Orenstein:
Thanks, Mitch. Sad that mismanagement and corruption have become the norm as population grew. I think that people are outraged as hell and a leader(s) will appear in the mold of a Lincoln with the vision to take back America in its crisis from the charlatans.
Langbert:
I don't think this is possible without a significant restructuring of American federalism. The incentive structures are too entrenched and "a leader" would have to lead 300 million people. Not possible in a diverse republic.
Orenstein:
I guess I'm somewhat more optimistic. I see the tragedy of Obama as a positive thing. If the people get mad enough to get motivated and mobilized they can reign in big gov't and successfully decentralize power. I see that happening now with all the tea parties, Rick Santelli, Glenn Beck's movement etc. The arrogance of govt authroty is now reaching the boiling point and people are waking up to the fundamentals of independence and personal liberty that America was founded on. Glenn Beck's 9-12 movement gives people a glimpse of what the real America looks like. On 9/12 maybe if just for a few days, people of all politcal stripes were united under our flag, until the gov't, media, academics and other traitors blew it. That's why I think high moral leadership is critical. With high tech comunications, transportation, the internet, etc. why can't 300 million people be democratically governed? If 3 million were goverend in 1776, and Lincoln led a nation 0f 31 million to unite, can a Lincolnesque figure emerge today? Anyway, just some of my thoughts, hopefully not sounding too niave. I'm interested in what you have written about restructuring American federalism. Interested as always in your thoughts.
Langbert:
Conservatives are mad and that's not surprising. But they were mad in 1980 and government has grown much larger since. Reagan did little to reduce government. Subsequently, Bush did much to increase it. Conservatives should have gotten mad in 2000-2008. But they did not. It could have had some effect. I do not believe that a conservative government would change the current pattern now. The voters are too stupid. Obama's supporters do not care that he is continuing the war in Iraq even though they elected him to end it. The Republicans didn't care that Reagan and Bush did not reduce government or end inflation even though they elected them to do those things. I don't see any change from this pattern. It is futile because the interests are too powerful, the voters stupid and indifferent and the politicians corrupt. There will need to be some pain, and even then it is unlikely that Americans are smart enough to elect a competent conservative. The nation has reached a dead end and has nowhere to go. There is no longer a United States of America. It is not because of Obama. It is because Obama and Bush are so much the same, and there is little likelihood of anyone different being elected. They are marionettes of Wall Street and the banks. That is all Americans are capable of. They watch "Marry a Millionaire", "Oprah" and "Bill Maher" while they drool.
Orenstein:
Thanks Mitch. Let's see what happens. Maybe in the log run I'll get a gun license and join you and Freida upstate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Was it Reagan's fault that the federal government was not reduced much? There was still a Democratic Congress in place. Perhaps Phil is right when he says that Obama's election is a good thing -- America will be so upset at the mess he makes that in 2010 and 2012, they might just put conservatives into power. Of course, that is only part of the solution as many Republicans are indeed liberals as you have blogged...
Well maybe. But let's see what Congressman Ron Paul had to say when there was a Republican Congress in 2005 and a Republican President:
>Now we have a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and foreign spending soars. It was not that long ago when conservatives looked at such cavalier handling of US tax dollars with consternation. Now it seems that they are in a race with the Left to see who can spend more.
see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul263.html
In 1994 the Republicans took control of Congress. But spending did not fall.
In 1971, Richard M. Nixon abolished the gold standard, opening the door to high inflation of the 1970s and stagflation.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan had the opportunity to propose reduced budgets but he decided against it. David Stockman had been arguing for reduced spending in light of high interest rates. Instead, Reagan chose to support the "supply siders" who argued for keeping government spending high. In other words, like Nixon, Reagan followed Keynesian policy prescriptions.
Let's face it. The Republicans muffed it in 1971. They Muffed it in 1980. They muffed it in 1994. They muffed it in 2000-08.
With four strikes already, why is there hope? And who in the Republican Party besides the tiny Republican Liberty Caucus will fight for small government? Who?
I must admit I remain optimistic. Obama and his team make it so patently obvious that big government collectivism is a total farce, that even The Nation is having buyer's remorse. But what's different today is the groundswell of the hard working, family types who are angered - it's the grassroots rather than Party hacks. The Reagan revolution, the Gingrich Contract with America were all marketed from the party down, whereas the Tea Parties, Glenn Beck's Meetups, marches on Washington are spontaneous revolts, which in my opinion will only get bigger, the more people become aware of the massive gov't takeover. The GlennBeck meetup I attended last week had 30 people, and for the next one, 35 have already signed up.
The giant in the American spirit is waking up.
Great letter to Hinchey!
Post a Comment