A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds. --Mark Twain
The crankiest guy in the Republican field is this guy, Ron Paul. When you hear some of what he says, it will tick you off, but then you have to think about it (it won't hurt, I promise).
First, you must understand that we have not had a Republican in the white house since the end of 1988. Since then, we have one neocon after another hiding behind the banner of compassionate whateverism. Once you realize that there were and are imposters lined up for the office since then, only then can you triangulate to somewhere any of us would care to be.
I do watch the polls starting around this time of year, and I've found the real interesting stuff comes out of the Iowa Electronic Market. In the IEM, people bet real money on who will be the next president. The two most interesting things are that Hillary is even money against all other candidates to be the Democrat nominee, and in the Republican side, "None of the Above" beats out Rudy, McC, and Mitt. None of the Above? That means people betting real money see none of these jamokes making the cut. So, who then?
No, I don't think it will be Ron Paul. Ron is too much like Phil Gramm was in 1996, and Howard Dean in 2004. A lot of noisy fans, but not much real support. These candidates (all of whom embodied what their party stood for) didn't make the critical breakthroughs, and none of them looked particularly presidential. That's not to say Ron Paul isn't worth voting for, though.
Among the new ideas Ron Paul is espousing are: The first amendment. The 10th amendment. The fourth amendment. The 2nd amendment,...hmmm, I think I'm spotting a trend here.
He may actually be the only Republican in the field by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, and likely the only one carrying around a copy of the constitution with him (that's where the new/old comes from--it's so old it's new...kinda retro, you know?)
And ---since the smart money seems to be saying that the field is not set yet, it should be very interesting to watch.
UPDATE: Now the Iowa Electronic Market. has posted Fred Thompson's name and it turns out that the smart money was on him all along. They say the market does not lie...
Friday, June 15, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #8
The media are asking the wrong questions in the Wolfowitz flap; the real question is "should there be a World Bank?".
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
It's Debateable
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams
Liberals and Conservatives own the political dialog, and there ain't a dime's worth of difference between them, (Hoss). So at some point you just have to wonder who is going to step up and differentiate himself in this mess. Since I don't believe there is even a scant majority of people that would vote for a Democrat, especially since they couldn't even beat George Bush (twice, and blindfolded), it wouldn't take much of a Republican to win the thing handily. So, that's why the debate carried last night is probably as serious a bellwether we are likely to see in 2007.
Before we start the American Idol-like reduction in candidates, it is important to get out on the table what we want our next president to be. Since I am the Wizer, it behooves me to put it out there for all to embrace. So, here goes:
Liberals and Conservatives own the political dialog, and there ain't a dime's worth of difference between them, (Hoss). So at some point you just have to wonder who is going to step up and differentiate himself in this mess. Since I don't believe there is even a scant majority of people that would vote for a Democrat, especially since they couldn't even beat George Bush (twice, and blindfolded), it wouldn't take much of a Republican to win the thing handily. So, that's why the debate carried last night is probably as serious a bellwether we are likely to see in 2007.
Before we start the American Idol-like reduction in candidates, it is important to get out on the table what we want our next president to be. Since I am the Wizer, it behooves me to put it out there for all to embrace. So, here goes:
- He/she can be conservative, only to the extent that conservatism means adherence to the constitution as written; not the status quo of their own institutions.
- He/she can be liberal, only to the extent that all freedoms are to be protected at all costs, not just the ones liberals find convenient for their own agendas.
- He/she must support the markets for goods and services, as they are the way clear for all those who are disadvantaged.
- He/she must not promote markets for the degrading and debasing of human life, especially those most vulnerable.
- He/she must use the tools and resources of defense in a strict defensive manner, and not use them as a tool of geopolitical influence-peddling, graft, and corruption.
- He/she will finally find a way to declare victory before the good of the effort is simply forgotten by the masses, and misconstrued for the history books.
- He/she will not pretend that Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy were statesmen of equal stature.
I can come up with a few others, but those seven off the top of my head are enough to eliminate everyone who has declared so far. This is probably a good time for Fred Thompson to declare. On the other hand, he is sure to violate one or more of these requirements the longer he's in the race. Perhaps he should wait until Next January to run....
During the debate, everybody, including Ron Paul got it wrong. I don't know why both sides of "the debate" refer to the war as still in progress. It's no longer a war. And I might vote for the first guy who says this out loud. It's not a war, and hasn't been since the Iraqi army turned into a band of desert rats. What it is now, is influence peddling on a massive scale.
The Democrats are so out of touch, they fail to recognize that this amounts to a massive welfare scheme, and if they were to be intellectually honest, they would seek to end welfare here too.
The Republicans say that we should seek victory, but we've already achieved all the victory that can be achieved, and by failing to properly frame it as a victory when victory was quite obvious, it looks a lot like defeat.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Connecting the Dots
Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse. -- Adlai E. Stevenson
You no doubt remember those coloring book connect-the-dots games. A pattern of dots that does not always reveal itself until you connect them, usually by a numbered sequence. By the time you are done connecting them up, a recognizeable picture emerges.
If any of those dots are connected out of order, or out of logical connection, a very strange, unrecognizeable picture results. Also, when certain unrelated dots are placed into the field, or conversely, certain key dots are missing, the picture is unrecognizeable, or at least unrepresentative.
Think of any collection of related facts as being a field of dots. Those who are able to connect the dots have a very clear picture of what those facts mean. People who can connect the dots are a treasure to us, because without them, many elements of the facts are obscured.
Let me use an example. The attorney general's office recently dismissed eight US attorneys. These attorneys were thought to be doing a poor job. Since the administration, and the AG's office were the sole arbiters over whether these guys did a good job or not, it should be a relatively small set of dots, easily connected, and therefore totally uninteresting. But wait, these 8 were not only incompetent, they were Democrats. If you ask me, that's two reasons to fire the bunch, but I digress. Somehow, the Democrat elite feel that firing these incompetent attorneys is cause for investigation. Why? because ostensibly these attorneys may have been investigating Republican shenanigans. Oh, is that a problem? Perhaps some may have missed this other set of dots over here from 1993, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. He said it was routine (which turned out to be another Clinton lie...it was an unprecedented sweep of US Attorneys). The dirty little secret was that two of those attorneys were ready within the next 10 days to indict Rostenkowski, and the Whitewater gang. That's why they had to go.
All right, so politics has its advantages. Presidents can shut down stuff like that and call it routine. Understand that those dots are still there. You cannot "connect" these 8 dots over here without also including those 93 dots over there. To draw around those while claiming to see a different picture is disingenuous and deceitful. Can you ignore 93 dots out of a 101 dot picture, and still have the truth? I didn't think so.
Take another example: In order to find fault with Scooter Libby in the Joe Wilson treason case, you would have to find it on the same page as Hillary's whitewater file dots. And you would also have to ignore a lot of the other dots in that case and in a dozen others of its type.
History Happens: Democrats have a way of distorting many of the pictures that come our way. Usually it is in the context of downplaying historical facts. It is necessary for Democrats to ignore the constitution to achieve an increasing amount of what they desire. They have to ignore the 10th amendment dots to draw up a Roe vs. Wade decision. They have to ignore the first amendment dots to create their campaign finance rules. Moreover, they seek to discount and distort history so that it presents a set of pseudo dots that show a different picture. Where do you suppose 9/11 is in their dot grouping? In 17 proposals to defund the military action in the middle east, they don't connect to the 9/11 dots. Why is that? To do so would have meant that they would have had to see the whole picture. I can tell you most of us regular folks see those dots over there, and this picture is not coming together like the Dems are wishing it would.
In any connect-the-dots scenario, all the dots are there for a reason. To draw around them, erase them, ignore them, or to move them around does nothing for the truth. They are hoping we won't remember, because it is all about history.
Why trust anyone who does not connect all the dots?
You no doubt remember those coloring book connect-the-dots games. A pattern of dots that does not always reveal itself until you connect them, usually by a numbered sequence. By the time you are done connecting them up, a recognizeable picture emerges.
If any of those dots are connected out of order, or out of logical connection, a very strange, unrecognizeable picture results. Also, when certain unrelated dots are placed into the field, or conversely, certain key dots are missing, the picture is unrecognizeable, or at least unrepresentative.
Think of any collection of related facts as being a field of dots. Those who are able to connect the dots have a very clear picture of what those facts mean. People who can connect the dots are a treasure to us, because without them, many elements of the facts are obscured.
Let me use an example. The attorney general's office recently dismissed eight US attorneys. These attorneys were thought to be doing a poor job. Since the administration, and the AG's office were the sole arbiters over whether these guys did a good job or not, it should be a relatively small set of dots, easily connected, and therefore totally uninteresting. But wait, these 8 were not only incompetent, they were Democrats. If you ask me, that's two reasons to fire the bunch, but I digress. Somehow, the Democrat elite feel that firing these incompetent attorneys is cause for investigation. Why? because ostensibly these attorneys may have been investigating Republican shenanigans. Oh, is that a problem? Perhaps some may have missed this other set of dots over here from 1993, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. He said it was routine (which turned out to be another Clinton lie...it was an unprecedented sweep of US Attorneys). The dirty little secret was that two of those attorneys were ready within the next 10 days to indict Rostenkowski, and the Whitewater gang. That's why they had to go.
All right, so politics has its advantages. Presidents can shut down stuff like that and call it routine. Understand that those dots are still there. You cannot "connect" these 8 dots over here without also including those 93 dots over there. To draw around those while claiming to see a different picture is disingenuous and deceitful. Can you ignore 93 dots out of a 101 dot picture, and still have the truth? I didn't think so.
Take another example: In order to find fault with Scooter Libby in the Joe Wilson treason case, you would have to find it on the same page as Hillary's whitewater file dots. And you would also have to ignore a lot of the other dots in that case and in a dozen others of its type.
History Happens: Democrats have a way of distorting many of the pictures that come our way. Usually it is in the context of downplaying historical facts. It is necessary for Democrats to ignore the constitution to achieve an increasing amount of what they desire. They have to ignore the 10th amendment dots to draw up a Roe vs. Wade decision. They have to ignore the first amendment dots to create their campaign finance rules. Moreover, they seek to discount and distort history so that it presents a set of pseudo dots that show a different picture. Where do you suppose 9/11 is in their dot grouping? In 17 proposals to defund the military action in the middle east, they don't connect to the 9/11 dots. Why is that? To do so would have meant that they would have had to see the whole picture. I can tell you most of us regular folks see those dots over there, and this picture is not coming together like the Dems are wishing it would.
In any connect-the-dots scenario, all the dots are there for a reason. To draw around them, erase them, ignore them, or to move them around does nothing for the truth. They are hoping we won't remember, because it is all about history.
Why trust anyone who does not connect all the dots?
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Lessons of Vietnam
And it's One, Two, Three, What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. --Country Joe & the Fish
I always had a problem with that line. It was one of the more vocalized music phrases of the Vietnam era, and it attempted to persuade that the task at hand had no relevance. Don't ask me what we're fighting about, the song said. I don't really care. Like a lot of people of that time, Country Joe and his followers did not seek to learn what it was we were fighting for in Vietnam in the first place. I remember thinking at the time how stressful it must be to be that ignorant.
We've had a lot of time to reflect on the lessons of Viet Nam, and since some of those same ignorati are drawing comparisons between the two wars, I think it might be helpful for me to sort out some of the similarities and the differences, if for no other reason than to clarify what it is we are fighting for. That way, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat the historical mistakes of either conflict.
We had 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam. (source) Two thirds of them were volunteers. It was not a conscriptor's war, as many would have you believe. Over 300,000 had enough reason of their own to go over there and fight. Don't tell them that they were wasting their time.
In comparison, there are 120,000-140,000 serving or having served in Iraq. All of them are volunteers. I doubt if you'd find 10,000 of them who felt the cause wasn't just.
We were invited to Indochina by the government of South Vietnam. Our motivation and national interest was in preventing the scenario known as the Domino Theory. We finally won the overarching conflict in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.
Nobody in Iraq asked us over, but our motivation was not that different. The regimes of terrorism are every bit as evil as those of communism, fascism, naziism and the multitude of other isms. We do not know yet when the final battle will be fought and won over terrorism; however the fanaticism of the enemy suggests a longer time frame than 1964-1989.
We won the Vietnam War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. It was only when our objectives transformed into "nation building" that the problems began cropping up. We started financial backing of governmental entities who took the opportunity to profit from the corruption, and we learned that no useful solution can ever be secured by throwing money around (this also pertains to welfare and education, but that's a topic for another day). We withdrew from Vietnam having won the war, and having run out of useful military things to do. Things got messier for a while, after that. That happens in all the wars that matter.
We won the Iraq War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. Now we are trying our hand at nation building once again. This is perhaps the most important lesson we did not learn from Vietnam. By sticking around in Iraq dropping bags of money on every street corner, we are building another corrupt welfare state. We are also delaying the inevitable "fall of Saigon" moment, the Vietnam version being identified by the press as the "evidence of having lost that war".
We're pretty good at achieving the military objectives. It's those other non-military objectives we have found unwinnable. After the current troop surge, there must be an accounting. There simply must be a point where we decide whether we've done all that we can. If there are honestly more military objectives to be met, the government will have my complete confidence and blessing. Short of true military necessity, I can't figure out why we're still there.
There are still lessons to be learned from Vietnam, notably who are the equivalent entities to the Khmer Rouge, and who it is that will eventually rush in to occupy Iraq when we are gone. As I see it, unless we want to occupy Iraq as some latter day Roman Empire, our job is done.
We will have many more wars, and no feel-good collection of John Lennon, Country Joe or the mindless chants of countless ignorati will have any affect on that. The main lesson left to learn is that we just have to know when to declare Peace and get out of the friggin way.
I always had a problem with that line. It was one of the more vocalized music phrases of the Vietnam era, and it attempted to persuade that the task at hand had no relevance. Don't ask me what we're fighting about, the song said. I don't really care. Like a lot of people of that time, Country Joe and his followers did not seek to learn what it was we were fighting for in Vietnam in the first place. I remember thinking at the time how stressful it must be to be that ignorant.
We've had a lot of time to reflect on the lessons of Viet Nam, and since some of those same ignorati are drawing comparisons between the two wars, I think it might be helpful for me to sort out some of the similarities and the differences, if for no other reason than to clarify what it is we are fighting for. That way, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat the historical mistakes of either conflict.
We had 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam. (source) Two thirds of them were volunteers. It was not a conscriptor's war, as many would have you believe. Over 300,000 had enough reason of their own to go over there and fight. Don't tell them that they were wasting their time.
In comparison, there are 120,000-140,000 serving or having served in Iraq. All of them are volunteers. I doubt if you'd find 10,000 of them who felt the cause wasn't just.
We were invited to Indochina by the government of South Vietnam. Our motivation and national interest was in preventing the scenario known as the Domino Theory. We finally won the overarching conflict in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.
Nobody in Iraq asked us over, but our motivation was not that different. The regimes of terrorism are every bit as evil as those of communism, fascism, naziism and the multitude of other isms. We do not know yet when the final battle will be fought and won over terrorism; however the fanaticism of the enemy suggests a longer time frame than 1964-1989.
We won the Vietnam War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. It was only when our objectives transformed into "nation building" that the problems began cropping up. We started financial backing of governmental entities who took the opportunity to profit from the corruption, and we learned that no useful solution can ever be secured by throwing money around (this also pertains to welfare and education, but that's a topic for another day). We withdrew from Vietnam having won the war, and having run out of useful military things to do. Things got messier for a while, after that. That happens in all the wars that matter.
We won the Iraq War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. Now we are trying our hand at nation building once again. This is perhaps the most important lesson we did not learn from Vietnam. By sticking around in Iraq dropping bags of money on every street corner, we are building another corrupt welfare state. We are also delaying the inevitable "fall of Saigon" moment, the Vietnam version being identified by the press as the "evidence of having lost that war".
We're pretty good at achieving the military objectives. It's those other non-military objectives we have found unwinnable. After the current troop surge, there must be an accounting. There simply must be a point where we decide whether we've done all that we can. If there are honestly more military objectives to be met, the government will have my complete confidence and blessing. Short of true military necessity, I can't figure out why we're still there.
There are still lessons to be learned from Vietnam, notably who are the equivalent entities to the Khmer Rouge, and who it is that will eventually rush in to occupy Iraq when we are gone. As I see it, unless we want to occupy Iraq as some latter day Roman Empire, our job is done.
We will have many more wars, and no feel-good collection of John Lennon, Country Joe or the mindless chants of countless ignorati will have any affect on that. The main lesson left to learn is that we just have to know when to declare Peace and get out of the friggin way.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Historical Footnote
Didja hear that both head coaches in the Super Bowl are black? Ordinarily, this should not have been more than a statistical coincidence like you always get at Super Bowl time; like the first father and son combination to play in the big game, or which quarterback was actually born in Indiana vs. the other one, etc.;,,, except for one thing. There are people who think this is a big deal, and people who think this is nothing special.
I can tell you that it is the former group that comprises all racists. Think about it. If the color of the skin doesn't matter (and it doesn't) why would this be much different from the first Italian American coach to win the Super Bowl (it's not).
Only the people with an axe to grind make note of this. People who are supremacists, or people who gain by maximizing the distinction. If the ideal world is color blind, only racists can see the difference. The idea that this game is special because of the color of the coaches diminishes their accomplishment. They are where they are today, because they are the best. To make them "special" because they are black is demeaning, and it diminishes their accomplishment. If I'm Rex Grossman, I don't want to be known as the kid from Bloomington, I want to be known for winning the big game. If I'm Vince Lombardi, proud as I am of my Italian American heritage, I want to be known for winning the Super Bowl.
So, if the coaches for the big game are black, let it be a mere historical footnote, because to call attention to their color is something only a racist would do.
That brings us to Barack Obama. Judging by the news, it sure looks like the racists are lining up on his side. Me, I don't care what color he is. Let's see the color of his plan. That I do care about.
I can tell you that it is the former group that comprises all racists. Think about it. If the color of the skin doesn't matter (and it doesn't) why would this be much different from the first Italian American coach to win the Super Bowl (it's not).
Only the people with an axe to grind make note of this. People who are supremacists, or people who gain by maximizing the distinction. If the ideal world is color blind, only racists can see the difference. The idea that this game is special because of the color of the coaches diminishes their accomplishment. They are where they are today, because they are the best. To make them "special" because they are black is demeaning, and it diminishes their accomplishment. If I'm Rex Grossman, I don't want to be known as the kid from Bloomington, I want to be known for winning the big game. If I'm Vince Lombardi, proud as I am of my Italian American heritage, I want to be known for winning the Super Bowl.
So, if the coaches for the big game are black, let it be a mere historical footnote, because to call attention to their color is something only a racist would do.
That brings us to Barack Obama. Judging by the news, it sure looks like the racists are lining up on his side. Me, I don't care what color he is. Let's see the color of his plan. That I do care about.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hello George. Nice of you to call.
Yes, I did happen to see the state of the union, or at least enough to get the general picture. You want us to support "The Surge" with another 30,000 troops. I had to wonder what the 120,000 guys who are already there are doing. Oh, that's right. They're school bus drivers, sanitation engineers, and embassy clerks. Sheesh. No wonder 35% of the people think you're doing a poor job. Out of the other 65%, I believe most of us still would like to win the damn war. It's just that you don't seem to be fighting to win the war. You are spending our resources apparently to broker some kind of legacy deal so we can pull the strings later. It's misguided and wasteful to conduct a war like that. Do you mean to tell me that our 120,000 troops are too busy to root out the last of the terrorists? Even the Republicans aren't dumb enough to buy that. Even Lugar, who loves the whole notion of creating one homogeneous world isn't going for the plan.
Dammit George. Let's win this war and come home. What happens after that is going to be Europe's problem, not ours.
Let's see...on the domestic side....hmmm. That's a non-starter....So's that... That too.
Use 20% less gasoline? Next ten years? Driving what, George? Ethanol cars? I don't care how much of our money you want to spend subsidizing the Ethanol cartel, people will not buy it while gas is a buck eighty. This ear-candy is pure pandering, enriches only corn farmers and ADM, and has nothing to do with energy security.
What else you got? Ah, so you dropped the notion of amnesty. That was smart. At least now you can get the Republicans back on your side. The Democrats? No, they wouldn't want law abiding immigrants. That would work against their "immigrants as victims" strategy. Only half of legally registered immigrants are likely to vote for them once their freedoms are guaranteed. Until then (and until they learn English) the dems have their way with the illegal votes. So, you're not likely to get any help there, George. Just make sure the plan fixes the problem. The political fallout is way too hard to predict in any scenario. Just fix the problem and let the votes fall where they may.
While I got the calculator out, I want to give you a little lesson in election math. about a third of the republicans stayed home in the last election leaving the democrats to win 41-39. Of those, 21% to 20% or a 1 % plurality are pretty much running things now. The loud 21%. They want a lot of changes that the rest of us 79% don't want. What that means is that you need to do several things to ensure that we are not irreversibly harmed. One, don't ever let go of your veto pen. Two, keep appointing judges who understand and respect the constitution (that being OUR constitution, not Denmark's). Three, restore all lost property and liberty rights that have come under fire since you came into office. You need to fix everything from Kelo to Gitmo, and while you are at it, take another close look at the Patriot Act. I bet we have another 120,000 people there who are miscast, and have nothing better to do but follow their own pet conspiracy theories.
Fix these things George. Then and only then will there be a legacy you can still be proud of.
Dammit George. Let's win this war and come home. What happens after that is going to be Europe's problem, not ours.
Let's see...on the domestic side....hmmm. That's a non-starter....So's that... That too.
Use 20% less gasoline? Next ten years? Driving what, George? Ethanol cars? I don't care how much of our money you want to spend subsidizing the Ethanol cartel, people will not buy it while gas is a buck eighty. This ear-candy is pure pandering, enriches only corn farmers and ADM, and has nothing to do with energy security.
What else you got? Ah, so you dropped the notion of amnesty. That was smart. At least now you can get the Republicans back on your side. The Democrats? No, they wouldn't want law abiding immigrants. That would work against their "immigrants as victims" strategy. Only half of legally registered immigrants are likely to vote for them once their freedoms are guaranteed. Until then (and until they learn English) the dems have their way with the illegal votes. So, you're not likely to get any help there, George. Just make sure the plan fixes the problem. The political fallout is way too hard to predict in any scenario. Just fix the problem and let the votes fall where they may.
While I got the calculator out, I want to give you a little lesson in election math. about a third of the republicans stayed home in the last election leaving the democrats to win 41-39. Of those, 21% to 20% or a 1 % plurality are pretty much running things now. The loud 21%. They want a lot of changes that the rest of us 79% don't want. What that means is that you need to do several things to ensure that we are not irreversibly harmed. One, don't ever let go of your veto pen. Two, keep appointing judges who understand and respect the constitution (that being OUR constitution, not Denmark's). Three, restore all lost property and liberty rights that have come under fire since you came into office. You need to fix everything from Kelo to Gitmo, and while you are at it, take another close look at the Patriot Act. I bet we have another 120,000 people there who are miscast, and have nothing better to do but follow their own pet conspiracy theories.
Fix these things George. Then and only then will there be a legacy you can still be proud of.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Gerald Ford, R.I.P.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. -- Gerald R. Ford
Oh sure, they all love him now, but those of us 40 and over (some of us who only remember him by Chevy Chase's parodies) remember a day when Jerry Ford couldn't catch a break . He was constantly lampooned and derided as 1) a stumbling dimwit, 2) a Nixon apologist, 3) the latest in a long line of evil republican masterminds, 4) the bringer of stagflation, 5) party hack, and etc. Now, we hear that he was a statesman, a solid, respectable guy, who did the right thing in pardoning Nixon, and "healed the fissures of the political landscape". So what is the truth about his legacy? Let's explore...
One of the things he was ridiculed for was his campaign to have everybody wear a "whip inflation now" (WIN) button. I always thought those were somewhere between benign and cruel; because citizens had no more control over inflation than they had over the phases of the moon. But there was something wonderfully insidious about the act. By giving people some hope that they as individuals had power to change things, he planted an important seed. It took until Reagan's election to actually unleash the power of the people, but it might not have happened if we were still conditioned to leave everything up to the government.
So, was this positive kernel arrived at by accident? Well, let's go to the record. Jerry was right about tax cuts, spending vetoes, and hiring Alan Greenspan (as economic policy director). That's all good.
Jerry Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Uh-oh. Supreme Court Justice Stevens is the worst enemy of the US Constitution in our nation's history. That didn't work out so well.
And then there's the matter of Nixon's pardon. On the one hand, criminal hearings would have been a good chance to focus on the hypocrisy of the elected, and I for one was hoping for the fight. The famous white house tapes were surely inadmissable as evidence, and they would have had a hard time proving a lot of what Nixon was accused of doing. It would have accelerated our understanding of the political biases in the newspaper business. On the other hand, a show trial is not a very good use of our country's resources.
Jerry Ford was also a member of the Warren Commission; that group of politicians who conspired to protect the "magic bullet theory" and forever obscure the identity of John Kennedy's assassin. Maybe he just wanted that national nightmare to end prematurely, as well.
I heard some pundits this morning say that he was not on anybody's "best presidents" list, but he wasn't on their worst list either. That's no doubt true, because we require our leaders to be politicians first. And Jerry was put there because he was a politician. Consider this quote:
The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election. -- Gerald R. Ford
So, Jerry was blaming Watergate on those who operated outside the network. The fact that he was an insider was what ultimately cost him a redo in 1976. Political insiders are forever bound to disappoint at the end of the day.
Jerry, you had a good run. You probably made fewer mistakes than others who had your job. Some of those mistakes (read Stevens, Warren) we still pay dearly for, but at least we know you did it out of a sense of political propriety, and not because you were dumb or evil. Those distinctions are preserved for other presidents.
Oh sure, they all love him now, but those of us 40 and over (some of us who only remember him by Chevy Chase's parodies) remember a day when Jerry Ford couldn't catch a break . He was constantly lampooned and derided as 1) a stumbling dimwit, 2) a Nixon apologist, 3) the latest in a long line of evil republican masterminds, 4) the bringer of stagflation, 5) party hack, and etc. Now, we hear that he was a statesman, a solid, respectable guy, who did the right thing in pardoning Nixon, and "healed the fissures of the political landscape". So what is the truth about his legacy? Let's explore...
One of the things he was ridiculed for was his campaign to have everybody wear a "whip inflation now" (WIN) button. I always thought those were somewhere between benign and cruel; because citizens had no more control over inflation than they had over the phases of the moon. But there was something wonderfully insidious about the act. By giving people some hope that they as individuals had power to change things, he planted an important seed. It took until Reagan's election to actually unleash the power of the people, but it might not have happened if we were still conditioned to leave everything up to the government.
So, was this positive kernel arrived at by accident? Well, let's go to the record. Jerry was right about tax cuts, spending vetoes, and hiring Alan Greenspan (as economic policy director). That's all good.
Jerry Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Uh-oh. Supreme Court Justice Stevens is the worst enemy of the US Constitution in our nation's history. That didn't work out so well.
And then there's the matter of Nixon's pardon. On the one hand, criminal hearings would have been a good chance to focus on the hypocrisy of the elected, and I for one was hoping for the fight. The famous white house tapes were surely inadmissable as evidence, and they would have had a hard time proving a lot of what Nixon was accused of doing. It would have accelerated our understanding of the political biases in the newspaper business. On the other hand, a show trial is not a very good use of our country's resources.
Jerry Ford was also a member of the Warren Commission; that group of politicians who conspired to protect the "magic bullet theory" and forever obscure the identity of John Kennedy's assassin. Maybe he just wanted that national nightmare to end prematurely, as well.
I heard some pundits this morning say that he was not on anybody's "best presidents" list, but he wasn't on their worst list either. That's no doubt true, because we require our leaders to be politicians first. And Jerry was put there because he was a politician. Consider this quote:
The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election. -- Gerald R. Ford
So, Jerry was blaming Watergate on those who operated outside the network. The fact that he was an insider was what ultimately cost him a redo in 1976. Political insiders are forever bound to disappoint at the end of the day.
Jerry, you had a good run. You probably made fewer mistakes than others who had your job. Some of those mistakes (read Stevens, Warren) we still pay dearly for, but at least we know you did it out of a sense of political propriety, and not because you were dumb or evil. Those distinctions are preserved for other presidents.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Thanks, Iraq Study Group, but No Thanks
We do not recommend division of Iraq ... Such a devolution could not be managed on an orderly basis; and because Iraq's major cities are peopled by a mixture of warring groups (it could create a) humanitarian disaster or broad-based civil war. -- Iraq Study Group report
This is a report that only a one-worlder could love. One-worlders are those people who wish there was only one world government, and that they were in charge of it. True Americans realize that the less government the better, and what little you allow there to be, it's best to keep it close to home. This is why the 10th amendment came about; the one that limits federal government to only one or two key functions, with the states, or the people, in charge of everything else.
As one who has suggested on a number of occasions that my state respectfully secede from the Union, I am watchful of the sort of creeping tyranny where some group in some faraway province exerts fascist strong-arming on me.
It's easy to recognize the one-worlders. They are all oveer the place, and masquerade sometimes as shining examples of "the American Way". The U.S. supreme court acts in a one world fashion whenever they overturn legally enacted state laws (such as those reestricting abortion), or references foreign law in their rulings on purely American matters. Dick Lugar is a one-worlder. He wants the United Nations to have more power and invariably votes that way, as do many other US senators. This is insidious, and one of the many modern things we must be vigilant about.
So now, they want Iraq to be held together like there is some mysterious synergy in that outcome. The natural inclination is for people to resist central governments. None of the Iraqis will be free unless they can self govern. There are no proposals on the table that allow this to happen. The political hacks who have screwed us up over here (and all but decimated states rights) want the same thing for Iraq.
The solution (as it was with the former Soviet Union) is to allow the Kurdistanis, The Sunnis, and the Shiites to have their own governments, their own territories, and inherit and deal with their own problems. Otherwise, the minority party will sling real bombs into eternity; thinking (and they may be right) that the government is the cause of their problems.
So, Baker and Hamilton grab a bunch of people together and come up with this nonsense. Here's where we went wrong on the whole Iraqi thing (and you've heard me say this before): The military portion of this job ended years ago. We have no hope of making a lasting contribution in the political phase. Our own model is no longer worth copying. Since about 150 years ago, we've been fighting for our freedom against our particular "democracy". It's time to let the Iraqis find their own democracy, in their own way.
This is a report that only a one-worlder could love. One-worlders are those people who wish there was only one world government, and that they were in charge of it. True Americans realize that the less government the better, and what little you allow there to be, it's best to keep it close to home. This is why the 10th amendment came about; the one that limits federal government to only one or two key functions, with the states, or the people, in charge of everything else.
As one who has suggested on a number of occasions that my state respectfully secede from the Union, I am watchful of the sort of creeping tyranny where some group in some faraway province exerts fascist strong-arming on me.
It's easy to recognize the one-worlders. They are all oveer the place, and masquerade sometimes as shining examples of "the American Way". The U.S. supreme court acts in a one world fashion whenever they overturn legally enacted state laws (such as those reestricting abortion), or references foreign law in their rulings on purely American matters. Dick Lugar is a one-worlder. He wants the United Nations to have more power and invariably votes that way, as do many other US senators. This is insidious, and one of the many modern things we must be vigilant about.
So now, they want Iraq to be held together like there is some mysterious synergy in that outcome. The natural inclination is for people to resist central governments. None of the Iraqis will be free unless they can self govern. There are no proposals on the table that allow this to happen. The political hacks who have screwed us up over here (and all but decimated states rights) want the same thing for Iraq.
The solution (as it was with the former Soviet Union) is to allow the Kurdistanis, The Sunnis, and the Shiites to have their own governments, their own territories, and inherit and deal with their own problems. Otherwise, the minority party will sling real bombs into eternity; thinking (and they may be right) that the government is the cause of their problems.
So, Baker and Hamilton grab a bunch of people together and come up with this nonsense. Here's where we went wrong on the whole Iraqi thing (and you've heard me say this before): The military portion of this job ended years ago. We have no hope of making a lasting contribution in the political phase. Our own model is no longer worth copying. Since about 150 years ago, we've been fighting for our freedom against our particular "democracy". It's time to let the Iraqis find their own democracy, in their own way.
Early assessment
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. -- Ronald Reagan
There are elements on this planet that are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them. They speak as openly as Adolph Hitler did about their desire to kill us and we should honor them by believing they're sincere. -- Newt Gingrich
For most of the years I have been watching politics (and it started with my reading of Robert J. Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" in 1976), I have seen hopeful tendencies only twice. One was my slowly dawning realization of the beauty of Ronald Reagan and his policies. He used the twin weapons of commitment and communication. Every time he said "There they go again" I realized there was someone in charge who was on our side. When he said "Tear down this wall", you know he had 'that vision thing'.
When everything he called for came to pass without so much as one missile launched; you knew he not only had the right approach, he had the confidence of the world.
The second time I saw hope in action was Newt's 1994 "Contract with America" revolution. He had the Reagan-like commitment and the communication. As a history professor, he can cite chapter and verse where we went wrong. In case you don't know where that was, read the book.
The enemies of the people had no effect on Reagan, because Reagan was right for the time and for the state of the world. He, nor the people, would be swayed by the enemies of the people.
Gingrich has inherited that banner. He is quite probably the only one out there we can trust with the job. This is why you will see the enemies of the people pulling out all the stops early and often.
Those enemies miscalculated on Reagan. Tried to frame him as a shallow actor. The world saw him as a leader.
The enemies of the people will characterize Newt as a megalomaniacal hayseed. The people will see Gingrich as a leader.
There are elements on this planet that are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them. They speak as openly as Adolph Hitler did about their desire to kill us and we should honor them by believing they're sincere. -- Newt Gingrich
For most of the years I have been watching politics (and it started with my reading of Robert J. Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" in 1976), I have seen hopeful tendencies only twice. One was my slowly dawning realization of the beauty of Ronald Reagan and his policies. He used the twin weapons of commitment and communication. Every time he said "There they go again" I realized there was someone in charge who was on our side. When he said "Tear down this wall", you know he had 'that vision thing'.
When everything he called for came to pass without so much as one missile launched; you knew he not only had the right approach, he had the confidence of the world.
The second time I saw hope in action was Newt's 1994 "Contract with America" revolution. He had the Reagan-like commitment and the communication. As a history professor, he can cite chapter and verse where we went wrong. In case you don't know where that was, read the book.
The enemies of the people had no effect on Reagan, because Reagan was right for the time and for the state of the world. He, nor the people, would be swayed by the enemies of the people.
Gingrich has inherited that banner. He is quite probably the only one out there we can trust with the job. This is why you will see the enemies of the people pulling out all the stops early and often.
Those enemies miscalculated on Reagan. Tried to frame him as a shallow actor. The world saw him as a leader.
The enemies of the people will characterize Newt as a megalomaniacal hayseed. The people will see Gingrich as a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)