A poster on this blog linked to a Time article arguing that America is becoming more like France, and the article is right. The transformation is nothing new, though. It goes back to 1901 and the assassination of President McKinley. At that point, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican vice-president with an experience base similar to Sarah Palin's, took office. Roosevelt advocated the socialistic ideas of Walter Weyl and Herber Croly, founders of the New Republic. These ideas were largely rooted in European models that had become increasingly attractive to the American elite because a large segment of them had been educated in Europe. Weyl was a first-generation American Jew whose parents had immigrated here from Germany. Weyl was eager to emulate European models only two decades before the holocaust wiped out European Jewry.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson made tentative steps toward statism. During World War I, Wilson nationalized much of the economy. This history is well documented in Murray N. Rothbard's and Ronald Radosh's New History of Leviathan. Following the war, Wilson repealed much of his central planning and industry cartel edifice. During the 1920s, Republicans Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge did not oppose the statist edifice that Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had otherwise established such as the Hepburn Act. Most important of these was the Federal Reserve Bank, which provided a means for government's management of credit markets, to include the stock market. Later in the 1920s, one of the most aggressive progressives, Herbert Hoover, took a number of interventionist steps to attempt to manage the economy. These included aggressive public works projects such as the Hoover Dam and intervention in the labor market.
Thus, when the stock market crashed due to Fed tightening, the Fed did not take counter measures at Hoover's insistence. Moreover, Hoover had "jaw boned" major corporations into not cutting wages. In other words, the European-style interventionism caused the chief crisis in American economic history, the Great Depression.
Subsequent to the failure of Hoover's French-style socialism, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected on a social democratic platform that aimed to somewhat intensify Hooverite Progressivism. The steps that Roosevelt took, namely adoption of social security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, a pretense of securities regulation and an attempt to socialize the American economy (the National Industrial Recovery Act) that was declared unconstitutional, had the effect of intensifying unemployment by raising wages.
The most important of the socialist reforms that FDR implemented, the abolition of the gold standard, had the effect of providing a long term subsidy to Wall Street at the expense of American wage earners. Real wages increased during the depression even though nominal wages were falling. After World War II, however, real wage gains began to flatten.
In 1971 Richard M. Nixon took another step toward French-style socialism that also furthered the aims of big business progressives. He abolished the international gold standard that had been re-established in 1944. Since 1971, with the Fed freed from any constraint as to expanding the money supply, real wages have been declining due to the Federal Reserve. Americans have been in denial, but our standard of living has begun to sink to the level of France's. This has been made less apparent through an orgy of credit expansion that made credit cards and sub-prime mortgages available to the public. This was only possible because of French-style socialism. The French are not so cynical as the Americans, so they do not use credit in this way, but without government intervention the sub-prime crisis and credit card phenomena would not have been possible.
Corporate America has been the chief beneficiary of French-style socialism brought to America, and corporate America's apologists in academia and in the media have been eager to justify the expansion of statism, the virtues of the Federal Reserve System and Keynesian economics.
The left, unable to cognize the economic effects of this system (with exceptions such as William Appleman Williams) celebrates the expansion of the American state.
One of the tragedies of the Francification of the American economy has been the decline in substantive innovation. This tracks events in England. France was never an overly important country economically. In the 19th century, in response to increasing laissez-faire, the British economy became the most innovative in the world, and England became the wealthiest country in the world. This did not, as many historians erroneously believe, occur because of imperialism. It arose because of ongoing productivity gains due to innovation.
By the late nineteenth century, America had become the most laissez-faire country in the world. During this period, real wages increased. More importantly, breakthrough technologies changed the world. These include the telephone, AC electricity, the electric light and the mass produced automobile. The increased productivity was met with hostility despite rising real wages. In response to the public anxiety concerning the creation of large companies and naive interpretations of competition as depending upon the existence of small firms (and lack of understanding of Schumpeterian creative destruction and Hayekian coordination) the Populists and advocates of the Social Gospel as well as a range of other advocates (single taxers, socialists, etc.) pressured for increased government intervention. The Progressives, who took the Populist ideas and molded them into a French and European-style format (Weyl prferred the French Republic as a model) lacked the analytical tools to address this question. In particular, the Progressives believed that the creation of large industrial firms was a static reality; that technological and management innovation had reached its apex; and that coordination could be accomplished through "socialist calculation". All of these assumptions turned out to be untrue. However, the Progressive policies had the effect of squashing innovation. Since World War I, the pace of nineteenth century innovation has been seriously dampened. Moreover, since 1971, the unrestricted ability of the Federal Reserve Bank to expand the money supply has resulted in four things.
1. Wall Street has diverted investment capital into decreasingly productive uses, with the process leading to the sub-prime crisis
2. Inflation has reduced real wages
3. There is less innovation because of the diversion of capital away from optimal uses
4. There is increasing income inequality as workers suffer from inflation due to monetary expansion and the stock and real estate markets have been inflated by low interest rates due to the same process. Since the wealthy own stocks and the poor work, Federal Reserve Policy has been distastefully cruel. Theft is wrong. But to institute an ongoing policy of subsidizing the wealthy at the expense of workers is an especially depraved policy.
The end result of this process is the establishment of a new American feudal socialism along the lines of France's. Like the French, America has become an increasingly stratified society, with an elite that benefits from Wall Street's access to Federal Reserve counterfeit. The average productive worker no longer can hope to save to start an entrepreneurial firm because of bloated home costs and taxes, and entrepreneurship and innovation are squashed by big business's monopolization of credit and its diversion into ill conceived real estate development.
One more note--the level of American political discourse has devolved to the point where there are two Progressive Parties--the pro business socialist Progressives of George Bush and the social democratic Progressives of Barack Obama. Yet, a large percentage of Americans do not agree with either view.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
James Q. Wilson at the Manhattan Institute
I attended a luncheon sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based institute, and James Q. Wilson was the speaker. The luncheon was at the New York Yacht Club on 44th Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. Professor Wilson described research that attributes political ideology to genetic differences. The research is based on identical twin studies. I am sure that this line of research is rigorously documented but I am not convinced of its importance. I raised this question at the end of the meeting: Did the shift from the Federalist-Democratic/Republican to a single party system in the "era of good feelings" (1800-1830) reflect a genetic shift? Did the introduction of new gene pools in the late nineteenth century cause a shift in the party system or party ideologies? Can't the near 50% votes for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates be explained by rational vote-seeking by two competitive, economically motivated parties? I would add--did the shift in Republican Party ideology from that of laissez-faire in the late nineteenth century to Progressivism in the early twentieth century reflect gene therapy on Theodore Roosevelt? In the end, I do not doubt that, as Jefferson points out somewhere in his letters, ideology is linked to temperament, and temperament is likely genetic, I am not at all convinced that ideology is important to American politics or that any genetic link has any practical importance.
To Bolt or Not to Bolt: the Cognoscenti Speak
I had written several friends about the question of whether to bolt the Republican Party because of the bailout and vote Libertarian instead. I had picked up Contrairimairi's response earlier today. They're all good answers. So far, only one of six responses has been anti-Republican. But the GOP has got to wake up. Carl Svensson, founder of the New York Republican Liberty Caucaus makes a number of good points about wedge issues, running candidates and appealing to minorities.
Candace de Russy:
8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc
Lenny Rann:
I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.
Pinni Bohm:
I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.
Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.
Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)
Carl Svensson:
" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".
They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.
".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."
I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.
" election of McCain at this point may be too much of an affirmation of George Bush's socialism".
Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.
I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.
So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.
The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.
A few of the facts (as I see them):
1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.
The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.
Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.
We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.
One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.
Candace de Russy:
8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc
Lenny Rann:
I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.
Pinni Bohm:
I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.
Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.
Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)
Carl Svensson:
" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".
They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.
".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."
I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.
"
Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.
I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.
So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.
The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.
A few of the facts (as I see them):
1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.
The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.
Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.
We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.
One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.
Monday, September 22, 2008
To Bolt or Not to Bolt: Contrairiamairi Says "Not"!
Dear Mitchell,
I deeply understand your outrage with government over the last few weeks' economic situation. On a personal note, I do not like or trust Paulson. I know what is happening runs much deeper, but I just wanted to let you know from the beginning that I am very unhappy about the state of affairs.
Over the short months I have come to know you, I have trusted much in your ideas and expertise in much of what was coming down in this campaign season. You are capable of much "long-term" thinking, and do not give in to the "shortsightedness" we see surrounding those in Washington, as well as those involved in this campaign process, including the electorate.
The name calling and finger pointing has become so vile, that I can barely stomach much of the rhetoric any longer. I do have many of my own ideas on all of the proceedings. However, while I have come to trust you as a beacon of more sensibility in all of this, you probably know that my background in my own life has filled me with thoughts and ideas that I believe to be part of my "heritage". My Dad was a VERY strong influence in my life, and short of having him here, I often find myself considering what he would have said or done in a particular situation. Sometimes when I try my hardest to find that place where I know he would be, an answer jumps at me, that makes me feel I can make a comfortable decision.
I would ask you to look back at Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin. I re-watched it over the weekend, because sometimes, small things are missed the first time around. I was FURIOUS over the bailout of Wall St., and even MORE FURIOUS over the lies of BO and the Democrats about whose fault this actually was! Republicans began questioning the goings on on Wall St. under Clinton. The attempts to gain better control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued throughout the Bush years. Every attempt to scrutinize the hornet's nest was shut down by Dems, FAR too many of whom were receiving major monetary contributions from the perpetrators. In just the exceedingly short time BO was in Washington, his gains eclipsed others who had made Washington their "life-long" project.
In the Sarah Palin interview, Sarah tells Sean that she disagrees with John McCain about drilling in ANWR. She tells Sean, that while they do not agree, John keeps an open mind and opens his door to those of opposite opinions, and that she will continue her work to encourage him to drill in ANWR.
THAT was just the message I was looking for! It has nothing to do with ANWR, it has EVERYTHING to do with John McCain being open to listening to opposing views! I would urge you to consider BO. He is so closed and narrow minded, he sees NOTHING but himself, and his ideology that he is some sort of god, to be worshipped and obeyed! When he speaks on something, unless his demented "inner-circle" of questionable advisers "change his mind for him", it is like the Pope speaking "ExCathedra". Consider, knowing his friends, his advisers, and his very capability of rising to the top of the "pay-out" scheme so quickly after he set foot in Washington, how open you think he will be to opposing ideas. My loathing of this man runs MUCH deeper, but some opinions I prefer to keep to myself. I feel that if you are truly trying to find the lesser evil, PLEASE take the side of someone who will HOPEFULLY turn their ear to the American people and act accordingly. I believe John McCain has America at heart, while I also believe that BO is so enamored of being the "World-Citizen" President, that Americans may be the next ones thrown under his bus if he is elected.
I know, given your own background, how difficult this campaign season has been, and trust me, you are NOT alone. Americans will HOPEFULLY gain something from all of this, although, I am not holding my breath. I believe it is time for the "silent majority", who hold the Constitution so dear to their hearts, to rear up and take back our Country, our conservative beliefs, and no matter how politically "incorrect" our involvement may appear, to re-instill the foundations upon which this Country was founded.
Mairi
I deeply understand your outrage with government over the last few weeks' economic situation. On a personal note, I do not like or trust Paulson. I know what is happening runs much deeper, but I just wanted to let you know from the beginning that I am very unhappy about the state of affairs.
Over the short months I have come to know you, I have trusted much in your ideas and expertise in much of what was coming down in this campaign season. You are capable of much "long-term" thinking, and do not give in to the "shortsightedness" we see surrounding those in Washington, as well as those involved in this campaign process, including the electorate.
The name calling and finger pointing has become so vile, that I can barely stomach much of the rhetoric any longer. I do have many of my own ideas on all of the proceedings. However, while I have come to trust you as a beacon of more sensibility in all of this, you probably know that my background in my own life has filled me with thoughts and ideas that I believe to be part of my "heritage". My Dad was a VERY strong influence in my life, and short of having him here, I often find myself considering what he would have said or done in a particular situation. Sometimes when I try my hardest to find that place where I know he would be, an answer jumps at me, that makes me feel I can make a comfortable decision.
I would ask you to look back at Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin. I re-watched it over the weekend, because sometimes, small things are missed the first time around. I was FURIOUS over the bailout of Wall St., and even MORE FURIOUS over the lies of BO and the Democrats about whose fault this actually was! Republicans began questioning the goings on on Wall St. under Clinton. The attempts to gain better control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued throughout the Bush years. Every attempt to scrutinize the hornet's nest was shut down by Dems, FAR too many of whom were receiving major monetary contributions from the perpetrators. In just the exceedingly short time BO was in Washington, his gains eclipsed others who had made Washington their "life-long" project.
In the Sarah Palin interview, Sarah tells Sean that she disagrees with John McCain about drilling in ANWR. She tells Sean, that while they do not agree, John keeps an open mind and opens his door to those of opposite opinions, and that she will continue her work to encourage him to drill in ANWR.
THAT was just the message I was looking for! It has nothing to do with ANWR, it has EVERYTHING to do with John McCain being open to listening to opposing views! I would urge you to consider BO. He is so closed and narrow minded, he sees NOTHING but himself, and his ideology that he is some sort of god, to be worshipped and obeyed! When he speaks on something, unless his demented "inner-circle" of questionable advisers "change his mind for him", it is like the Pope speaking "ExCathedra". Consider, knowing his friends, his advisers, and his very capability of rising to the top of the "pay-out" scheme so quickly after he set foot in Washington, how open you think he will be to opposing ideas. My loathing of this man runs MUCH deeper, but some opinions I prefer to keep to myself. I feel that if you are truly trying to find the lesser evil, PLEASE take the side of someone who will HOPEFULLY turn their ear to the American people and act accordingly. I believe John McCain has America at heart, while I also believe that BO is so enamored of being the "World-Citizen" President, that Americans may be the next ones thrown under his bus if he is elected.
I know, given your own background, how difficult this campaign season has been, and trust me, you are NOT alone. Americans will HOPEFULLY gain something from all of this, although, I am not holding my breath. I believe it is time for the "silent majority", who hold the Constitution so dear to their hearts, to rear up and take back our Country, our conservative beliefs, and no matter how politically "incorrect" our involvement may appear, to re-instill the foundations upon which this Country was founded.
Mairi
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
