George
I think you misread my post. I contend the Repubs have the same end design as the Dems the only a shade of difference to please the bleachers. It's like professional wrestling where they manufacture adversary to make a good show. Historically they both support massive debt, bloated military adventures and spending, social security and medicare, the Partiot act, the war on drugs, I can go on and on. They both take money from the same sources and answer to the same masters. They differ enough to put on a show.
Obama was the chosen one the ruling class is most comfortable with to maintain the status quo so he Repubs throw the fight after a mild tussle. How else can their pathetic "campaigns" be explained?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2012 at 03:23 PM
Paul, never invent a secret conspiracy when happenstance is just as possible an answer.
With nice weather, the Romney momentum may well have continued unabated and the election a walk in the other direction. I'm quite sure the "ruling class" don't get the weather they want, too.
Posted by: Gregory | 09 December 2012 at 03:38 PM
Gregory
It's not a conspiracy it's business as usual. There was some sweating when Obama failed to show up at the first debate. That was supposed to seal the deal but he almost blew it. Show me the significant difference in the two parties and we can talk. Make that recent history not just this election. The RC (ruling class) does not like radical changes which shows why a true conservative was not able top make a dent.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2012 at 04:18 PM
PaulE 418pm - I think that you see more equivalence in their (two party) means than do I. As to their professed ends, one would have to be a native of Mars not to see a difference there. As time has passed and events have overtaken us, the idea of more parties to reflect the varied and varying ideological landscape of the country should be revisited.
Each of the two parties is now trying to spread their 'tent' to the collapsing point in order to accommodate people with such widely varied interests so that their 'ruling classes' (your good notion) can get the necessary votes for power. The role of multi-party coalitions would more truly reflect the contentions involved, and also slow/stop radical changes.
Posted by: George Rebane | 09 December 2012 at 05:39 PM
George
One only has to look at the way Ron Paul was treated by the Republican Party to see how resistant to change the GOP is. They wouldn't even let him speak at the Convention allowing only a silly tribute video. What were they so afraid of? The ruling class hates change because that means they bight lose control.
George, you are off track here. The history of the last 50 years show that the difference between the parties is only a different shade of the same color. You have been suckered into believing there is a meaningful difference but even a casual look at history shows that's not true. The Repubs never gave a rats ass about the deficit for example keeping their mouth shut during the Bush disaster. Show me one example of the Repubs complaining when he ran up the credit card.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2012 at 06:54 PM
PaulE 654pm - To make progress, let's stipulate that you are correct - there has been no difference in behavior when in power, and the difference in the stated goals have not mattered. That was then, this is a now with the west under a debt burden it can't pay off, and a global trade community that is ready to compete with us as equals. Now what direction do you think Obama will take the country as he plans to increase taxes on the producers and make no retreat from entitlements?
Posted by: George Rebane | 09 December 2012 at 08:31 PM