The Antiplanner is not too excited about the presidential primaries, which seem to be little more than a reality show for political activists. It certainly has kept them chattering about who will get thrown off the island for over a year. But it has also not only kept them from noticing how bad our government really is, they haven’t even noticed that nearly all the people running are the ones who were responsible for making it so bad.
Instead, we imprint our own images of how we think things ought to be on a candidate and then imagine how wonderful life would be if only our candidate were to get elected. If our candidate should happen to get elected, there will be plenty of scapegoats to blame things on when we fail to achieve nirvana. All of this has become greatly exaggerated now that election campaigns are lasting two full years.
Some may call me cynical, but as Lily Tomlin says, no matter how cynical you are, you can’t keep up.
I normally ignore reality shows, but despite doing my best to ignore this one, I couldn’t help but notice a speech given last week by the current president to “CPAC,” the Conservative Political Action Committee. In the speech, Bush unintentionally stated just why his administration may go down as the worst in history. In a statement which he thought was critical of the Democrats, he said:
It also has a certain viagra canada effect on men’s wellbeing, thus bringing about impotency. This medicine will sildenafil side effects help to prompt the body to produce better quality eggs. It meets expectations by joining the impacts of Sildenafil Citrate (the super generic cialis force behind Kamagra) with Dapoxetine (a medication for the treatment of untimely discharge). Patients need to confer with their purchase cialis http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/019-USC-Rossier-How-Can-Placement-Policy-Improve-Math-Rem-Outcomes.pdf doctors about all their options, their likely benefits and potential risks. “They tend to think Washington has the answers to our problems. They tend to believe our country only succeeds under the expansive federal government. They tend to be suspicious of America’s exercise of global leadership  unless, of course, we get a permission slip from international organizations.”
Presumably, Bush is staking the opposite view as his own: that Washington doesn’t have the answers to our problems, but that Washington can exercise global leadership without getting permission from other countries.
Isn’t there a pretty clear contradiction there? If Washington isn’t smart enough to set local policies in America (which, I agree, it isn’t), how can it be smart enough to set policies for any other country? It can’t, and the disaster in Iraq is living proof.
The problem is that the “neocons” are not really conservatives. Historically, they are liberals who became foreign policy hawks. As liberals, they see nothing wrong with no child left behind, prescription medicaid, smart growth, and other intrusive and expansive federal policies.
Unfortunately, by campaigning in favor a smaller federal government and administering an expansive one, Bush and many Republicans in Congress have given small-government advocates a bad name. No matter who is elected this year, we are likely to see more government expansion. Let’s just hope that we can turn things around by 2012.
Bush and many Republicans in Congress have given small-government advocates a bad name
Other groups given a bad name by Bush and many Republicans in Congress:
1. Americans
2. Christians
3. All other human beings
Ooh! Common ground with Randal.
BushCo: he’s a uniter, not a divider.
DS
The neoconservative movement was around 20 years before W’s reign and has taken issue with Bush on no child left behind, prescription medicaid, and all those policies you claim define the movement that we claim have brought it closer to destruction. But let’s remember that it is not going to pushed that far during Bush’s last term and that liberal America still elected him (or at least did not prevent him from being elected). Twice. [Claps hands slowly]. Congratulations, progressive movement, for your outstanding tenacity and success.
Democrats /= Progressives.
Best,
D
Democrats /= Progressives.
DS
Republicans also /= Conservatives (of any kind, not just neoconservatives).
However, conservative philosophy still provides the political foundation for our current party platform.
Randal, I’d still like to read your thoughts on American Federalism, and the number of powers should be delegated to more local governance and to what extent.
I must respectfully but firmly disagree with D4P. Such a statement is without foundation and is what I would expect a college freshman to spout.
The United States is still admired throughout the world and held up as an example of what other countries and other people should aspire to. To claim otherwise is ignorant of what it’s really like out there.
Sure the foreign media has a different view but it’s always cool to disrespect the popular guy. The people all look to us and many depend on us.
Have we made mistakes? Of course, but to expect perfection is too much to ask of any country or people. Should we strive for perfection? Yes, and we do.
We can have partisan disagreements on domestic policy but as far as the moral fiber of my country and how the world sees us the reality is very different than what the liberals/progressives would have us believe.
As far as Dan’s comment I would offer up Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and others as true dividers of our country. Political division is not always a bad thing either.
“The United States is still admired throughout the world and held up as an example of what other countries and other people should aspire to. To claim otherwise is ignorant of what it’s really like out there.”
Er… I’m from the UK, which is ‘out there’, I guess. We don’t admire the USA – although we’re always insatiably curious at what you guys are up to, and we’ll happily borrow any good ideas that are going. We do not aspire to be like you. The USA is a federal republic with a single currency, and in the USA this seems to be a popular arrangement. Very few people in Europe, outside of the European ‘aristocracy’ want a federal Europe. We have a monarchy, as do many countries in Europe. In the UK, we rejected the single currency, some of us for reasons of sovereignty, others for good economic reasons.
If the USA has one really big fault, it is that some of its citizens do not understand that there are many countries out there which have a proud heritage, and don’t see that they want to be an offshoot of the USA. The current (pointless) quarrel with Iran is an example of this. Iran was a super-power when it was called Persia. The glories of the persians were legendary, and have only been obscured by the fact that the greeks wrote the history books. Many or most Iranians remember the Persian Empire and the martyrdom of Hussein as if they happened yesterday. Hence Mr. Ahmadinejad. And yes, we find him as irritating as you do.
Francis,
I appreciate your comments. I see many more similar traits between our two countries than different ones.
We are both democracies and while you have a monarchy it has little do with running the country. We are both capitalist and free market oriented. We share a common language and culture. We have fought side by side in two world wars and in other conflicts. We both have public schools, systems to care for our elderly and infirm. I suspect the reason the people of the UK would not aspire to be like us is because we are alike already.
But let’s take Iran/Persia as another example. Glory in another time but left behind in the modern world for a variety of reasons. Now ruled by an unelected group of fundamentalist clergy the Iranians have little say in what goes on in their country. Modern Iranians emigrate to countries like yours and mine to escape the oppression and gain opportunity. I would also note the Greeks stopped writing the world’s history more than a thousand years ago and that’s not a good excuse for the Iran of today.
As for the pointless quarrel with Iran I would like to remind you that Iran is a terrorist sponsoring state (your government agrees with that assessment), currently being led by a religious fanatic who foresees the fiery end of the world while he is in power, and is actively developing nuclear weapons while threatening another nation with complete destruction. I should also mention the smuggling of arms by Iran into Iraq for the purpose of killing American soldiers. I see a number of valid points for having a quarrel if not a war.
Ahmadinejad is not irritating but a threat to the world. Irritating we can live with.
In the speech, Bush unintentionally stated just why his administration may go down as the worst in history.
I am seen arguments, from those who know better than I, that the Bush presidency is likely to be remembered positively, as have other activist, interventionist presidencies which were unpopular during the time they served. Really good presidents like Harding, Cleveland, and Coolidge served up solid governance, and therefore left nothing exciting to attract attention to themselves.
…the Bush presidency is likely to be remembered positively, as have other activist, interventionist presidencies
Sure.
DS
Bush did unite the country. Against him.
BTW, isn’t it about time to put the political term “conservative” out of its misery? If both Pat Buchanan and Paul Wolfowitz can be considered conservatives, there’s not much meaning left in the word.
Time to bring back the Straight Talkin’ American Government Party.
Found it!
I always figured that the antiplanner would be a Ron Paul fan.
Oh, great. Let the Paulistas’ takeover commence…
Occasionally tho’, conservatives can work with liberals to achieve a common goal, such as obliterating the Fourth Amendment.
StevePlunk wrote:
“We are both democracies and while you have a monarchy it has little do with running the country.”
I respecfully disagree. The monarchy has a lot to do with running the country. Despite political leaders coming and going, the queen is a steady point of focus. The entire country revolves around her, and the consitutional implications are huge. Take the roads in the UK – they belong to her, every one of them. The prime minister is appointed by her, and the judges too. etc.
“We are both capitalist and free market oriented. We share a common language and culture. We have fought side by side in two world wars and in other conflicts. We both have public schools, systems to care for our elderly and infirm. I suspect the reason the people of the UK would not aspire to be like us is because we are alike already.”
We have these things in common with many other countries. We have also fought the USA in two world wars, the 1775 War of Independence (Colonies and France vrs Britain) and a rather pointless brawl in 1812 in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars. In the latter war, the Duke of Wellington was offered the command of British forces, but pointedly declined, thereby demonstrating his wisdom beyond doubt.
“But let’s take Iran/Persia as another example. Glory in another time but left behind in the modern world for a variety of reasons. Now ruled by an unelected group of fundamentalist clergy the Iranians have little say in what goes on in their country.”
The reason why Islam has fallen behind in so many areas is that the process of religious interpretation declined in the face of organised schools of Islamic jurisprudence. However, they are, relative to their start date of approx. 610 CE roughly where we were in the 1400s, during which the English raped and murdered their way across France, Jews were murdered in various pogroms, and the Enlightenment had yet to happen.
Iran is a democracy. It may not elect the kind of leaders that the USA wants to see, but there it is. Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected in a fair election. He was the mayor of Tehran, and apparently good at his job. His rival was accused of corruption, and was considered to be more interested in sucking up to wealthy Iranians than in protecting the poor of Iran. Since most people in Iran are poor, Mr. Ahmadinejad won. He is now hated in most of Iran, since putting money into the pockets of the poor is something that he has not done, and his crass economic policies (if they can be called policies) have caused disastrous inflation – all this at a time of high oil prices, too. In my opinion, he should go back to being mayor of Tehran.
“Modern Iranians emigrate to countries like yours and mine to escape the oppression and gain opportunity. ”
They are fleeing Iran’s Sharia, which is mediaeval, and in large parts (e.g. stoning women to death for adultery) fly in the face of scripture. That’s what happens when clerics stop doing their day jobs, and get involved in politics.
“As for the pointless quarrel with Iran I would like to remind you that Iran is a terrorist sponsoring state (your government agrees with that assessment)”
My government has lost its way, and its principles too. The greek histories did not mention that to Persia the greeks were barbaric terrorists. Persia launched millitary attacks on Greece to stop these terrorist incursions. A bit like the current war in Afghanistan.
“currently being led by a religious fanatic who foresees the fiery end of the world while he is in power, and is actively developing nuclear weapons while threatening another nation with complete destruction.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad is developing nuclear weapons to deter other countries (including USA and Pakistan) which also have nuclear weapons, in Pakistan’s case in violation of international law. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons already. Iran has more to fear from us than vice versa. The Mossadeq affair alone shouts this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq
“I should also mention the smuggling of arms by Iran into Iraq for the purpose of killing American soldiers. ”
The USA (and her allies) have placed soldiers around the entire border of Iran. Iran is retaliating. Unfortunately, many people in the USA cannot see their part in this. It’s like McArthur reassuring himself, and everyone in earshot, that China wouldn’t enter the Korean War when he approached her borders. It doesn’t work that way. USA should be working closely with Iran on matters of mutual interest, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Not picking a pointless fight. It’s 1812 all over again.
“Ahmadinejad is not irritating but a threat to the world. Irritating we can live with.”
Iran is closer to Europe than the USA. Despite this, I am not threatened. Merely irritated by his bombast, and what he has done to his own people.
Francis,
Obviously we have a disagreement on our hands. I would like to point out the weaknesses in your arguments without showing disrespect.
Comparing ancient history to the modern world can sometimes, but rarely, serve a useful purpose. The causes of Iran/Persia’s decline are not nearly as material to the discussion as is the current state of affairs. Iran may at first appear to be a democracy but it is accepted all relevant decisions are made by the ruling Mullahs who are unelected.
The troops in Iraq may worry Iran but that does not justify shipping arms and expertise into Iraq to kill Americans. If the presence of foreigners near a border is justification for military action then many borders would have raging hostilities as we speak.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms as defense is false. Israel has no motives to attack Iran if it behaves like a civilized country. Pakistan has no desires on Iran. Iraq is up to its armpits in its own trouble. That leaves the United States. If we would have wanted war we would have it before the nuclear weapons are produced. Iran’s role in world terrorism coupled with it’s nuclear ambitions should frighten all of us.
A quick mention of your monarchy. While officially the crown may own the roads in practice we both know that is immaterial. It’s like saying the people of the United States owns the White House or the Library of Congress. I receive no income or have any influence over those assets, ownership without privilege is not real ownership. The Prime Minister is the ruling party leader and is really ceremonially confirmed by the Queen, not appointed.
I realize too that many other countries share common traits with the UK and the United States but our discussion is a comparison of our two countries.
Lastly I differ on the reason Iranians are fleeing their own country. They were leaving years before Sharia law became a force. There is no doubt that Iran has become a barbaric country that ignores the modern world’s ideals of human rights and dooms itself to ignorance and poverty. To claim otherwise is being blind to the facts.
Occasionally tho’, conservatives can work with liberals to achieve a common goal, such as obliterating the Fourth Amendment.
Politicians did this. Let’s not sully the good name of conservatives or liberals by associating them with this – another push down the slippery slope.
DS
Pingback: Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Earmarks, more earmarks