There has been debate about whether a Bloomberg presidential run would help the Democrats or Republicans. Unless conservatives are very dumb, Bloomberg will help the Republicans. The argument that Bloomberg will help Democrats because the conservatives and libertarians have been frustrated with President Bush involves an odd logic. It is like saying: "I opposed fascism and Mussolini, so I voted for Hitler" or "I disagree with Norman Thomas because I dislike government, so I voted for Gus Hall." As well: "I disliked Eisenhower's spending, so I voted for Stevenson." How about "I thought Landon was too liberal, so I voted for Roosevelt." You can probably think of a few more examples.
I doubt that conservatives will support him, unless they are very dumb. They would have to believe the media claims of Bloomberg's being a good manager. But conservatives are the ones who are suspicious of the media, so I doubt they'll fall for it, unless they are very dumb.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Jacksonian Party versus Michael Bloomberg
The June 19 and 20 New York Sun carried two stories about Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg is leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent. This has fueled speculation about his running for president. Moreover, Josh Gerstein notes that Mayor Bloomberg accuses the presidential candidates of being shallow. I'm somewhat puzzled, because Mayor Bloomberg's six years in New York City have been as shallow as a sidwalk puddle on 42nd and Vanderbilt.
The Mayor has spent the past six years kowtowing to the city's power brokers. He has busied himself with restaurant menus, west side football stadiums and a long range vision statement that mimics the failed ideas of Robert Moses. While he has harassed small business, he has catered to billionaire developers. During his tenure, city government has been bloated, New York City's taxes inflated, and the divisions between rich and poor sharp as ever.
If Mayor Bloomberg were elected president, real estate prices in Peoria would follow New York's. Private use eminent domain would mushroom. Developers could blight Peoria with tasteless super-projects. European multi-millionaires would dominate Peoria's condo market. Native Peorians would have to move to Mexico. Apartments would be too expensive.
Contrast Mayor Bloomberg's shallow ideas with those of blogger AJacksonian. In "Warnings of a Founding Generation" AJacksonian points out that Yates and Lansing were already concerned, back in 1787, that a federal government would be too powerful. This came to pass in the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the 1914 Harrison Act, and similar laws which the Progressives advocated. This also came to pass, in AJacksonian's view, from the 1913 Sixteenth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to establish an income tax. It also came to pass via Public Law 62-5, which in 1913 set the number of elected Congressmen to 435. This, in AJacksonian's view, has led to special interest pandering. AJacksonian points out that Yates and Lansing's fears came to pass because of Wilsonian progressivism. The fear of narcotics as expressed in the Harrison Act was used to expand state power. The views of founders, such as the Federal Farmer, were that taxation and expansion of government would lead to corruption. Government cannot be representative because the members of Congress are too few in number. Gerrymandering has led to the decline of democracy. "Congress...no longer acts in the interests OF the Will of the People...Today we now have Congressional Representatives who are more interested in securing funds and power than they are in actually having good government or being a fair representative of the People of the Nation."
In one blog, I learn a considerable amount from AJacksonian. In six years of Mayor Bloomberg's mayoralty, I learn only that the second-rate can become very rich.
AJacksonian has founded a Jacksonian Party, and AJacksonian seems to be the only serious candidate out there.
The Mayor has spent the past six years kowtowing to the city's power brokers. He has busied himself with restaurant menus, west side football stadiums and a long range vision statement that mimics the failed ideas of Robert Moses. While he has harassed small business, he has catered to billionaire developers. During his tenure, city government has been bloated, New York City's taxes inflated, and the divisions between rich and poor sharp as ever.
If Mayor Bloomberg were elected president, real estate prices in Peoria would follow New York's. Private use eminent domain would mushroom. Developers could blight Peoria with tasteless super-projects. European multi-millionaires would dominate Peoria's condo market. Native Peorians would have to move to Mexico. Apartments would be too expensive.
Contrast Mayor Bloomberg's shallow ideas with those of blogger AJacksonian. In "Warnings of a Founding Generation" AJacksonian points out that Yates and Lansing were already concerned, back in 1787, that a federal government would be too powerful. This came to pass in the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the 1914 Harrison Act, and similar laws which the Progressives advocated. This also came to pass, in AJacksonian's view, from the 1913 Sixteenth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to establish an income tax. It also came to pass via Public Law 62-5, which in 1913 set the number of elected Congressmen to 435. This, in AJacksonian's view, has led to special interest pandering. AJacksonian points out that Yates and Lansing's fears came to pass because of Wilsonian progressivism. The fear of narcotics as expressed in the Harrison Act was used to expand state power. The views of founders, such as the Federal Farmer, were that taxation and expansion of government would lead to corruption. Government cannot be representative because the members of Congress are too few in number. Gerrymandering has led to the decline of democracy. "Congress...no longer acts in the interests OF the Will of the People...Today we now have Congressional Representatives who are more interested in securing funds and power than they are in actually having good government or being a fair representative of the People of the Nation."
In one blog, I learn a considerable amount from AJacksonian. In six years of Mayor Bloomberg's mayoralty, I learn only that the second-rate can become very rich.
AJacksonian has founded a Jacksonian Party, and AJacksonian seems to be the only serious candidate out there.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Is there a Difference between Democrats and Republicans?
I saw an interview of Nancy Pelosi last night. Ms. Pelosi was discussing the Iraqi War. She stated that the Bush administration should not defend the elected Iraqi government and instead limit the military to fighting terrorism. It is difficult for me to understand Ms. Pelosi's point. There is a fine line between fighting terrorism and supporting the Iraqi government. While Ms. Pelosi claims that her position is a major departure from President Bush's, the difference seems vacuous.
Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? In the late 18th and 19th centuries there was a debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists, led by Hamilton, were elitist. They believed in central banking, supported the interests of the wealthy and believed in limiting democracy. In contrast, the anti-federalists, led by Jefferson, opposed a central bank (what today is the Federal Reserve Bank), believed in maximizing democracy and believed in supporting the common man, who was a farmer. The Jeffersonian anti-federalists were often more racist than the federalists. Ultimately, the Jeffersonians were allied with early labor unions (and the Workingmen's Parties) but also with the southern "slave power".
Through their successors, the Whigs and then the Republicans, the federalists allied business and northern religious interests, northern farmers and abolitionists. The anti-federalists, through the Democrats, allied labor interests, the white working class of big northern cities like New York, southern interests and the "slave power".
Today, it would seem that the federalists have won a complete victory for two reasons. First of all, central banking is no longer debated, although it ought to be. The public has accepted the Keynesian monetary project.
Second, the New Deal reinvigorated the federalist concept that an elite was necessary for the US economy to work. In the progressives' view, the elite is comprised of university-trained experts. But the knowledge that enables such experts to make decisions has never been specified. The reason is that it does not exist. Business schools have multiplied in number, but competence to manage the New York City subways, for example, has eluded both Democrats and Republicans for seven decades.
What struck me about Ms. Pelosi was that she evinced no indication of the slightest grasp of military strategy or anything else relevant to the War in Iraq, but she is entirely convinced that she is expert concerning it. Is Ms. Pelosi's arrogance peculiar to the Democrats, or do both the Republicans and the Democrats implicitly favor Pelosian elitism? Are both parties alternative versions of neo-federalism?
Both favor inflationary Federal Reserve policies. More than $10 trillion have gone gone into circulation around the globe, with less than $2 trillion in circulation here in the US. We are sitting on an inflationary time bomb. With demand for stocks inelastic because of loose credit, companies have followed easy, low-risk cost strategies of moving jobs overseas to to nudge up stock prices, inflating executive compensation but leaving average Americans feeling alienated. Jefferson would turn in his grave.
Both parties favor regulation. The Democrats say they do, the Republicans say they don't, but after three Republican presidents and a decade and a half of a Republican Congress there is as much regulation now as there was under Jimmy Carter. Since 1980, government has markedly expanded in cost and scope.
The difference is that the Democrats would have unemployed American workers dependent on them for welfare, while the Republicans would have underemployed American workers working for Wendy's. Both are willing to support policies that encourage home buyers to borrow five times their annual incomes to purchase homes; both oppose policies that would permit Americans to keep their paychecks to pay cash for their homes.
It is difficult for me to see the difference.
Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? In the late 18th and 19th centuries there was a debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists, led by Hamilton, were elitist. They believed in central banking, supported the interests of the wealthy and believed in limiting democracy. In contrast, the anti-federalists, led by Jefferson, opposed a central bank (what today is the Federal Reserve Bank), believed in maximizing democracy and believed in supporting the common man, who was a farmer. The Jeffersonian anti-federalists were often more racist than the federalists. Ultimately, the Jeffersonians were allied with early labor unions (and the Workingmen's Parties) but also with the southern "slave power".
Through their successors, the Whigs and then the Republicans, the federalists allied business and northern religious interests, northern farmers and abolitionists. The anti-federalists, through the Democrats, allied labor interests, the white working class of big northern cities like New York, southern interests and the "slave power".
Today, it would seem that the federalists have won a complete victory for two reasons. First of all, central banking is no longer debated, although it ought to be. The public has accepted the Keynesian monetary project.
Second, the New Deal reinvigorated the federalist concept that an elite was necessary for the US economy to work. In the progressives' view, the elite is comprised of university-trained experts. But the knowledge that enables such experts to make decisions has never been specified. The reason is that it does not exist. Business schools have multiplied in number, but competence to manage the New York City subways, for example, has eluded both Democrats and Republicans for seven decades.
What struck me about Ms. Pelosi was that she evinced no indication of the slightest grasp of military strategy or anything else relevant to the War in Iraq, but she is entirely convinced that she is expert concerning it. Is Ms. Pelosi's arrogance peculiar to the Democrats, or do both the Republicans and the Democrats implicitly favor Pelosian elitism? Are both parties alternative versions of neo-federalism?
Both favor inflationary Federal Reserve policies. More than $10 trillion have gone gone into circulation around the globe, with less than $2 trillion in circulation here in the US. We are sitting on an inflationary time bomb. With demand for stocks inelastic because of loose credit, companies have followed easy, low-risk cost strategies of moving jobs overseas to to nudge up stock prices, inflating executive compensation but leaving average Americans feeling alienated. Jefferson would turn in his grave.
Both parties favor regulation. The Democrats say they do, the Republicans say they don't, but after three Republican presidents and a decade and a half of a Republican Congress there is as much regulation now as there was under Jimmy Carter. Since 1980, government has markedly expanded in cost and scope.
The difference is that the Democrats would have unemployed American workers dependent on them for welfare, while the Republicans would have underemployed American workers working for Wendy's. Both are willing to support policies that encourage home buyers to borrow five times their annual incomes to purchase homes; both oppose policies that would permit Americans to keep their paychecks to pay cash for their homes.
It is difficult for me to see the difference.
Pamela Hall in Washington, DC
Pamela Hall of the United American Committee spoke on June 1o, 2007 in Washington, DC at a rally. Her speech is available on Youtube here. She concludes: "God bless America. God bless Israel." And God bless Pamela.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
