I talked about the astounding, blind, arrogance of the California nomenklatura below.
Then last night, over at Dan Weintraub’s ‘California Insider’ I read an interview with Sheila Kuehl (State Senator from Beverly Hills and Santa Monica) that sets a new high-water mark for it. You’ve got to read this one… and my bear story too:
DW: How are you feeling?
KUEHL: I am really sad. I’m more angry than anything. And I haven’t even started thinking about what the Senate will need to do in order to save the state.
DW: Save the state from what?
KUEHL: From ignorance. This guy has no idea how to run a state. One of two things will happen. He’ll have his own ideas and no way to carry them out. I mean he has already proposed three things that the governor cannot do. He wants to roll back the car tax on his own by fiat, which he can’t do. He wants to tax the Indians, which he can’t do. He doesn’t know anything about running the state. So either he will propose a lot of stuff he can’t do and we’ll have to govern, or he’ll be pretty well manipulated by people who have an agenda, very much the way I think the president of the United States has been handled by people who are really telling him how to do these things. In which case we may have to counteract things that are worse than things he proposed on his own. His handlers will probably be more conservative than he is, or in the Republican Party line. Convince him he’ll bring businesses back to the state by cutting more benefits to workers, by unraveling anti-discrimination statutes which they call job killers.
DW: Will he be received civilly by the Democrats in the Legislature?
KUEHL: He will be received civilly. We have received everyone civilly. I don’t know if everybody is going to go to the State of the State (speech). Because frankly I don’t think there is going to be a lot of content that anyone’s interested in. What’s this guy got to say to us about the state of the state? Nothing.
I’ve had a few other interactions with the more-liberal part of my team, and one characteristic I’ve noted is a certain…arrogance.
The conservatives are arrogant too, but they simply think that we liberals ‘re delusional or traitorous. They give liberals the respect of being people responsible for their own actions The Democrats have this kind of sad, kindly, ‘we know better than you and we’re gonna make you do the right thing’ attitude. I’ve been burned by it twice in my old blog: First, in a post commenting on an email by Avedon Carol I said:
I’ve talked in the past about the ‘liberalista’ (I’m looking for a word for the high-profile liberals who I believe have hijacked the leadership of the liberal movement and the Democratic Party – that will do until I come up with something better) attitudes, and the underlying position of obnoxious superiority.
Avedon Carol posted a couple of times a response to my MESS OF CRACKPOTTAGE post below; I noticed that there were multiples, and that she had clarified her point and wasn’t trying to link me to Ann Coulter (ick), and thanked her.
I was too quick on the ‘send’, because this is the email that crossed mine:
(here’s the money graf:)
BTW, if the kind of support I was getting for my writing was of the caliber of the comments you got to this post, I’d definitely ask myself what I was doing wrong.
Avedon
(emphasis added)
Gosh, there are so many things to talk about here…
…the first is that my team, the Democrats does in fact elect fools as well.
Cynthia McKinney, anyone?
…the second is that marvelously perfect tone of self-righteousness in the last paragraph.
Then there was this, in response to a post by Dave Yaseen:
Dave Yaseen, of the usually smart blog A Level Gaze, posts what I pray to Woodie Guthrie is a slip of the liberal tongue. His post concludes:
Yes, this debacle of an election is the media’s fault. But it’s our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it.
(emphasis mine)
Well, damn. That’s the way to reach the poor uneducated voter and get them onto your side…
I’ve seen the problem elsewhere. I’m back helping out a prominent charity here in L.A. (one of the two that I actively – too actively, sometimes, given the state of my calendar and checkbook support), and met with the board president and executive director the day after the election. Their attitude was sadly an exact mirror of Sen. Kuehl’s; the lumpenproles had been suckered. I gently suggested that until the Democratic leadership could learn to respect that lumpenproletariat – even when disagreeing with on matters of policy – we had a lot of time outside on the porch to look forward to.
Here’s the deal; I think that facing reality is the way to go. You can ignore it for a long time, but eventually it catches up with you.
Up in Alaska, we’ve all read about how it just happened:
A California author and filmmaker who became famous for trekking to Alaska’s remote Katmai coast to commune with brown bears has fallen victim to the teeth and claws of the wild animals he loved.
Alaska State Troopers and National Park Service officials said Timothy Treadwell, 46, and girlfriend Amie Huguenard, 37, were killed and partially eaten by a bear or bears near Kaflia Bay, about 300 miles southwest of Anchorage, earlier this week.
…
U.S. Geological Survey bear researcher Tom Smith; Sterling Miller, formerly the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s top bear authority; and others said they tried to warn the amateur naturalist that he was being far too cavalier around North America’s largest and most powerful predator.
“He’s the only one I’ve consistently had concern for,” Smith said. “He had kind of a childlike attitude about him.”
“I told him to be much more cautious … because every time a bear kills somebody, there is a big increase in bearanoia and bears get killed,” Miller said. “I thought that would be a way of getting to him, and his response was ‘I would be honored to end up in bear scat.’ ”
In politics as well, when you ignore the bears, you are likely to wind up as bear scat.
A big part of my hammering away at the Democratic Party is because I perceive a sense of disconnection from reality as strong as Treadwell’s, who “routinely eased up close to bears to chant ‘I love you’ in a high-pitched, sing-song voice.”
I think that there is an equally strong disconnect from reality within the core circles of the Democratic Party – and that the results will be equally ugly until that changes.
— UPDATE —
I can’t believe I forgot to connect this dot as well. Arrogance in place of thoughtfulness figures in another recent post of mine, about Columbia. The key event? the response of the intellectually arrogant managers to the suggestion by some low-level engineers that the Air Force use it’s ultra-high-resolution reconnaissance satellites to take a picture of the damage on Columbia’s wing – pictures that almost surely would have shown the damage and allowed for the possibility some outcome other than the one spread across the Texas sky. The official position?
bq. “A NASA liaison then emailed an apology to Air Force personnel, assuring them that the shuttle was in “excellent shape” and explaining that a foam strike was “something that has happened before and is not considered to be a major problem.” The officer continued, “The one problem that has been identified is the need for some additional coordination within NASA to assure that when a request is made it is done through the official channels.”
“I told him to be much more cautious … because every time a bear kills somebody, there is a big increase in bearanoia and bears get killed,” Miller said. “I thought that would be a way of getting to him, and his response was ‘I would be honored to end up in bear scat.’ ”
Oh, my aching head. So now the guy and his girlfriend are dead, and because of the way that they died some people are going to listen to their inner caveman and go reinforce the ancient lesson of Thou Shalt Not Eat Of The Hairless Monkeys all over the immediate landscape. One would presume that this would have been something that Treadwell would have wanted to avoid this, right?
I swear to God, it seems that just when I’m starting to think that maybe I’m being too hard on the more mystical environmental types, one of them gets mauled by a bear or other critter, usually for doing something that even I can recognize as being a damfool idea.
A.L.,
The arrogance is a direct result of the socialism that the party embraced fully in the 1930s and has never given up.
Socialism small says the government knows how to run an economy because smart people (Democrats) are in government.
Socialism large says the government knows how to run your life because smart people (Democrats) are in government.
If you remember we discussed this around May 16th – The Death of Socialism. I predicted the results would be in on November of 2004. Evidently there has been an early thaw and the socialists are melting early. Of course they don’t get it because they have the answers. They are Democratic Socialists. Very smart people. Who know how to run your life.
Face it A.L. because of your honesty and humility you have no place with the Democrats as constituted. I think until the libertarian wing of the Republicans calves off from the party you aren’t going to have a real home.
I figured this out several decades ago and made my choices accordingly.
Welcome to the club.
Simon
M. Simon (what is your first name, anyway?) –
“…because of your honesty and humility…”
Thank you so much for that compliment; it hits close to home, because that is exactly what I try hard to be.
Thank you.
A.L.
Moe, you make a mistake that’s very common when discussing significant sections of the Left: you assume that their stated goals and what they actually care about are the same thing. Most of the time, they aren’t.
Treadwell’s stated goal was appreciation and protection of bears; his real goal was validating his personal exceptionalism and attaining a mystical experience through a totem animal. The bears – and indeed everything else – were just props in a psychodrama, a means to another end. Whether his actions actually protected his “beloved” bears, or even endangered them, was not really of any concern to him – because that wasn’t really the point.
Application of this insight to many of the Left’s other causes and seeming inconsistencies is left as an exercise for the reader.
Joe –
Great point, and one that we should remember applies to the full political spectrum.
A.L.
The Democrat party hardly “fully embraced” socialism in the ’30’s. The Democrat Party before the ’60’s was a more diverse coalition. Witness the unpopularity of Henry Wallace as VP among the large segments of the party throughout his tenure in office leading up to his being dumped from the ticket in ’44.
A.L.,
Never mind the first name. All my close friends call me Simon. A hold over from my Navy days. When I got out I hung with my Navy friends and of course that is how they knew me and called me. It stuck. My first mate (in civilian terms wife) still calls me that.
Of course my Dad was called Simon and signed his name M. Simon (different first name same initial so in effect I have chosen to be Jr.). My #3 son is called Simon too and I had no influence over that at all.
We really are the “Simons”.
Simon
Robin,
You may be correct about personalities. Policy is another matter.
No, Simon, I’m talking about ideology.
you wrote:
“A big part of my hammering away at the Democratic Party is because I perceive a sense of disconnection from reality as strong as Treadwell’s”
I sometimes mention/push Thomas Sowell’s “The Vision of the Anointed”, which has some pithy remarks on how damaging such a disconnection from feedback can be (I’ve quoted part of that from time to time).
These attitudes that you’re finding also ressonate, IMO, with what SDB recently wrote (especially the parts about the electorate being too dumb for their own good and having to be led by the right sort of people who will guide things even in the face of the intransigent stupidity of the people – you know, the attitude that the “democratic wing of the Democratic Party” has).
Anyhow, I figured they would react this way. In other words, no change. It’s going to take a lot more than a recall to solve this problem. But it may be too late anyhow, since these people have made themselves immune to accountability to the electorate via Computerized Gerrymandering (choosing their voters rather than being chosen by their voters – and both sides *do* do that to the utmost of their ability without a dime’s worth of difference between ’em except for which “side” gets the short end of the stick in any given Gerrymander; that’s based on who holds the whip hand at the time the district boundaries are drawn).
It’s making a farce and a sham out of democratic accountability. The only things that are immune are offices that are based on “districts” with fixed boundaries (Federal Senate, Governors and other Statewide offices, Presidential elections).
Something has to be done to fix that problem across the board, but since it would depend on being passed/approved as a measure through the bodies (legislatures) run by the people who benefit from the current system (computer-generated Gerrymandered districts for themselves), there is no chance in hell (no chance, such as what you got. Up against a machine too strong indeed. . .) of that happening – or even, really, of it becoming an issue at all (outside of PolySci circles).
Robin,
Social Security and the Alpabet Agencies of the New Deal in my opinion are socialist policies. Many Republicans of the era thought so. Of course if you don’t think so then we disagree on the facts let alone their interpretation.
But in any case our differences are based on timing (30s vs 50s) rather than the policies themselves.
As I have pointed out over at Roger Simon’s and here as well I look to a rise of the radical center. Government out of my pocket book and out of my bedroom.
Simon, the problem with your opinion is that by asserting that the New Deal was equivalent to socialism, you have conflated together what was a real and significant range of ideology within the Democrat Party of the era.
Well, continuing with topic drift but returning to M. Simon’s original point: If the New Deal is Socialism, then what is this Prescription Drug Bill? And if the Prescription Drug Bill is Socialism, then how is Socialism dead?
I had hoped that turkey was going to die but, like Freddy Kruger or Jason, it just keeps comin back (in spite of the fact that hardly anyone out in the “grass roots” is pushing for it; I mean, in spite of the fact that the public clamor for it is nil).
Robin,
I should be clearer. The New Deal was a move towards socialism not full blown socialism. The Democrats want to move towards socialism. They believe in it.
Socialism is based on the idea that smart men can run economies. And of course the Democrats are nothing if not smart men.
Actually, as I recall, she calls him “Seamoan” rather as the French would. As someone who posts nicknonymously myself, in order to establish rather than to conceal, an identity, I would never presume to reveal what I know about that M. I will verify, for what it’s worth, that he did serve in the Navy and does do development work on industrial control computers.
I wouldn’t care if someone chose to call himself “Late For Dinner” as long as he did so consistantly.
As for the Prescription Drug Bill, I like to attack it as corporate welfare, since it will allow companies to back off on their support of pensioners.
Over the last week, I’ve gotten into it on a number of occassions with a liberal on a message board. I’ve basically come to the same conclusion. He knows what’s best for us and will fight me tooth and nail because he’s right and I’m wrong. The worst of it is, others don’t seem to see what’s happening here.
I’m glad you do. My respect for you has gone up greatly.
quadrotriticale ???
My favorite separation from reality is this.
Republicans got 60% of the vote in California, but the common leftward spin is this is a bad sign for Bush. They claim the people mad at Davis are the same people mad at Bush.
But that doesn’t even make logical sense. If you blame Bush for the economy, then you would relieve Davis of guilt. If you blame Bush for shrinking state budget (instead of, say, state being overly dependant on the fed’s teet), then Davis is off the hook. All throughout, they did their best to nationalize the issue and run against Bush, instead of Schwarzenegger. And the people of Cali clearly did not accept that.
A.W.
P.S.: Your point about the elitism of liberalism is exactly on point. I spent three years in the belly of the beast, one of america’s most liberal law schools. This kind of limosine liberalism is rampant there. [Limosine liberalism, in my dictionary, is elitist liberalism that has no respect for the people whose interest you are supposedly advocating.]
First it was Hitchens, who opened his eyes to the seedier side of his chosen political affiliation. He didn’t dump the democrats, but he decided he couldn’t defend them 100%. Then Susan Estridge seemed to open her eyes when the LA times hit Arnold low and late. She’s not exactly turning Republican but she’s not afraid to note the madness that seems to be consuming the Democrats. No doubt there are dozens of examples in between.
It will be a good day for the Democrats when more, and more, folk open their eyes and stop following the party lockstep into obscurity, character attacks and arrogance. This nation needs a two party system after all.
Porphyrogenitus,
Dead animals can be dangerous until buried. Socialsm may be dead but it is still twitching.
Trends of a century or more in duration are not reversed in a week. The early steps to reverse the trend will be small and tentative. Some of them will be reversed. Until the snow ball has rolled a bit further down hill.
As to the Medicare Drug Bill it may be a Bill too far. No one likes it, not the left (too little) or the right (too much) or the seniors it is supposed to help. It may not get passed despite it’s “support”.
Seniors who have good coverage (75%) will get worse coverage under the bill. Giving people something is politically good. Taking things away is politically bad.
Hmmm. I thought I was reading a great post about liberalistas but evidently I need to ponder the definition of Socialism. Does that mean I’m just another dumb voter?
Anyway, when my wife told me a bear ‘researcher’ had been killed, I immediately thought of Treadwell. About a month ago I saw his documentary where he was sneaking up on huge brown bears that lived in a brush maze.
He had the same respect for bears that a skateboarder has for a grind rail.
What I want to know is: Where does the ‘dumb’ voter meme land you? There is no suggestion that the voters are misinformed, slow to catch on, slightly dense. They’re just morons. Link via John Cole.
OK, let’s round ’em up and . . . tell them how dumb they are?
Typically stupid pseudoscience from Star Trek. As per a site linked by Amritas in his recent post riffing off my nickname, all triticale is polyploid. It happens to be my favorite grain, combining the best features of wheat and rye, and I was unaware of the Trek reference when I started using (at /. where everyone is nicknonymous).
triticale,
Where do I know you from? You know far too many of my secrets. 🙂
I might mention that in Mexico I was known as Seamoan too.
When a business starts blaming it’s customers for not being smart enough to purchase it’s products you know the company is not long for this world. Another danger sign is when the companies leadership blames all their woes on bad marketing.
I see the same behavior in contemporary Leftism. Rather than acknowledge that the traditional Leftist solutions have, at best, long since past the point of diminishing returns, they instead blame the voters for not appreciating them or fantasize that better marketing the form of a “liberal Rush Limbaugh” will rescue them.
The real problem is that their “product” sux. However well these solutions worked in the past, they do not work well now. Leftist refuse to entertain new ideas. They don’t have anything that wasn’t on the table before 1973.
Its easier to blame the customer than to reorg the corporation.
“his response was ‘I would be honored to end up in bear scat.’ ”
Well, he got his wish – though I’ll wager he found the transition somewhat unpleasant. But with that attitude, I’d accuse him of the murder of his girlfriend, who probably really didn’t have the same life-ambition.
Dear friends – if you want to know what plagues the dems, please read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.” It’s a small (120 page) book, easily read, that dissects the problems of central government. The maladies of the Dems – the arrogant utopianism, the disdain for the spontaneous organization of people when left to their own devices, the blind faith in their own exceptionalism – it’s all in their. Hayek was the first person to lay it all out in the politico-economic morgue, and it’s a corpse well worth studying. And then if you like that essay-ish taste of Hayek, delve into The Constitution of Liberty. “Serfdom” should be enough to send you on your way, however…
Until you read Hayek, you can’t accurately diagnose what’s wrong with the Dems… and after you’ve read Hayek… well, if you are a true liberal of any stripe (classical or neo) you will feel betrayed and cheated upon.
Liberals and Conservatives, (and/or Dems and Repubs) would get a lot more productive debate, if they would attempt to delineate between human nature and ideology.
The overwhelming majority of bad governing (bad policies, scandals, out of control bureacracies, etc) is due to human nature. Ideology in fact is mainly concerned with concepts to overcome our shortcomings for the betterment of society.
A good conservative is one who stands against ill conceived progressive ideals, in favor of tried and true solutions which need no meddling.
Likewise, a good Liberal is one who would institute progressive policies to combat or reform standard ways of doing things for the better.
A good constituent must know which is which. Refusing to blindly follow an organization. Being able to critically analyze thier positions.
The Quickest way to reform the Democrat party is to vote them out of office until they can gain some perspective on what is important, that being the will of the voter, not thier party agenda.
Simon,
I really like your “rise of the radical center idea”!
Do you think that Schwarzenegger’s run and win was a possible early example of that?
Jamie Irons
I hesitate to advise Democrats and liberals. To be honest, I seriously doubt that either side can avoid a measure of both malice and superiority when speaking to the other. I will try to avoid them but the disclaimer holds.
The left has fallen into “mommyism”. The perception that the government knows better than the individual leads to the treatment of the citizen as child. The liberal intelectual elite cannot take popular opinion seriously any more than a parent can allow their offspring to prepare the family budget.
It is the little things that speed elitists along this path. Seat belt laws, helmet laws and sensitivity training are minor irritations in law but major indications of attitude. I have heard it said that conservatives think of liberals as stupid, while liberals consider conservatives evil. It is the idea that people who do not share the left’s values as immature that causes such resentment.
I hope this can be read as civil. I have no reason to inspire my political opponents to better efforts. As I said above, I always take opposition advise with a whole shaker of salt. We have our problems over here on the right and I am sure you have ideas how to address them. But in the spirit of the original post, I hope my perspective can be accepted.
Old (20 some years ago) home week taken to email, like flame wars should be.
My copy of the “Road to Serfdom” (University of Chicago Press, Fifth Anniversary Edition) is 266 pages plus about 50 pages of forwards.
My gut POV as I posted on my own blog is this: ARNOLD GOES TO WASHINGTON
Posted 12:44 PM by Howard
Don’t read too much into the CA election
To paraphrase the old Mad Magazine seer, Alfred E. Newman who’s slogan was, “What? Me Worry?” California is simply the Welfare State Left Wing suddenly becoming Karl E MARX and saying:
“What? Me pay for it?”
It’s no more than that. The California voters are just looking for somebody other than them to pick up the tab. Get ready world, Arnold is going to Washington.
If the Democrats fight this, and perhaps they will, then we might see a new invigorated Republican Party. I just doubt it.
Jamie,
Yes. Arnier is of the radical center. Jessie Ventura was one of it’s first elected proponents although he fell short in execution.
I really appreciate your attitude. Though I’m not a Democrat, I want a more reasonable Democratic party — something like real competition. I think if more “liberals” thought as you did (not to mention conservatives) we’d all face a more appealing set of ballot offerings.
Thanks,
– Tim
Q Siemer: I have a first edition (though not first publishing run), WWII reduced size (to save paper for the war effort) copy of the Road to Serfdom, and while I don’t have it in my hands right now, it is a very thin volume — almost a pamphlet.
I saw this great quote once from a park ranger.
After observing that some bears are smarter than others, just like people, he said “our problems always start when the smarter bears interact with the dumber people”.
This liberal arrogance seems familiar. What follows is an excerpt from a recent interview in Reason magazine with Jessica Stern, discussing her book which is based on numerous interviews with professional terrorists from around the world:
Reason: Most people in the Islamic world speak very highly of democracy as a concept, and most people everywhere claim to want democracy. How many of the militants you talked with claim that they’re fighting for democracy?
Stern: None. I can’t think of any who did. It’s much more likely they’d tell me they oppose it.
Reason: As decadent?
Stern: I don’t know whether decadent is the right word. It’s more the belief that people don’t know what’s best for them.
I must say I am impressed with the discourse here.. no sniping and demonizing.
Let me take a stab at something and see what the response is.
I would agree with Armed Liberal that both wings of the ideological spectrum (or the full range if one doesn’t like the “linear” model; lets not have a debate on that) have tendencies to, or temptations to, cut themselves off from negative feedback or take the wrong lesson from it.
HOWEVER – I would say that this problem *definately* affects Liberals and the Left to a far greater degree than it does the Right? Why?
Well, the “why” is actually really easy: it has to do with information inputs (feedback they receive), and because of this concerned Democrats have at least as much to worry about regarding media (and university &tc) bias as Republicans do.
(Continued here).
Let me offer a defense of the democratic party. Not a defense of Gray Davis, who was the real reason the people of Cali voted so overwhelmingly for Arnold.
Mr. Davis pandered. Pandered so long and so hard that even those he pandered to became disgusted with his blatant attempts.
We on the left/center do not agree on every issue but the democratic party still resonates with a large majority of minorities and the working poor. Why is that? Is it that all minorities are stupid? Isn’t that the argument the WSJ editorialists and others like them use to explain the voting patterns of minorities? That they are being fooled by the Democrats? That they are not bright enough to see the destructive nature of those “limosine Liberals” in charge? And isn’t that the same vapid disrespect for the intelligence of the people you all see so clearly in Democrats? No, I would argue they vote overwhelmingly for democrats because they are at the recieving end of Republican political ideology. The right is all for personal responsibility, as long as they aren’t expected to practice it. The right is willing to overlook the crony capitalism of their leadership, All the while lecturing the rest of us that we should not expect any handouts from government. Why do you think a Halliburton would hire a Dick Cheney? Why would a Harkin Energy offer a board seat to GWB? Those of us who are at the bottom of the economic totem pole understand there is a huge disconnect between what the right says and what they actually do. “It’s the people’s money” was the refrain from the right regarding tax cuts, mostly benefiting the rich, but is it not also true that the deficit is also “The people’s money”? Who’s supposed to pay that bill?
The democratic party is not perfect but it is better on policy then their Republican counterparts. I read many posts to this site advocating the elimination of social security. Why not give it a shot? The right holds all the levers of power right now to accomplish this goal but they don’t dare try because regardless of what some of you feel, the politicians know they would get run out of washington on a rail if they tried.
It’s a popular program for a reason. Every industrialized nation has some form of a social safety net. If we were to eliminate that safety net, we would be at the mercy of the corporation.
We tried that once. In places like the coal mines of West Virginia, in the days of the robber barrons. The democratic party has it’s roots in those struggles and those roots still resonate today. The right has no idea how to solve problems other than to blame them on us evil and arrogant democrats. The new deal brought us hydroelectric power, an interstate highway system,
rural telephone service and many other infrastructure projects we now take for granted. We can all complain about the cost and the “socialism” of those programs and yet we all reap the benefits of that infrastructure in our daily lives. Do you honestly believe we would be the country we are today without those innovative projects? That they would have been built anyway by some enterprising businessman? Maybe, but the power they use in california would be twice as expensive without the hoover dam, businesses would not be so easily able to move goods from New Hampshire to Oregon, and the people of the great plains of Iowa would not have reliable telephone service. You can argue that those things would have happened come to pass anyway but the fact is they exist today because someone in government had the good sense to invest in infrastructure. That someone was a progressive democrat.
The right talks about smaller government, and yet the government never seems to get any smaller when your side is in charge. The right talks about
activist liberal judges, but they remain silent if the outcome suits their ideology. There are activist jurists on the right too, only we call them “strict constitutionalist”.
The democratic party is still the party that seeks to extend and expand the promise and prosperity of this country to all it’s citizens,the outcome in california notwithstanding. Keep this thought in mind, if Arnold had run on the platform that has been put forth in the preceding comments, he would not have been elected.
Cheers,
Nick Foresta
Oh yeah, one more thing….
Regarding the two people that were eaten by bears.
I have no idea what their political beliefs were but they get my vote for this year’s darwin award. I am also pretty sure that stupidity isn’t limited to just us democrats. At least I hope so…
Nick Foresta
Among the ancestral strains of the modern intellectual left is Second International socialism. (Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder are both members of parties that are members of the still-extant Second International.)
One of the doctrines of Second International socialism was “class interrest”, which, when bolied down to it, said the only rational choice of people in the proletariat was to support socialist parties. But the proletariat did not reliably vote in their “class interest” for the socialist parties.
The only explanation the socialist parties could reach, given the bedrock principle of class interest, was “mystification”, the ability of the upper classes to use propaganda and lies to convince the proletariat to vote against its own interests. That is, whenever socialists didn’t win a fair election, it was because the people were duped.
Nobody uses those terms any more, unless they’re really devoted socialists, but the basic attitude has remained. The Left has certain knowledge of what’s best for people, and if the people vote otherwise, it’s because they have been duped into it.
Nick Foresta is saying “the devil made us do it”. Anything that goes wrong, it’s always the Right’s fault. No need for self-examination.
Whenever the Forestas get involved in a discussion, it immediately jumps the shark.
Nick –
As a liberal, my issue with Democratic Party policies is that they tend to pay lip service to ‘serving the poor’ while in fact serving two consituencies: the advocacy groups (example: *TELACU*, here in Los Angeles), and the public sector employees who serve them (see *this* post).
The actual constituences – those who should be served – get lost in the mix.
And the election results show it, with support for Arnold across racial and income lines.
The conservatives have their own issues, and their own version of the same problems. But I’m less interested in solving their problems for some reason…
A.L.
Actually, Nick, it’s typically the Democrats who finance their cronies out of the public trough (while claiming to be doing it for the little guy), and Armed Liberal has chronicled (in some past posts) only the tip of the iceberg.
But as long as they (and you) are pointing fingers and blaming it on the Right-Wing Cabal you don’t have to notice that, and so the gravy train keeps chuggin’ along.
I reiterate what I said in my previous post: given the type of feedback the Dems are getting (including from the likes of the Foresta’s), they’re bound to never fix what’s wrong since they’ll never recognize it.
Apropos of nothing in general, I’d like to throw in one of Albert Jay Nock’s favorite quotations: “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”. This may be said to be the ultimate goal of pricipled conservatives.
AL – Another excellent post. Good week for bashing the political system.
The elitist intellectual snobbery all too present among politicians (and I agree with Porphy that it is far more a liberal disease) also dominates and degrades European politics. That’s why the French refer to themselves as “sheep” when speaking of their relationship to the government. It was De Gaulle himself who first so described the French without much objection from the public, thereby proving his point. (I think the closest French equivalent to the term for the liberalista class that AL is searching for is La Gauche Caviar.)
Treadwell – where do they get these names anyway? – apparently never learned much from the lessons of Goldilocks. I had been a little disturbed at AL’s post on Monday bemoaning the polarization of politics and the apparent impossibility of the “Third Way”. It seemed to imply that politics could virtually be reduced to faith-based “points of view”, like theology. The same reasoning would disturbingly apply to, say, our little spat with the French and even this point of view by Saudi Princess Reem Al-Faisal condemning the genocidal imperialism of the U.S. I was somewhat reassured by AL’s follow up post linking to Roger Simon’s insightful analysis of the Schwarzenegger victory as the rise of the pragmatic center. I’m not sure I can reconcile the two posts, but no doubt someone will do it for me. I suppose perhaps it’s that in the anti-intellectualism that characterizes the American marketplace of ideas all of our views either cancel each other out or are channeled or transcended by something more sensible than any of us could come up with individually (including my conviction that Schwarzenegger is a socialist!).
I hope the lesson is that we can all indeed have our porridge and eat it too, and “just right”, at least before the bears come home.
JK, your quote brings to mind picnic baskets stolen by one who proclaimed himself “smarter than the average bear”.
Also, lest one get too sanguine: it’s not just Gray Davis. He didn’t Rule by Decree the last five years. The legislature passed all that stuff.
Gray Davis may be the scapegoat-of-the-moment for guys like Nick, but the problem is still there whether he wants to recognize it or not. That’s the point I think A.L. was highlighting with the Kuhel interview.
I agree with Nick (and Igor?) that while the Democrats may need some brain surgery, the Republicans might actually need an exorcism. The Sandalistas are pretty much offset by the Bible-istas. And the simple-mindedness of the Liberalistas is pretty much offset by the doctrinaire rigidity of the Libertarianistas.
At least the Democrats actually try to find solutions to problems that the Republicans refuse to even acknowledge or try to define out of the political debate. Mudslinging anyone?
Gabriel Gonzalez,
I have never seen the intellectualism and the market place of ideas in America in finer shape.
The internet, blogs, e-mail. Not to mention universities. Topics tthat used to take weeks to cover in real life are now done in internet time.
Then add in bright people from all over the world attracted to America. We got some real smart cookies around here.
The so called Third Way is the radical center. Clinton appealed to it but never directly so as to avoid scaring his base. Look at how he governed. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I think Bush stands a good chance of losing the election desite his good wartime performance because he has forgotten the radical center. Instead of giving his base lip service he is giving them programs.
My hope is that Arnie will wake him up before it is too late. Arnie could be the start of a party that actually has the center as it’s base.
Bush’s anti-medical marijuana initiatives through his fall guy Ashcroft do not sit well in a country where 80% of the people support medical marijuana and 35% to 40% favor legalization. That is just one of Bush’s misguided efforts.
The word is also starting to come out about his crony capitalism in the reconstruction of Iraq. The best story I saw in this regard was a bridge repair project in Iraq. An Iraqi engineer estimated the cost at $100,000 to $200,000 if done by Iraqis. A million dollars if done by corrupt Iraqis. An American company is being paid $50 million to do the job.
The American people are willing to spend what it takes to win the war. However, most of the $500 billion in added debt is for pork. Only about $100 billion is war related. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on the surplus because of the recession.
Bush is hoping to use the war to cover his sins. I don’t think he can pull it off. If he does it will be close.
Arnie happened because neither party was in control of the process. We need more of that.
Gosh, M. Simon! I find myself agreeing with you but I’d go a bit easier on Bush. (Did I actually say that?)
Gabriel Gonzalez,
Some problems are beyond the power of government to solve. The main failing of the Democrats is that they do not believe that there is any problem that cannot be solved by men with guns (government).
What men with guns can do is to maintain civil order and protect the country from attack or respond to attacks. If they try to do more than that thtey get resented.
The left believes economic problems are amenable to coercion. The right believes moral problems are similarly amenable to such solutions.
The radical center says: government out of my wallet, government out of my bedroom. Clinton got it. Bush does not. Other than the war, I’m one conservative nostalgic for Clinton.
BTW have you read “Road to Serfdom” ? I think it will cure you of a lot of your economic fantasys and leave you with your civil liberties intact. i.e. it might convince you to join the radical center.
I might add that Milton Friedman predicts an economic growth of 10% a year if government got out of the economy and only did it’s Constitutional functions. Even if the poor only got 2% growth instead of the full 10% wouldn’t that be better than another government program? Remember 2% of ten trillion is two hundred billion. And the following year it would be two hundred and twenty billion. The year after that two hundred and fourty four billion. Is the government promising an additional twenty billion every year compounded for the poor? Robbing from the rich to give to the poor makes us all poorer.
Porphyrogenitus,
“Actually, Nick, it’s typically the Democrats who finance their cronies out of the public trough (while claiming to be doing it for the little guy)”
Please explain this to me. You seem to believe that it is democrats who are guilty of “feeding at the public trough” and that Republicans do not? is that your contention? The truth is that BOTH parties feed at the same public trough all the time. My point was that this crony capitalism stands in stark contrast to the republican rhetoric of self-reliance. In otherwords, there is a disconnect between what the right says and what they actually do.
“it’s not just Gray Davis. He didn’t Rule by Decree the last five years. The legislature passed all that stuff.”
As to the real problems in california, there is blame enough for both sides. The energy plan was a holdover from Pete Wilson. Prop 13, by basically freezing property taxes, has to share some of the blame as well. Gray Davis and the democratic legislature are far from blameless too.
But, let’s follow this thread to it’s logical conclusion. I was reacting to the meme that the democrats in california, and democrats in general, believe that voters are too stupid to vote their own interests. If that is true, then who is it that elected those democrats to the legislature in the first place, and aren’t you also guilty of the same condescending view of california voters that you accuse democrats of? That they were too stupid to elect republicans? We will see how it plays out in california but my post was a defense of the democratic party, not of the CALIFORNIA democratic party. If you would actually read what I wrote, you would notice I do not *blame* anyone but Gray Davis for his fate. He is responsible for what happened to him. Not the legislature, not the “rightwing cabal”(your words, not mine…), not even Arnold.
To Igor,
Whatever. maybe you enjoy one-sided discussions that validate your viewpoint. May I suggest the O’Reilly Factor. Your “the devil made us do it” comment makes no sense. What are you talking about? Do what? Lose an election? It isn’t the first one we lost and it won’t be the last either.
Please, for the sake of democrats everywhere, keep buying into the manifest destiny of the Republican party. You might want to ask Newt Gingrich and his revolutionaries how well that particular brand of arrogance served him a few years back….
Nick Foresta
Gabriel,
Thanks for the compliment.
Like A.L. I have my proclivities. What I try to do (as A.L. does) is to call them as I see them. I favor honest government because it is generally more popular. Unpopular governments lead to civic disorder. Civic disorder is bad for business. Bad business leads to further disorder. A death spiral if it goes past the tipping point.
Guess he didn’t enjoy the bear scat experience as much as he thought he would:
They’re both screaming. She’s telling him to play dead, then it changes to fighting back. He asks her to hit the bear,” Hill said. “There’s so much noise going on. I don’t know what’s him and what might be an animal.”
The bodies of Treadwell, 46, and Amie Huguenard, 37, both of Malibu, Calif., were found near Kaflia Bay on Monday after an air taxi pilot arrived to pick them up. The pilot contacted the National Park Service and state troopers to report a brown bear was apparently sitting on top of human remains at the campsite.
M.
To counterbalance my bashing of the French, there are aspects of French socialism that are actually quite admirable. You can criticize the quality of their healthcare, but it has the virtue, for many, of at least existing, and the system is actually quite good. Another much appreciated French program is their excellent universal day care, which actually facilitates putting people into the workplace. The problem of course is that the French, like many liberals in the States, ignore the externalities.
The French could improve their health care system, not by doing away with it entirely, but privatizing much of the system and eliminating waste: for example, by establishing a $1,000 per person per annum deductible on health care. That would probably save $1,500/person right off, if you count the $1,000 you put back into people’s pockets.
The real issue – which I think we both recognize despite other differences – is efficient government and finding the appropriate tradeoffs. If you are truly a nostalgic for Clinton, it seems that your rhetoric grossly overstates your actual positions (btw, that is meant as a compliment). I’d settle for a significant reduction in the growth rates you mention if it keeps a few dead bodies off the sidewalks.
Nick writes:
“As to the real problems in california, there is blame enough for both sides. The energy plan was a holdover from Pete Wilson. Prop 13, by basically freezing property taxes, has to share some of the blame as well.”
The California energy deregulation plan was bipartisan in support and in fact passed nearly unanimously in the California legislature.
Proposition 13 did not “basically freeze property taxes”. It prevented reassessment of residential property until time of transfer of ownership. With the high rate of turnover of residential property in California, this does not act as an actual “freeze”. The purpose of Proposition 13 was to prevent older, fixed income, people from being forced out of their homes by rapidly rising property values. However, California Democrats now condemn Prop 13 because they have adopted regressionary taxation schemes.
When something sounds too good to be true, it ususally is.
I rather doubt that 80% of americans believe it is medically necessary to get stoned out of your eyeballs. 80% of bay area californians, yes. 80% of americans, no.
And I’d like to see that story about the 50 million dollar bridge. Its more likely that you WANT to believe this, so you just turn your skepicism off when you find some whacked out, non fact-checked reporting done by the usual dimbulbs.
Course, I could be wrong… and pigs could fly… but I’m a firm believer that the purveyors of bullshit statistics need to be challenged.
Care to put up?
Nick,
Almost everthing we buy in the world has gone down in price (labor hours per unit of goods) except government.
I’m sure you can explain it.
In fact I’m looking forward to it.
Gabriel,
Before the government took control of health care in America costs were rising at the astronomical rate of 5% a year.
Now that government controls health care prices are rising at the more modest rate of 10% a year.
Explain.
Ryan,
Doubt all you want. Surveys consistiently show 75% to 85% support for medical marijuana for the last several years. Zogby did some work on this recently, google it.
Where is your beef re: medical morphine? Or medical cocaine? Or medical aspirin. Aspirin kills more Americans every year (500 to 1,000)than pot. Where is your beef with aspirin? Alcohol kills from overdose thousands every year. Pot aproximately zero. (I won’t say zero because one or two a year might be possible. Although very unlikely.) Where is your beef with alcohol? How about all those people stoned on alcohol? Why no complaint there? Did I leave out tobacco? Well there is google. You can look it up.
BTW Ryan I consider myself a conservative and a Bush supporter and would hate to see this stuff bring him down.
The bridge story is an anecdote I read at an Iraqi blog. Unfortunately I didn’t book mark it so you can count it as anecdotal. If the story is true and there are more like it Bush will be in a world of hurt. Better to get the dirty laundry out and cleaned up before it does damage than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Wouldn’t want to be like the Democrats now would we?
Ryan,
Just to make your life a bit easier here are the results from New Hampshire.
http://www.granitestaters.com/home/
Go down the page a bit. 84%
Here’s a ten state poll from March last year, showing a 60% to 80% support level for medical marijuana: Ten States
Another from August this year in New Hampshire, shows support for medical marijuana at 84%: New Hampshire
Another from 2002 covering the state of Wisconsin shows support at 80.3%: Wisconsin
Here is a site that has an overview of polling done on the question of medical marijuana from 1996-2002, showing consistently high support levels, with an aggregate support level across all polls of 68%: Analysis
Need more?
Ryan, you could be wrong and in this case it appears that you are. Try Google for quick research next time. It makes it less likely the “dimbulbs” barb will come flying back at you.
While you’re looking, this guy has an interesting perspective on the topic: Peter Guither–Drug War Rant
I’m looking into the pot-as-herbal-remedy links now. I would remind you that the ‘usual dimbulbs’ crack was associated with the 50 million dollar bridge, which you are not even attempting to defend, so in no respect at all could it be considered to be biting me in the ass, except maybe in your wishes.
And I will be carrying a torch and rope at the head of the pack, IF IT IS TRUE AND PREVALENT. Unfortuately, my inital suspicion that you just took the claim at face value with no skepticism seems correct given your response.
I may not be done checking until tomorrow after work, so don’t read anything into a delay.
Ok, I looked somewhat into the matter.
First, the ten-state poll was conducted by the Lucas Organization, which formerly was called Rasmussen research.
The Lucas Organization may be out of business, as their web page is uncontactable. My conclusion is that unless the company changed radically along with its name change, the poll data itself is probably not suspect. I also examined the questions, nothing overtly wrong there.
Where it fails is that there are 50 states in the union, not 10. And the poller included every single state that already voted to legalize patient pot. Which just so happens to be nearly half the states polled. Pure conincedence, I’m sure.
To blow that up to a nationwide statistic is simply a lie. Its like ‘proving’ that most Americans want gun control by polling the 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws.
The ohiopatient.net combination of polls is somewhat more comprehensive… this time 30 states out of 50… but even a blatently biased organization like that can’t keep the numbers from plunging down to 68%… and that’s assuming they aren’t playing with the numbers, which they probably are.
Ergo, your ‘in a country where 80% of the people support medical marijuana…’ claim is a lie. YOUR OWN SOURCES prove you a liar, and even they don’t provide the whole picture.
Suspisions confirmed.
I have no direct info on the $50M bridge issue, but I do have experience working with construction contracts. I have commented elsewhere that I have never met a contractor who didn’t think he could build anything you gave him, whether or not he was really competent. I wouldn’t doubt some Iraqi contractor looked at the bridge and *said* he could do it for $100,000. If you signed on with him, by the time you got done with the full engineering assessment of the necessary work and the resulting change orders, the rework of incorrectly completed work, the inexplicable delays in completion time, the need to hire a new, more competent contractor to complete the work, the arbitration, and the lawsuit, etc., it would probably end up costing you more than $50M anyway. ;>
Would *you* want to drive across a bridge held together with chewing gum, duct tape and baling wire?
Depending upon the size of the bridge and just how much work it would require to do the job right the first time, $50M might not be too far off-base. So I am inclined to take the story at face value, but come to entirely different conclusions than some on the left would want us to come to.
True, Cat. Also remember that the 50 million might cover more than one bridge, or represent maintainence… or it might be for fixing one pothole. We just don’t know without a lot more context.
Context that M. Simon seems to be happy without.
BTW, I made the mistake of assuming the links came from Simon. So he’s not proven a liar by his own sources, but by Cat’s.
Unless he cares to provide some backup on his own? He *is* the person who made the claim, after all.
This was the best I could do on the bridge story, which I have heard tossed around a bit:
Iraqi engineers, like engineers the world over, are internet-connected and aware of opportunities. One newly formed Iraqi engineering firm tendered a bid to rebuild a damaged bridge for one million dollars, having priced the job at $ 700,000. and hoping for a $ 300,000. profit. Their bid was rejected, for failing to meet specified licensing and labor standards. An American corporation “won” the bid at fifty million.
I clicked on the author’s name and he doesn’t sound like a complete nut. Still, the story is apparently anecdotal at best. Snopes doesn’t seem to have it yet, alas. I couldn’t find a single news source that had the story, and the details (the amounts and the reasons for them–bribery or profit?) vary as widely as any other urban legend. It’s probably not worth citing in a debate until a verifiable account comes up.
A last point on this version, though: If they didn’t meet the specified license and labor standards, then they shouldn’t have one the contract.
Easy now, I didn’t make the initial 80% claim, and my links just scratched the surface. That Zogby poll is meaningless? How about these nationwide surveys: **?
Mainstream through and through. Results: 80%, 73%, and 73% respectively. Bury your head if you want. The truth is out there, and facts are stubborn things.
OOps, I totally barfed the link. Sorry. Here it is:
Harris, Pew and Gallup poll results
Ryan,
I’ve disagreed vehemently with M. Simon on this blog before. But don’t make the simpleminded partisan mistake of failing to distinguish between being wrong and being dishonest; he might be wrong, I don’t know, but I’m damn sure (and every other regular here is too) that he’s not deliberately lying, and you’ve no justification for attacking him as such. If you think he’s wrong, tell him he’s wrong. But please try to keep it civil; it’s one of the things that elevates WoC above the fray.
In defense of Nick Foresta, I’ll say this… just as you may not expect Democrats to agree with the criticisms they hear, but think that acknowledging them would be wise, the same is true for what Nick wrote.
Some of his stuff is very off base (no, Nick, “strict constitutionalist” is NOT = activist, and you need to understand the “NASCAR Dad” phenomenon), but some of his stuff does describe why liberal solutions and the Democratic remain attractive to certain voters. And like Nick said, it’s not that they’re all idiots.
It’s possible for Republicans to make inroads, because they have some very good ideas. But first they have to understand why alternatives are attractive – and do so in a non-caricatured way.
And here’s the question:
Notice that the question assumes that marijuana has a medical purpose, and that extraneous repeat at the end… “even for medical purposes?”.
You BEAST, you wouldn’t even approve of this measure for medical purposes?
… sneaking in another chance to use the phrase ‘medical purposes’.
The poll is designed to get a particular answer. Want more proof? Look at the NEXT question.
Now, a skeptical person might question why the ‘lots of statistics’ clause is in there. Unfortuately, skeptics must be an endangered species.
The problems keep piling up. That poll was conducted by Harris Interactive, An internet polling company
Do you know anything about the problems with internet polling? Or don’t you care, as long as it supports your conclusions?
I’m looking for evidence that this wasn’t an internet poll (despite being conducted by an internet polling firm), but so far I can’t find it.
Ryan,
There are three polls included in that link, each of them conducted by a reputable polling agency, each one words the question rather differently, and they all come up with similar results.
My take on the wording of the particular poll that you are dissecting, is that it is intended to get people to answer the questions *honestly*. In a country where drug use is stigmatized (except for the hypocritically legal alcohol, tobacco and caffeine), the tendency may be to not answer a stranger’s questions honestly on the topic.
Here’s Gallup’s question:
“Suppose that on election day this year you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Please tell me whether you would vote for or against each one of the following propositions: Would you vote for or against making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering”
For 73
Against 25
No opinion 2
If I wasn’t tiring of this exchange, I could dig up info that shows that a significant percentage of MD’s believe that marijuana has valid medical uses. But if you were really interested in the truth you could do that yourself.
The only one of the three that I would remotely describe as trustworthy would be gallup, and even IT descides to add a gratuitous “in order to reduce pain and suffering” blurb.
Why is that necessary to the question? Gallup apparently thinks it is… and this is the MOST trustworhty of your sources.
And I believe even Gallup does online polls these days, correct me if I am mistaken.
Online polls are completely untrustworthy as a indicator of the nation’s attitude on anything, as a acceptably random sample is impossible to obtain.
Phone polls have problems too, but they are generally minor when conducted by someone looking to find out the truth, rather than manufacture it.
Good discussion generally — few threads of 70+ posts avoid going over the edge.
Now, by way of complimenting (and complementing) Armed Liberal’s self-awareness …
I would set my libertarian (and Libertarian) credentials against anyone here. This is aimed at those whose beliefs most resemble mine.
Analogies to European politics don’t work as well as we’d sometimes like to think. American politics is much less ideological. “The Road to Serfdom” is beautifully written but, insofar as it predicted that European welfare states would lead to fascist or communist-style repression, quite inaccurate. Beware apocalyptic predictions. “The Constitution of Liberty” is much better — perhaps not coincidentally, it is more focused on America.
Arrogance of the sort described in the original post occurs everywhere in politics. Interestingly, many of Sheila Kuehl’s comments are, with some partisan sniping backed out, a reasonably accurate diagnosis. Schwarzenegger probably doesn’t have a good understanding of what the governor of California can and can’t do. The Legislature will effectively be in charge (as I noted on Arcturus, well over 90% of California legislators are in entirely safe districts). Whatever ideas Schwarzenegger tries to implement probably will come from handlers.
Frankly, my advice to any Californian with any gumption is: pack up and leave. There are different environments in this country; Joel Garreau famously described them “The Nine Nations of North America.” This is why the medical-marijuana debate in this thread will go nowhere; American attitudes are, literally, all over the map on that question, and many others. Beware statistical agglomerations.
Finally, good cite on the Columbia report, but I think that insistence on following process isn’t quite the same thing as ignoring reality altogether. The Shuttle’s problems (and I’ve read through the entire CAIB report twice now) stemmed from its original requirement set, which ensured that it could never be optimized for anything, safety included. If there’s an analogy here, it’s to the California electricity “deregulation.” So when making any political proposal, watch what you ask for.
Isn’t Sheila Kuehl a former actress? How did she transform into such a know-it-all? If it can happen to her, it can happen to Governor Arnie, can’t it?
“Going Hollywood” doesn’t just happen in Hollywood, rastajenk. Some people do. Some never do.
It’s a matter of both character and circumstance, though I’ll say this for Arnold – his personal history does make him a lot less susceptible. He has a LOT of discipline and even keel from his bodybuilder days, and once you’ve been an “A List” Hollywood movie star everything else is a step down.
Plus, I suspect his wife would kick his ass if it ever happened. She’s someone who hasn’t received a lot of attention in all of these discussions – yet. Don’t overlook her role… especially when you consider her presence and background.
RE: The medical marijuana debate – we are WAY off topic here. Desert Cat, Ryan, et. al… let’s put this one to bed and call it a day.
Ryan,
I defer to you. Only 68% national support for medical pot. Which of course proves that I’m a liar and Bush is in no trouble on the medical pot issue. Did I mention that 35 states including Illinois (where there was no referendum) have medical pot laws on the books? Obviously an unpopular issue with state lawmakers all over the country. I may be wrong on the 35 number as a some states were added this year. By their legislatures. Did I mention that medical pot got the support of something like 135 Representatives in the US Congress this year? Dramatically up from last year.
Did I mention I’m a Bush supporter?
As to construction contracts. What makes you think that American companies are any more immune to coruption in Iraq than they are in Illinois? The climate? The distance?
The story I read said the engineer who gave the $200,000 estimate was a civil engineer in the Iraqi public works dept. Damn I wish I had bookmarked the link.
Jay,
I think Davis thought he was in a safe district too. Just look at his margins in November.
As to the “Road to Serfdom”. The difference between Soviet Socialism and the European branch is the difference between murder and slow suicide. The end result is the same. It is only the speed of the process that is the variable. The more of the economy a government controls the weaker the economy. Even the Germans get it, despite their political gridlock on the issue.
The clue here is the furious rate at which the Brussels bureaucrats are producing regulations. On the curvature of bannanas even. The serfs can’t even decide what they want their bannanas to look like.
With at least 35 states with medical marijuana laws on the books you are quite correct that the issue is all over the map. Just not in the way you imagined.
I will respect Joe’s request, and not post all I would have about medical marijuana. I will point out that the bizarre belief that medical use involves getting stoned out of one’s mind is surely at the core of any opposition.
Simon, post a new essay…
M. Simon,
“Almost everthing we buy in the world has gone down in price (labor hours per unit of goods) except government.”
Not sure where this stat came from but let’s assume it’s accurate. Have we been governed by ONLY democrats for the entire century? Or have Republicans also been responsible for whatever growth in government occurred? Again, say one thing and do another. One would think that will all the
rhetoric about reducing the size of the federal government coming from conservatives, it would have actually happened. But the fact is that the size of the federal government has grown under Bush I and Bush II and shrank under Clinton. Words are one thing, actions are another….
Nick Foresta
Joe,
Sorry. I must have been writing while you were posting. Check the time stamps.
I will go back to my original point.
Bush and the Republicans have blind spots. I mentioned two that come to mind. There may be others. I will not let partisan politics blind me to the truth. Which is the essential point.
And I like being corrected when wrong. It keeps me honest.
A.L.
I know what you mean about the democrats paying lip service. As I said, we are a big disfunctional family. There is a fringe element to our side that is self-destructive. I’m talking about the cottage industries that spring up to feed off the public teat under the guise of serving the poor. It ain’t pretty sometimes.
But….
At least there is an attempt to reach out to those who need our assistance. The other side has NO solutions to offer. Their solution to welfare is more cuts, drug testing and religion. All of those solutions do more for the Republican base then they do for the poor.
There just has to be a better way. My take is that a better way will come from the left rather than the right. The right isn’t interested in helping the poor for the simple fact that the poor don’t vote their way. That’s the calculus they use to decide which segments of the population get serviced and which do not…
Nick Foresta
nick,
If you have been following this thread and some of my other writing you would know that I’m no blind Bush supporter. In fact you will note that some Bush supporters here have been giving me a hard time over my criticism of his administration.
I also think that Bush has let spending get out of hand. Very bad.
I also think Clinton did a pretty good job while in office. A strong economy is important for war fighting. He gave us that. His weaknesses were those of the American people. Most of us were not ready to see the dangers from Islamic fascism until 9/11. Despite Clinton’s warnings.
Ok, that’s your background. But I do not want this thread becoming a debate over Bill Clinton, either. Or George Bush, for that matter.
M., the analogy of “safe districts” to Davis’ situation does not hold. If it weren’t for term limits, California legislators would be elected for life. Literally > 90% of districts are producing large victory margins; three-quarters are producing landslides. The legislature has figured out how to stop their world. Californians who disapprove of this should either move away or work for an initiative to require non-gerrymandered redistricting.
Umm, the evidence here (that interview) seems to be about the ignorance of Arnold, not the voters. He talks about how ARNOLD was proposing things that the governer just has no authority to do. Or how he thinks ARNOLD will have nothing to say about the state of the state.
How is that arrogant? It’s not saying “all of Arnold’s voters are poopie heads who don’t know nothing.” It’s saying “This member of the opposing party is bad.” That’s called politics.
I’m not going to let Nick drag me into another of his digressions; if he doesn’t want to learn anything, that’s his problem.
However, regarding “solutions to offer”, Nick of course sets up a bogus straw man “only my side cares, the other side doesn’t” – which is complete garbage (as usual), based on faulty premises and straw men (again, as usual). There are workable solutions and then there is blindly following the same thing that has proven to be unworkable and assuming then that the only thing that matters is the intent, not the effect.
If one doesn’t accept Nick’s axiom’s and worldviews, one is put into the “not caring” pile – yep, these are the open-minded people we’re hearing from when Nick posts. But his assertions are specious, self-congradulatory propaganda and nothing else.
The difference is over ends, and which method will best work. But people like Nick – who are all too typical – believe only in demonizing those who do not agree with their methodology and world view as the best means for people to prosper (as a wise man once said, “any kind of baiting is ok except Red baiting”, and Nick does nothing but).
In any case, the main reason why I chose to make another comment in this thread isn’t to try and engage the intellectually meritricious Nick in repartee (which is an utter waste of time as he has nothing of intellectual value worth saying, apparently, and is himself impervious to learning anything from what someone else might say), but to return to the subject of Gerrymandering. As always seems to happen, regardless of subject, Steven Den Beste has a post worth reading on this. Check it out.
Dan –
Arnold is the duly elected Governor of the state. While Kuehl may be cranky that he was the one elected, or that there was an election at all, her disrespect for Arnold – which is a vastly different thing from agreeing with him on issues, policy, or anything else – speaks volumes about her.
I may disagree with Simon or Porphy, and do onb occasion; I’ve violently disagreed with both Trent and Tony Foresta, as an example – but I criticize their arguments and positions and grant them the respect that they are intelligent human actors who have arrived at positions they are entitled to hold.
Sheila, Avedon, and Dave don’t seem to agreee with that. They’re wrong.
A.L.
Calvin asks “Where does the dumb-voter meme land you?”
Well, I don’t know about that. But I do know that it’s nothing new in Far-Left circles.
Marxists have this disgusting, vile doctrine called “false consciousness”. It seems that whenever the Proles disagree with the Party, the Proles don’t Want what they Should Want, and are wrong in their desires. Because, you see, the Rightist Bourgeois Reactionary Elements have brainwashed them. Once this brainwashing is removed, the People will see that their True Interest coincides exactly with Party policies. And, of course, if it’s too difficult to un-brainwash the People, well, the Party will just implement what it knows to be Their True Interest, without their consent.
Convenient, ain’t it?
Here’s the original source on that bridge story
It’s in the entry for August 28.
====
====
So there’s the claim, with specifics – we now know the name and location of the bridge, which should be enough for somebody to figure out /which/ American company got the contract and confirm what the final price was. Assuming the story is real.
Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick.
I was with you there for a little bit, but you really exposed yourself with this last “Republicans want to club baby seals” schtick. Republicans and 3rd parties do have solutions to offer, you just haven’t bothered to investigate them. If you are content to focus on the most marginal of these ideas (drug testing and religion?), sloganize them and write them off as pandering, OK, but you are falling prey to the phenomenon that is the very subject-matter of this thread.
Jeez, I must’ve really gotten under your skin if at this late date you are still harping on it and still misinterpreting something I’d pretty much forgotten about.
I am perpetually saying that American voters tend to get it right when they have the information. I do not say that Americans are stupid because I don’t like the way they vote. I do believe that many people are misinformed, but that’s because they have better things to do than be news junkies, and frankly I don’t blame them for that.
I have seen no evidence, however, that people who call themselves conservatives are immune to arrogance, and I think it’s silly for you talk about it like it’s some kind of “liberal” disease or something that Democrats, in particular, are prone to.
And I don’t see how you could be more arrogant than this administration, which seems to believe that merely disagreeing with it is indistinguishable from treason – that is, that they are more than merely an administration, but they are The United States itself. Now that is arrogance.
I think at the core of all the trouble is the idea that once one has chosen a position there is nothing to learn from the other side. It is a kind of religious belief. “If you have not come to the same understanding I have you are either misguided or the spawn of the Devil.” This is how wars get started.
My point was based on the fact that:
1. It is possible to hold a different attitude which was the basis of my original compliment to A.L.
2. To give some more examples of the same and to show that my belief structures were open to revision
3. The fact that A.L. and I have been attacked by the rigidities of the left and the right is a perfect illustration of the point he was trying to make and I supported. Which is:
Being a supporter of a particular political faction does not mean that support for everthing a particular faction does is required. In fact such a position is uncritical. Being uncritical leads to error. It also does not mean losing respect for the other side.
Neither A.L. nor I support uncritically everthing those on our respective sides do. Nor does our collegiality lead us to uncritically support each other’s position. What we do do as A.L. has so well pointed out is to respect that the other’s position is honestly come by. It is what we call in the Western World tolerance. The evidence is clear that the world could use a bit more of it.
Side note:
Joe,
It is nice of you to keep the discussion on point. I don’t see how it is possible to keep a topic from wandering. One only need look at some of the discussion at LGF to see how far afield things can go without intense moderation. Thanks again Joe.
And to those who have been so kind to support my points – thanks for doing the leg work. And thanks for showing me in error when I am. I love having my ass fact checked.
I have made errors. Fortunately none of any serious substance in this thread. Had they been serious I would still have accepted correction. Honesty demands no less. Still it is wise to not look for perfection in any respect from any human. After all we are only human.
Avedon,
I haven’t seen the same thing you have. I do think the Administration takes the view that in time of war some differences of opinion do objectively support the enemy. I would agree.
I could see how you could come to that conclusion based on their efforts to tie the drug war and the South American wars into the War On Islamic Fascism. BTW I think the administration (which I support) is wrong in South America and the Drug War.
I look on it as the alpha male (female) syndrome. Testosterone is a really vicious drug that none are immune to. It is also an intrinsic part of our nature. Which means there must be a lot of discounting when it comes to leaders. The best you can hope for is that they are mostly correct on points that matter to you.
There is no way government can deliver to you exactly what you want. That is the job of business people. Politicians you are stuck with until replaced. A purchase that does not satisfy may be returned or resold.
==============================================
If the eletors of any particular district in California are mostly satisfied with who they send to Sacramento then the voters of California are getting what they want.
The only way to change such a system (where the voters are getting what they want) is to get them to want something different. To do this you have to start with respect for the voter.
I think Arnold is a good first step in that direction. Tax and spend plus letting the government unions and other interest groups run the government used to be acceptable to the people of California. Perhaps Arnold is the first step in changing that attitude. Perhaps the people no longer wish to treat business as the enemy.
In any case it is going to be a good show.
Ron C.
Drug testing and the faith-based initiative ARE real
proposals put forward by the right. IMHO, they are designed to appeal more to the base of the Republican party than they are to solve any problem.
You may disagree but I didn’t pull those proposals out of thin air. Why are they “marginal”? The faith-based initiative was something GWB used to great effect during the election. That’s not a bash on Bush, I’m sure he believes in it, how is that “marginal”? As for drug testing welfare recipients, that too has been proposed by House Republicans. Not sure where that particular bill is now but it isn’t marginal.
If you know of a program aimed at solving the problems of the working poor, proposed by Republicans, that doesn’t offer red meat to their base, I would be happy to hear it.
I never said a thing about third parties BTW. I would have voted for Jesse Ventura if I lived in Minnesota. Ross Perot always struck me as a bit autocratic and he didn’t get my vote because I didn’t think he was capable of governing in a system where compromise is required. Not because he was wrong on policy. I think, to large extent, Clinton incorporated many of his ideas anyway. At least regarding the budget. My belief is third parties keep everyone honest. They spring up from time to time when neither party is speaking to an issue that voters care a lot about. They usually fizzle away because one or both major parties get the message and change their behavior.
Nick Foresta
I misread your post, Nick. Faith based was for sure a campaign slogan, but got buried after 9/11 (I wasn’t that thrilled about it anyway). But there are Republican proposals that the Dems won’t even come to the table on. School choice, so that a child’s education isn’t determined by where his or her parents can afford to live. The strategy of creating jobs strikes me as the best for fighting poverty, but I’m sure that falls under “red meat” if it entails any benefit to employers, large or small.
How about an example: A friend of mine runs a business that his grandfather started in the 1940s or so. My friend has now taken over the business, but his grandfather has to give away little bits and pieces to his family over the years so that they aren’t burdened with a gift tax. If he dies before enough of the company value is transferred, he will have to sell or, more likely, liquidate the business because he cannot afford to pay inheritance tax on the business. That isn’t good tax policy, for the owner or the employees. “Eat the rich” will get you votes, but probably not anywhere on actually solving the problem of poverty.
We Republicans can’t win as big as I would like if people like this keep passing on the Kool-Aid. Cummon, drink it all down : “Bush is a moron,” “Davis is the victim of a v a s t right wing conspiricy.” The cliff is <----- that a way. It leads to a warm ocean, join in the fun with the lemmings. To be serious... I think the loons have no real ideas of their own. They just go to where they think everyone else is going. But the vast majority of folks are more of live and let live attitude, and the loons disgust them. The end result is an occilation of the loons and the normal folks, with the loons left high and dry on a regular basis as most folks go the other way The further problem with these people is they are the most adimant about stifling debate. When it is unfashionable to belong to a party, that is when the parties really do their best thinking because the debate is freer then.
Nah, Avedon, you didn’t get unmder my skin; I’m just someone who enjoys perfection when I see it.
And yes, conservatives have their own version of this problem, but as I intend to explore, it is substantially different in form in the area that I’m talking about.
A.L.
Porphyrogenitus and Jay Manifold have got it right. Gerrymandering is a big problem, in California and most everywhere else.
I think the initiative process is cumbersome, expensive and often results in bad law. It should normally be a last resort for the voters to enact laws relating to important issues that the professional politicians won’t address, or can’t because of gridlock in the legislature.
That said, doing away with gerrymandering by amending the California constitution to outlaw it would be an intiative that I’d support. I’d suggest using Iowa’s redistricting law as a model to start from.
The key is to make sure that no district, at any level, is designed so as to favor or disfavor any political party, racial or ethnic or other interest group. In other words, make sure that as many elected offices as possible are actually up for grabs in any given election.
ExRat –
I couldn’t agree more. I think that it (making gerrymandering more difficult) is one of the two or three things that are attainable and wold have a massive, positive impact.
A.L.