Au revoir, Paul Martin!
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 06:52
VIEWED: 3559
PAGE 3 of 4
I'm "on the left?" Really? Hummmm...
My facts still stand, Johnson did not lose a general election because he pulled out in the primarys, McCathy, the peace canidate that opposed him was NOT the person the party chose to contest the election.
Truman also didn't stand again so was also not defeated as an encombant. Both these wars were unpopular at home, something that Iraq was not during the last election cycle.
I took a peek down that rabbit hole of yours. First up, American "Social Democrats" are actually nationalistic Trotskyist, just need to make that clear before people start equating that with parties of the same name in Europe (though now you mention it.... 
)
I think you assume that political ideology is supposed to remain "pure" it isn't. "Road to Damascus" moments happen to political theorists all the time, that's because politics deals with people and therefore has no "absolute truths" that can be uncovered, this also explains why Utopian visions ultimately fail.
I made two purchases at the remainder bookstore yesterday, one was Irvin Kristols "Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea" the second was an autobiography of Basil Brush. One is writen by one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, the other by a sock puppet. I suspect Citizen is the only one that understands that joke or knows which is which.
Havent read Kristol's book yet but in flicking through most of the articles are essentially attacks in leftist ideology. You probably think that this is a blind and that he's a trojan horse for some left wing agenda, however I suspect you'd have thought Saint Paul was a Roman plant. I suspect that he's actually stating an honest opinion, as you know the disillusioned are often the zeolots of a new "religion."
If Neoconism is a problem at all, then it is the American conservative movements "problem" because if it remains in prominence "traditional conservatism" will either leave the GOP and die or stay and wither.
The problem the American left has (over and above the usual problems of the left) is that it's bought and paid for. If the Dems regain Congress all that would happen is that the gravy train would flow to them instead of the GOP. In my view under it's current leadership the Democrats are no longer a "progressive" party.
So in effect we have a "pox on both your houses" I think you'd like it to be the same pox so that both sides can suffer the same indignity. I think they are different "poxes" but with the same cause --- lack of political hygene--- too much dirty politics, and too much dirty money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My facts still stand, Johnson did not lose a general election because he pulled out in the primarys, McCathy, the peace canidate that opposed him was NOT the person the party chose to contest the election.
This actually doesn't support your argument. Humphrey, a continuation of Johnson's political line, lost to Nixon when America decided to change horses in midstream. Yay us.
Quote:
Truman also didn't stand again so was also not defeated as an encombant. Both these wars were unpopular at home, something that Iraq was not during the last election cycle.
Yes, it was. I don't know any republicans here who support it, well okay, one, and one democrat. The blogs are more to be trusted here than the MSM, who afterall, has something to gain from the agenda. Anyway, encombant is not a word. I let it slide the first time. The Truman didn't stand argument doesn't work, as Stevenson was handpicked, tapped by Truman to run. The fact is the record shows that America *does* change horses in midstream, and usually benefits by it.
Quote:
I took a peek down that rabbit hole of yours. First up, American "Social Democrats" are actually nationalistic Trotskyist, just need to make that clear before people start equating that with parties of the same name in Europe (though now you mention it.... )
Yeah, I knew they were troskyites, Shachtmanites to be precise. That was kind of the point. I wasn't implying that Germany's Social Dems were connected to Soc. Dem. USA, but that would be an interesting thing to investigate. Shroeder and Bush were not best buds, so I don't know if this angle is going anywhere, but if anyone has other thoughts, post them.
Quote:
I think you assume that political ideology is supposed to remain "pure" it isn't. "Road to Damascus" moments happen to political theorists all the time, that's because politics deals with people and therefore has no "absolute truths" that can be uncovered, this also explains why Utopian visions ultimately fail.
Baby. Bathwater.
See this is the problem. They don't remain the same, but they do remain consistant. Every republican since JQ Adams has added to the extant political philosophy of 'Republicanism' as it was first set up by Jefferson, and added to by other republican presidents. The most notable exception was Hoover, who got kicked out of the party, and the next republican went back and added to Coolidge as if Hoover had never happened.
Bush is a marked contrast to that. He's not an evolution, he's a revolution. He abandons planks already established, and he does it by legions. This isn't the way it should work. If the GOP has introduce A, and followed A, then the next conservative leaders adds B, and so forth until you have ABCDEF, you change it by making ABCDEFG. Possibly you can challenge F and say, maybe ABCDEG, but I can't think of a case where this has happened.
But Hoover and Bush stand apart in that they say AQRMPG which has to be looked at objectively. If, prior to coming into office, the republican platform is ABCDEF, then you have to say, well, that's republican. If your new candidate is ABCDE, then he's a reactionary republican. If he's ABCDEFG, then he's a progressive republican. If he's ABCDEG then he's a revisionist republican, if he's ABCDEF, then he's a stalwart republican. If he's AQRMPG, then maybe he's somehting else. Partywise, he's definitely republican, elected on a republican ticket, but ideologically, he's not a republican, in the sense of following republicanism set up by Jefferson, Adams and Adams. Ergo, it behooves the GOP to reject Bush as they did with Hoover, and return to ABCDEF, with as little change as possible, and build again from there. If it continues from AQRMPG to AQRMPGZ then it's fair to say it's not the same ideological political party, and I guarantee you you'll be seeing a prominant third party in the US.
Quote:
I made two purchases at the remainder bookstore yesterday, one was Irvin Kristols "Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea" the second was an autobiographyNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It implies a consistant ideology and that isn't apparent. Traditionally the left has had a problem, they can't organise worth ****. Because a lot of their ideology is and remains theoretical it has the ability to mutate and split and do a lot of things detremental to the ability to win political power.
You like the Strachtmanites but in truth his various changes of tack during his lifetime fragmented and completely disorganised American Trotskyism, if you can catagorise it at all it would be anything other than a consistant plan. These folks fall out all the time, I can't see them maintaining a unified vision.
And that in the end is the problem with TE as a concept. You've looked back over the last 30 years cherry picked all that was wrong with America in that time and assigned that to TE, which you then decide is an external influence. It's evading responsability by creating a conspiracy that is responsable.
Let me give you an alternative that explains the same situation. A number of things have happened since WW2. First up the European Imperial powers fell back, openning what had been protected Imperial markets to outside (US) competition. This meant that increasingly the US economy was involved in foreign trade. This in turn acted against classical US isolationism. Second the retreating Empires created a power vacuum that post war theorists assumed would lead to Communist gains, this would threaten not just American economic interests but also create a competitor for the resources a very healthy US economy needed.
The result is clear as day. For the last 30 years the US has taken on the habits of an Imperial nation. It maintains a large powerfull military to protect its Imperial assets, it vies with other imperial blocks for influence and resources. In addition it has generated an "Imperial Class" a group of academics, industrialists and political operators whose fortunes are linked to the American Imperial supremacy.
Now when we did it we stuck a Union Flag on anything we could because we're nationalitic kinds of guys, but then again we were using military might to make an Empire, the US only uses its might to protect an Empire that actually grows through commerce.
Your Imperial Class has a vested interest in extending US influence and more importantly most Americans support that idea. When we had an Empire just about everyone in the UK except for Anarchists and a few malcontents thought it was a great idea. Look at the pictures of public rallys after victories or state pagents. We used to have the World's biggest navy day just to show that our fleet was twice as big as anyone elses. You do exactly the same thing it's what Imperial nations do.
"Team Evil" hasn't been around for 30+ years, "Team America" has been. As you took on your destiny as leader of the world you set in place economic, political and cultural changes that have altered your country and the way it sees itself. Those changes are now so ingrained that they are the established culture and that culture allows for GW Bush and friends. If you really believe that prior to this year the majority of Americans were against the war you are sadly deluded. If you say only 2 of your friends supported it then you have great friends, but not representative ones.
I have sat in a bar and watched war footage with your "fellow Americans" and you know what? People cheer precision bombing footage.
I've told you before, you dont live in 1953ville, the country you have is the result of economic and social forces that have changed the world since WW2. That it means that corruption is more likely goes without saying, money has always followed power and guess where the power is?
My guess is that "traditional" isolationist, small government conservatism is dead if it ever really existed at all. If the imperial drive stalls and America falls back it will morph into either a petty nationalism or something worse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bon debarras! That phrase means "good riddance" in French, and it sums up what intelligent people everywhere ought to say about the end of the Martin government.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I assume he is one of the most influential thinkers of the late 20th century, but I don't get the joke.
Boom Boom!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Top cabinet ministers include:
-Jim Flaherty, a former Ontario finance minister, at finance.
-Peter MacKay, who engineered the creation of the new Conservative party, at foreign affairs.
-Vic Toews, an ex-Manitoba justice minister, at justice.
-Gordon O'Connor, a former army general, at defence.
-Tony Clement, a one-time Ontario health minister, at health.
-Maxime Bernier, a Quebec MP, at industry.
-John Baird, former Ontario cabinet minister, at Treasury Board.
-Rob Nicholson, a former federal cabinet minister, is House leader and democratic reform minister.
-Chuck Strahl, who is battling cancer, at agriculture.
-Rona Ambrose, from Alberta, at environment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It implies a consistant ideology and that isn't apparent. Traditionally the left has had a problem, they can't organise worth ****. Because a lot of their ideology is and remains theoretical it has the ability to mutate and split and do a lot of things detremental to the
ability to win political power.
Socialists are left, these guys were a part of that, they mutated into something different. Now they are neither left nor right, but exist in both. They follow their own agenda, often matching it to others as much as they can. Oil companies, religious groups, zionists and
christians both, anyone whose goal fall in line with the agenda. I agree with the left being sucky organizers, but these aren't your typical left. I don't think, for instance, that the black caucus are sucky organizers, I think they're aces, I think they're the best thing the
democrats have going. So, yes, as a whole, the left sucks at organizing, but individual groups may fair better. I think part of why the right-shachtmant segment was successful sooner is that they shifted right because they may have had some ideological issues with
the left (marvel at the concept) but also because they saw the right's power to organize and wanted in.
Quote:
You like the Strachtmanites but in truth his various changes of tack during his lifetime fragmented and completely disorganised American Trotskyism, if you can catagorise it at all it would be anything other than a consistant plan. These folks fall out all the time, I
can't see them maintaining a unified vision.
Shachtman wasn't their only influence, but we are talking about a coherent group here with a coherent ideology. They also like Strauss and Kristol and others.
Quote:
And that in the end is the problem with TE as a concept. You've looked back over the last 30 years cherry picked all that was wrong with America in that time and assigned that to TE, which you then decide is an external influence. It's evading responsability
by creating a conspiracy that is responsable.
Nah, they supported Vietnam, but they certainly didn't cause the war. They didn't make the stock market crash of '87, there's a lot they didn't do. I think they're pretty misguided and cause a lot of damage, but until Watergate, they had no power, and they didn't have
much until Clinton.
Quote:
Let me give you an alternative that explains the same situation. A number of things have happened since WW2. First up the European Imperial powers fell back, openning what had been protected Imperial markets to outside (US) competition. This meant that
increasingly the US economy was involved in foreign trade. This in turn acted against classical US isolationism. Second the retreating Empires created a power vacuum that post war theorists assumed would lead to Communist gains, this would threaten not just
American economic interests but also create a competitor for the resources a very healthy US economy needed.
Sure. Or you could say that democrats learned how to win elections. The democrats never believed in American isolationism, and it was pretty much killed by Wilson in 1917. But isolationism was a doomed policy, which is why TR and Taft constructed
internationalism. But none of the democrats wars helped business, and this had nothing to do with TE. This is a modern evolution that made noise in the 70s, and became public policy in the 90s.
Quote:
The result is clear as day. For the last 30 years the US has taken on the habits of an Imperial nation. It maintains a large powerfull military to protect its Imperial assets, it vies with other imperial blocks for influence and resources. In addition it has generated an
"Imperial Class" a group of academics, industrialists and political operators whose fortunes are linked to the American Imperial supremacy.
Nah, I don't buy it. American image is far more important to the American economy than our assets. This is maybe a neocon view, but it's not the driving force of America since WWII. This
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not taking you in isolation. You stated that you would prefer 1953 or 1983 to today. I'm just showing you what that isn't possible.
You accuse me of pandering to a European view that America is "evil" that's rubbish. America isn't pure in international affairs, it never has been and never will be. From the birth of your nation America has always acted in her own best interest and idealism has always taken second seat to practicality. For all Jefferson's talk of isolationism he sent the Marines to Tripoli when he was President. Was he TE too or was he exercising America's sovereign right to act in her own best interest?
I will explain it again to you. America has built a commercial empire in the last 60 or so years. Like any Empire it serves two functions, a source of cheap raw materials (especially oil) and protected or influenced markets. To maintain this system it maintains a large military with a global reach. Trust me on this, my country had an empire we know what they look like. You may not call it an empire, you may not like the idea that you have one, but you do... sorry.
Globalisation favours US industry because they have 3 very usefull attributes not shared by their competitors.
1) Excellent capitalisation
2) A large home market
3) certain lobbying advantages that come from having the world's only superpower in your corner.
Combined they give US companies a certain degree of additional leverage in the marketplace. Globalisation is good for American business and when it comes to American politics, it's US businesses that foot the bills.
So if after every election it seems like the new boss is just the same as the old boss it's good to remember that the same folks are paying the bills. What they are paying for is to keep things moving forward in a business friendly way.
And that's why your "traditional" conservative position is dead -- there is simply no profit in it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I feel I already understand American industry and politics, their connections, and the international links very very well. It's not like you're enlightening me to this as something new. I don't think this is what's going on. In fact, I'm really quite sure of it. American capitalist expansion is not the force behind globalism, in fact it's being hit, possibly critically wounded, by it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can see that part of the problem is that I used the wrong terms I should have said "American Corporations" rather than "American Business" or "American Industry," I suspect your quaintness is rubbing off on me.
And no, I'm afraid you don't tend to demonstrate any knowledge of American industry as far as I can see. I loved your comment about Microsoft designing the Mac for Apple, now there's industry research at it's finest.
Let me explain it simply. Imagine a company "Apple of the Loom" which traditionally makes textile products in North Carolina where it employs US workers and makes a modest profit. The opertunity comes along to have the same products made in Indonesia at a fraction of the cost. "AotL" closes it's N. Carolina factories and moves manufacturing overseas.
So lets look at that.
AotL shareholders are happy because profits just went up. They are in the business as an investment not to make T-Shirts.
AotL executives are happy because profits went up. They have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise return on investment. They have no legal duty to their workers, the state of N. Carolina or Uncle Sam.
AotL's new workforce in Indonesia is happy, AotL pays better than local rates for it's workers in order to attract the best. Some can even afford to buy the products they are making so AotL's Indonesian sales grow.
AotL's American customers notice a drop in prices with no obvious loss of quality. They traditionally trust the AotL brand and so continue to buy it.
AotL's former workers in N Carolina are unemployed.
The city in N Carolina where AotL used to have it's factories suffers a slump because the secondary service economy that was funded by AotL workers discressionary spending is hurt. If you are out of work you dont buy as much in local stores.
The state of N. Carolina suffers a drop in tax revenue because of the number of people now out of work. This effects funding of services.
The current congressman for that part of North Carolina starts pushing for a bill to limit textile imports from Indonesia, fearing that more local companies will follow AotL off shore.
The executives of AotL seeing the potential hit to their bottom line if this goes through puts money into lobbying their perspective that free trade with Indonesia is a fair and proper thing to do. Together with other companies who would be equally effected they start to donate funds to canidates in favour of global trade.
Since the election cycle in the US is expensive and the kinds of companies that benefit most from globalisation tend to be bigger than the ma-and-pa companies that oppose it natural selection favours "pro international business" canidates in both parties.
Some time later when Indonesian rebels threaten the status quo and try to move Indonesia towards an Islamic theocracy threatening the assets of American companies based there, considerable pressure is brought on the administration to "protect US interests in the region" by sending a career battle group. In addition the US sends advisors and technical aid against "insurgents."
Later, when the US government changes party the Indonesian position is maintained because there are still US economic assets on the islands needing protection and the "pro-international business" canidates of the new ruling party have the same financial backers as their predecessors.
No Team Evil, just the basic political-economic games that have existed since at least Roman times.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME