October 31, 2008
American Politics
4 Comments
By Arran Gold
In this election, US has two primary choices with the following attributes.
McCain: old, experienced, upstanding character, centrist with a relatively inexperienced VP candidate.
Obama: a dabbler who has never held the same job for more than three years, only limited executive experience was deemed to be a failure by others, socialist, wouldn’t pass security clearance due to association with radical friends, coke head, murky background given the reluctance to release background information, gangsta approach to politics, member of a racist church and an inflated ego.
Given the above, your correspondent endorses Obama for the following reasons.
The polling numbers do not accurately reflect the weakness of the Republican party and its ideology. They are about to lose a substantial number of seats in the Congress and a few Senate seats, some of which, as noted by your correspondent earlier this year, was inevitable due to significant number of retirements on part of the Republican incumbents. Even in its current form, the party is so weak that it was unable to fend off charges that they are the party to blame for problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The marginal political strength that the party enjoys, masks immense weakness in the broader society. Where are the conservative community organizations? Where are the conservative newspaper-of-record? Where are the conservative trade unions? Where are the conservative art organizations? How is it that Obama can decline to be interviewed by Fox till well into the campaign, yet Palin has to immediately report for an interview with ABC and CBS? The government is the tip of this base and the liberal/left/progressive have over the last 30-years, without any significant opposition, taken control of or neutralized virtually every cultural, political or civic organization in US. Outside the political sphere, the ideology of the Republican party is non-existent. A win by McCain will lead to further false sense of security and once again delay the necessary soul-searching. How did it come to be that a sign of patriotism, as stated by Joe Biden, is the amount of tax one is willing to pay? The Republican grassroots is better off rolling back this leftist tide than enjoying the perks of a Republican White House as it will more beneficial over the long term.
Another reason it is best if Obama wins the presidency, is that the current crop of economic problems, the most pressing of which is the deleveraging cycle, will lead to a recession that is deeper than the ones previously experienced. The current set of problems are difficult to address in the best of times, but they will be further compounded by the poor policies, that are being implemented and will be implemented under a socialist president, with unfettered control of Congress and Senate. These policies will further exacerbate the problems and underline the obtuseness of current policy choices. Republicans will be unable to fend off charges that they are to blame if McCain is the president. Additionally, it will be good if people such as this, face the reality after hearing a constant stream of overblown rhetorical nonsense that has emanated from BHO. And to think that Mandela only promised a free washer and dryer.
So let them march.
October 30, 2008
American Politics
No Comments
By Arran Gold
Fouad Ajami, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies provides an Arab perspective on the mass hysteria and BHO in a WSJ article.
There is something odd — and dare I say novel — in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies….
On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds (of a functioning teleprompter – AG). After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish….
Save in times of national peril, Americans have been sober, really minimalist, in what they expected out of national elections, out of politics itself. The outcomes that mattered were decided in the push and pull of daily life, by the inventors and the entrepreneurs, and the captains of industry and finance. To be sure, there was a measure of willfulness in this national vision, for politics and wars guided the destiny of this republic. But that American sobriety and skepticism about politics — and leaders — set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner…
America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.
From Elias Canetti again: “But the crowd, as such, disintegrates. It has a presentiment of this and fears it. . . . Only the growth of the crowd prevents those who belong to it from creeping back under their private burdens.”
The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat — by now unthinkable to the devotees — will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won’t be solved by a leader’s magic.
At least they will have free medical care to tide them over when reality strikes after the victory. As for the now unlikely defeat, bureacrats might consider doubling up shifts on suicide hotlines.
October 30, 2008
Economics and Finance
No Comments
By Arran Gold
… this time without that thing about the Jews. A recent survey in Germany put forth some interesting views.
The overwhelming majority of Germans would welcome the nationalisation of large segments of the economy, including its energy, transport and financial infrastructure, according to a new opinion poll that underlines the strength of popular opposition to free-market liberalism in Europe’s largest economy.
…77 per cent of respondents thought the state should take large equity stakes in German energy companies while 64 per cent said financial institutions should be at least partly nationalised. Another 60 per cent said Germany’s former state monopolies – Lufthansa, the airline, Deutsche Post and the Deutsche Bahn railway operator – and their private-sector competitors should either come or stay under state ownership…. A large minority of 40 to 45 per cent said nationalisations or partial nationalisations should extend to the telecommunications, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and farming sectors.
Sometimes it is not the idea, but the execution, the survey responders seem to be saying.
October 29, 2008
American Politics, Economics and Finance
1 Comment
By Dalwhinnie
As I write, an early snow storm has covered Ottawa in white, though some leaves are still greenish yellow. Welcome to the new Ice Age.
It is hard to maintain the keen knife-edge of mental and spiritual combat against the Forces of Darkness every waking moment of the day. Moreover, it is harder to be excited all the time about impending Doom. I refer both to Obama and to panic in the markets. Arran Gold recently attributed my calm in the face of Obama to getting a cushy job. This is true, as far as it goes. But how far does the prospect of a few years of financial security cause this apparent lack of concern? Not far at all.
To start: If I had a vote I would vote for McCain. I am not persuaded by Obama in the least.
I am, nevertheless, not predicting the overthrow of the Republic, the overturning of the Constitution, the permanent enthronement of identity politics and political correctness and the transformation of the United States into a socialist refuge for NDPers fleeing the Conservative reformation of Canada.
Read the rest…
October 18, 2008
American Politics, Economics and Finance
2 Comments
By Arran Gold
Your correspondent noted in February of this year, that Democrats were likely to make significant inroads, similar to post-Watergate era, in the House and the Senate, due to the large number of Republicans incumbents who were either retiring or deciding not to run again. This reality is finally starting to dawn as to the significance of the changes as noted in WSJ. The article notes
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
It goes on to note the following.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today’s left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for “change” should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
The US GDP growth has historically exceeded the EU-15 growth rate by more than 1%. Expect this gap to narrow as US moves closer to the European socialist model. The stock market is already starting to adjust to this reality, as was noted earlier. Will the combination of acute economic problems and Democrat policies lead to replication of economic consequences from 1929, when a recession was transmogrified into the Great Depression due to the policies of FDR? Only time will tell but it is time to batten down the hatches.