The Problem Defined

There are different values — equality vs freedom, selfishness vs altruism — and these mix and interchange. Every individual has different sortings of these values, and while a thought experiment like the Original Position can purge individuals of their individual biases, the idea that we will then reach a consensus may be elusive. In other words, even individauls acting in good faith will disagree about the proper sorting of different values.

Thus, the debate about values is mistaken — and as long as Left and Right differ on values, we will reach no consensus. What is to be done? How can we move forward?

In terms of social justice, there will always be tension and disagreement about the proper amount of redistribution — the difference principle will not be agreed upon, and even if it is, at what level shall it be set.

But what can be agreed upon? Something that is not amenable in the same way to fundamental disagreement — though individuals will disagree, of course. That is the Social Minimum. Instead of the Difference Principle, which may provoke intractable and fundamental disagreement, it is possible that decent citizens will agree on the moral necessity of a Social Minimum, and then merely disagree on what that Minimum should be.

This was once commonplace, but is being lost. But I do believe that conservatives of Faith will nevertheless agree on the need for a Social Minimum. They may argue that welfare is simply the corn laws redux — but if that is their argument, show it, and explain how we prevent people from falling below the Minimum.

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tea Party, and the Constitution

Newt Gingrich — “They’re reading the Constitution”

iNew kind of democratic constitutionalism, where uneducated citizens read and interpret the constitution for themselves.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Congressman Joe Wilson: “You Lie!” Wikipedia Controversy

From September 9, 2009, after Congressman Joe Wilson shouts “you lie” to the President of the United States during his joint address to Congress and the nation >

——————————

Yelling “You Lie” at President Obama’s health care speech

Please don’t add this until it is reported on by reliable sources, and satisfies WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP requirements. — Mike :  tlk 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the AP not reliable? StealthCopyEditor (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN said it, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/index.html Skiendog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

page should be protected99.241.95.241 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported by the AP: [1] 66.253.36.17 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page is already getting vandalized, and I’m sure this page is going to have quite a few more views after this. Definitely needs to be protected. BrainDance (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s been reported by the AP and sourced by other media. The page should definitely be protected. Vote (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another one of those “man bites dog” type of news stories. Generally, I would say that Wikipedia is not news, and therefore not every single utterance by a member of congress is notable enough for inclusion. But, this is probably going to get significant RS coverage, so if it’s included we definitely need to be mindful of how it is presented. This is no different than many of the audience heckler incidents during the August town hall meetings. Where do you draw the line? If the House of Representatives decides to take formal action on this matter, that would make it more notable. This was an official session of Congress, and behavior like this is prohibited by House rules.DCmacnut<> 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is prohibited by the house rules it should be mentioned in the article. Can you find a reference? Reliefappearance (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: “This is another one of those “man bites dog” type of news stories.” Right. We aren’t talking about illiterate racist teabaggers shouting in a town hall, we’re talking about a sitting U.S. Congressman screaming at a sitting U.S. President during a joint session of Congress on national television. When, in your entire life, has ANY Congressman from ANY party had the audicity to do such a thing to a sitting president in a joint session of Congress? Answer – NEVER.

There’s no way to know whether this is WP:RECENT (and thus a WP:BLP violation) right now. When I said that it wasn’t properly sourced, I was referring to when people were trying to cite it with the text of a health care bill, using the reference as a “this is why he’s wrong” type of thing. Not appropriate for wikipedia. I’m fine leaving it how it is, and I am personally outraged by the remark but that has nothing to do with wikipedia policies. — Mike :  tlk 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The president said we should call these people out, that quote with reference to the healthcare bill should be restored so when ignorant people come to this site they know he was lying. Are you going to ignore a presidential order?? –174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Also reliable news sources confirmed that Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, as least the reference linked to the AP should be restored. If you do not restore it you are admitting wikipedia is biased. –174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson called the President of the United States a liar. He was heard saying “you lie” as the President was explaining his health care goals. I think Joe Wilson is a poor excuse for a politician that he cannot respectfully disagree or come up with a better idea for improving health care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.193.28 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If people don’t think that this is probably the most significant utterance of this moron’s career, they are delusional.Slagathor (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is different than a heckler at a political rally. The man is a US Congressman! This shout is of historic importance. Literally calling the President of the US a liar during a joint session of Congress is behavior that is, to my knowledge, completely without precedent. Anybody who argues that this event is insignificant is either being disingenuous or has completely deluded himself.RickDesper (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Rick

Fox News has confirmed this was Joe Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.158.53.2 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The line about whether or not illegal aliens will be covered that is cited by factcheck should be removed. There is serious debate about whether illegals will benefit from the healthcare bill due to a lack of an enforcement mechanism placed in the text of the statute. Although there is no provision “providing” coverage for illegals, the comment the representative made could be in response to the non enforcement problem. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide sources that meet WP:RS?–kizzle (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A third party analysis about the claim of illegal immigrants being covered under H.R. 3200 is here: http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200 and the text of the proposed amendment (which was defeated by the Democrats) is here:http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Heller_Amdt_Text.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.162.175 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So because you feel illegals will illegally cheat the system to benefit then that makes Obama a liar. No fact check reference needs to be used. It should be linked directly to the HC bill where it states no money will be spent on illegals. That reference should be restored as it helps stop the lies that keep going around and shows how Joe Wilson is a liar.–174.116.88.173 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don’t “feel” anything. What I am arguing is that the line is unnecessary and political in nature. “Was Obama actually lying” is not a question that Wikipedia should try to answer. If you want create a main page about the controversy and hash it out there. Whether or not Illegals will get help from the bill is something which is debatable.

Wrong. Wikipedia is not the forum to debate the accuracy or otherwise of the proposal. Wikipedia is simply reporting the fact that Joe Wilson insulted the office of the president of the USA in prime time by unprecedentedly calling him a liar during an address to the joint session of congress.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, care to provide sources that meet WP:RS about illegals getting help?–kizzle (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure how about Reuters “Health Care Bill Could Benefit 6.6 Million Illegals“ Onefinalstep (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the actual source they are quoting more carefully. It specifically states that: “…HR 3200 states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits”; its figures are speculative based on the supposition that illegal immigrants could get coverage anyway. In other words, the link you cited reinforces Obama’s claims and discredits Wilson’s objection. –Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The results of the study are indeed speculative, but (this is argument here) considering the Democrats refused to amend the bill to enforce the provisions against illegal immigrants it is possible that the loophole is intentional and therefore the President knows that illegals will get a benefit at the same time he is telling the joint session that no benefit is going to come from the bill. All I’m saying is that there is a real debate about this and if one side of the debate is going to be allowed into this section on this representatives bio page the other should as well. But I would hope that this debate would take place somewhere else. Perhaps we could all agree to link off the page for considerations on the veracity of the statements made by both parties during this exchange. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson shouted out “you lie.” He did not make any claims except that Obama was lying. About exactly what he thought Obama was lying about is not really clear. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to the reliable source references that the congressman claimed the president was lying about no coverage for illegals. Edison (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if the President makes a statement that is in accordance with the plain text of the bill in question, it is reasonable for Wikipedia to note that and not fall back to a “some say that the world is flat” position. Whether illegal aliens “benefit” by violating the law is hardly relevant. That is an absurdly low standard to justify the accusation that Obama was lying. RickDesper (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Rick

Obama was lying – here’s the proof: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-26-2009/0005083496&EDATE The non-partisan Congressional Research has found that illegal immigrants can receive benefits under the House health care bill. “CRS also confirms FAIR’s assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving “affordability credits” that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence “of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure.” Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.”

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the proposal.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no final bill.Reliefappearance (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some comments on this page by people who don’t understand the facts. The Congressman was attempting to correct Obama’s lie. Good thing he was there to speak truth to power EconExpert (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The problem is if anyonne read the bill they know Joe Wilson is lying. –174.116.88.173 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The only argument more dubious than that of Joe Wilson is the suggestion that the joint session of Congress is the venue to “speak truth to power” by heckling insults at the president. You must realize that in our system the office must always be respected regardless of your opinion of the occupant of the office. Even Obama’s predecessors who repeatedly lied from the same podium did not deserve such. If you want to preserve your democracy then you must hold certain things sacred regardless of your personal disagreements. If you cannot imagine the anarchy that would result if disagreements at presidential addresses are responded to in that fashion, then you do not deserve to live in a democracy. Try relocating to a dictatorship country.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson has apologized: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/wilson-apologizes-i-let-my-emotions-get-the-best-of-me/ 69.150.95.247 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement needs to be removed “But according to recent media reports, there have been studies showing that up to 6.6 million illegal immigrants could benefit from the new federal healthcare proposals.[19][20]” it is biased hearsay and does not belong in a wiki. –174.116.88.173 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The key problem with those, like Wilson, saying that Obama is lying is that the text of his proposal has not been released yet. All we know about it is what the president himself said during the speech. Regardless of whether or not other Democratic proposals would cover illegal immigrants (a point that seems pretty well debunked), there’s not yet any substantive reason to think that Obama’s proposal would do so. – H·G (^words/_works) 02:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don’t we just state the basic facts about what happened: Wilson yelled out “you lie” after the President said “x.” There is no need to debate whether or not either person is correct. Statements made my McCain and Wilson after the event seem reasonable to be included as well.

Absolutely. The debate on accuracy or justification of the insult does not belong here. Simply report the insult as it occurred.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, “Fellow Congressmen shouted their disapprovals at Wilson’s outburst” is ungrammatical, and should be corrected to “Fellow Congressmen shouted their disapproval at Wilson’s outburst.”BillyDinPVD (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which one of you assholes keeps deleting the reference that Joe Wilson called Obama a liar during Obmaa’s speech??? It is funny how republican moderators on here love to hid facts. –174.116.88.173 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. There is an entire section devoted to the topic. You need to assume good faith and read the article. — Mike :  tlk 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Suggest to Protect this page

After what just happened. –VertigoOne (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]A Concern for Recentism

Should we be waiting at least a day or so rather than within the hour to post this info or should we be putting it up immediately? –kizzle (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it’s correctly cited from a reliable source, then what’s the difference?VatoFirme (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really. If Wikipedia had existed on November 22, 1963, would people really want to wait a couple of weeks to report that the president had been assassinated?Slagathor (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on an event and including it in an encyclopedia are two vastly different things. –kizzle (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that if one week from now nobody cares (and none of us can see into the future), it is just the controversy of the evening and not encyclopedia worthy — Mike :  tlk 02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

nice try, but this is probably the first time in the last 100 years at least that any member of congress has called the President a liar on the floor of the house. It will be remembered forever.Slagathor (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IF down the line the coverage is excessive, it will be reduced. However, I see this controversy as continuing, and at least the mention of the incident will almost certainly always be notable enough to keep. JEN9841 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m fine with that, I just hope it doesn’t balloon into a giant section. –kizzle (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most noted thing this congressman has done, in terms of national and international coverage. Thus it should have appropriate coverage in the bio article about him. It should be an important part of the article, but should not dominate the article. It only needs so many words, and it only needs so many references. Edison (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it’s a controversial statement, and controversies get lots of coverage. But, this is a more appropriate gauge.— Mike :  tlk 03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The first, and many other entries in your preferred “gauge” is about former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame. Try again. At this early point in coverage of the shout-out, there are 329 Google News entries for ‘ “Joe Wilson” “you lie” congressman “south carolina” ‘. The Google News archive does not yet include the shout-out news stories. In Google News Archive, ‘ “joe wilson” congressman “south carolina” ‘ gets 1620 news articles, covering his entire career. So early on, his outburst gets 20% as much coverage as his career got up to that point. Edison (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My point is not that this event is unimportant, but that it’s a terrible idea to want to add an event to Wikipedia 12 minutes after it occurred. This virtually ensures that the story will be only partially developed. —Mike :  tlk 03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, volunteer editors at Wikipedia are able to edit the article and keep it up to date as more sources become available, and we do not have to wait some long period of time until all sources have published all they are going to publish about the subject and the final version is enshrined in the history books, before we cover it in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Controversy

It is currently against wikipedia policy to have a controversy section in any article. In the past few weeks there has been a concerted effort to eliminate them in high traffic articles. Controversy sections quickly become a coatracks section for highly biased information and NPOV material. Information needs to be weaved into the rest of the body of the article. EricLeFevre (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting really lame. That’s from the Wikipedia to try to become more lame policy that apparently has been recently enacted.Slagathor (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, the section belongs under the section on his term as a member of the US House.Reliefappearance (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you name the policy? I see these sections all the time. Anyway, an easy solution is to title the section “Heckled the President” or some such thing. – 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section title to “Shouting “You lie!” during Obama address” but someone promptly reverted the it to the noninformative “Controversy.” Is there a consensus for the more specific title “Shouting ‘You lie!’ during Obama address?” Edison (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since “Controversy” is out, why not: “Outburst During Joint Session of Congress.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the Controversy section is not out. We have someone editing the article who is not reading the talk page.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The old section heading, (old as in 20 minutes ago) was good. Words like ‘outburst’, ‘conniption’ are all POV. The section heading is staying ’2009 Presidential Address’ though I would prefer just weaving it into the existing section about his current term in Congress.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I felt conniption was an amusing term but ultimately has no place in this context.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, no one is removing information, it is just a learned experience that controversy sections are a magnet for NPOV material and such. It is not lame, it is just good editing. Go browse various high traffic articles about political figures and you will not find controversy sections anywhere in them.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this policy change. I apologize for my disruptive edits. (And yes I was not keeping up with the talk page.) JEN9841 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They were good faith edits, not disruptive. Just a misunderstanding. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the worldwide news sources covering Obama’s address and the Wilson input, they have called it “shouting,” “an outburst” or “heckling.” We might choose one of these as a descriptor in the section, rather than the noninformative and unencyclopedic “controversy.” Edison (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Filed under: Uncategorized

The Other Side

2012 Republican Presidential Nominees

1. Mitt Romney
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Michael Huckabee
4. Sarah Palin
5. Eric Cantor
6. John Thune
7. Jim DeMint
8. Bobby Jindal
9. Haley Barbour
10. Tim Pawlenty

DARK HORSES

1. David Petraeus (won’t happen unless he retires)
2. Joe Scarborough
3. Mitch Daniels

Filed under: Uncategorized

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html?pagewanted=all

1. In Cedar Rapids, a statistical analysis revealed that they were doing 52,000 CAT scans in a community of 300,000. (Same as national rate). By publicizing and promoting this number, they raised awareness about overuse of scanning (which is dangerous).
2. Portland — collaboration between doctors, officials, insurers, and community leaders to improve care. Doctors have been statistically tracking 60 measures of quality, and meeting voluntary cost-reduction goals.
3. Asheville merged two underutilized hospitals.
4. Sacramento – fierce competition between 4 hospital chains eliminated unneeded beds, adoption of new electronic systems, and a race to raise quality.
5. (Is there anyway that Insurance Companies can route patients to the Hospital/Doctor with the lowest costs per quality unit?)

Maybe what’s needed is not a public plan but a public conversation about healthcare (which may include a public plan, or maybe a public reinsurance scheme or subsidy to Insurers?)

Filed under: Uncategorized

National Governor’s Association to Federal Government: Please sir, can I have some more?

The B-Team Governors sit around, cap in hand, worried about health care reform and unfunded mandates. Clearly, someone will crunch the numbers. Someone will have to pay for it –

Seems like the real issue is not that health care will bankrukpt the states, but that the states are already bankrupt. Celebrity governors, like Rendell, Schwarzenegger, Pawlenty, and Palin all stayed home. Maybe they’re trying to avoid the paparazzi.

Filed under: Uncategorized, budget, fiscal crisis, governors, recession, states, unfunded mandate

The Republican Plan for Health Care Reform

“Although Republicans have issued no single alternative health-care proposal, Mr. Steele said there were several steps that could be taken short of the Democrats’ more ambitious approach.

They included posting the costs of all medical tests and procedures on the Internet; simplifying paperwork and reimbursement forms; allowing workers to take insurance plans with them when they change jobs; making it easier for people to buy insurance through professional or consumers’ groups; making it easier to purchase insurance offered in other states; protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits; and cracking down on abuses by doctors or other health-care providers.”

From NYTimes, 7/20, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/health/policy/21health.html?hp

Posting prices on the Internet? Reducing paperwork?
Sounds like they’re shuffling papers on the deck of the Titanic.

While being true to Buckley’s Rule, the Republicons continue to miss the point: while the current health care system spins wildly out of control with endless perverse incentives, instead of of trying to be thought leaders on this issue, they whimper and squeel –

If you don’t like this plan, prepare an alternative, a real one, and keep it on the shelf in case this one doesn’t work. But reduce paperwork? That just says “we’re ok with the status quo, we’re fine transferring wealth from the middle class to the insurance companies and hospitals and doctors, crippling American families and American businesses in the process.”

Filed under: Uncategorized, Buckley, health care, health insurance, reform, Republicans

America’s Immigration Policy

Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor, for me to poop on.

Filed under: Uncategorized, Immigration

Obama’s Second and Third Years

President Obama is about halfway through the first year of his presidency. I.E., if he was George Bush, September 11th would not have happened yet (it’s about 60 days away.)

Some have criticized Obama for getting off to a slow start, i.e., Paul Krugman. Krugman wants a second stimulus package and he wants it now, and worries that there is no political will for it.

But is that true? What will Obama do with this 2nd and 3rd years in office? What’s tricky is that elections are held in November even though governing starts in January. For that reason, we’re on a compressed time-scale.

So Obama has three and a half months before November, at which point he will be one year out from his first midterm, the Midterms. Given the state of the economy, the fractiousness of Democrats (the question of whether the new Democratic Coalition is actually merely an alliance of Non-Republicans), and the disarray in the Republican party, these midterms will be an important referendum on Obama, the Democratic Party, and the state of the nation.

It seems Obama hopes to accomplish the first stage of health care reform and climate change before the midterms. If he is smart, he will also do an executive oversight campaign over Stimulus I and lay the ground-work for Stimulus II if needed (which it likely will be.) Whereas Stimulus I was emergency, Stimulus II should be more strategic and job-building. When to do Stimulus II? Almost certainly after the midterms, after which we will have seen the full effects of Stimulus I, the economic situation two years after the collapse, and the political situation after what we can only hope is the somewhat recovery of the Republican Party (though in fact it is likely that the Republican Party will remain and become increasingly dysfunctional until after the 2012 Presidential Election, in which the national Republican voterbase, moneybase, and punditry will be able to have the full-fledged battle for the soul of the Republican Party.)

One reason for Democratic pussyfooting might be the amorphousness of the Republican Party, which, like the equity market, is loud but gives the impression that a lot of money is sitting on the sidelines. Clearly, if the Republican Party wishes to be a responsible conservative party in the model of Cameron’s British Conservatives, or the better conservative aspirations of Merkel and Sarkozy’s respective parties, or the economic aspects of Israel’s Likud and Kadima, (i.e., a responsible center-right party) it will coalesce around Romney as both Anti-Bush and Anti-Palin. However, the Republicans, who make a cult of both fake and real authenticity, do not like Romney’s style or his religion. A Romney-Huckabee ticket might be the strongest, with some choice words of Huckabee’s about Christianity, tolerance and other religions. Or … a Romney-Rice ticket? Condoleeza, though compromised by the Bush years, remains the best of the bunch, and though not a politician is thoughtful and intelligent and would serve as a potent symbol of Anti-Palinism.

However, I think Palinism is too strong to allow such a liberal ticket on the GOP side. Gingrich and Rove seem to think that Democrat-Lite won’t win — not sure why, since Clinton, Bush, and Obama all ran initially as Democrat-Lite. I think its because the Republican Base is so angry and vicious it would rather lose than compromise, at this point (already somewhat angry at the many liberal compromises Bush made to buy political capital for his Middle East adventures.)

If Palinism (call it the Middle Populist Right) wins the primaries in 2012, (with a Palin-Huckabee ticket, which would probably be a lot smarter than it looks as Huckabee lets Palin in on some of his advice), Romneyism will be further marginalized. One wonders if Romneyism could then pursue a state-by-state strategy by electing Romneyesque Republican governors and congresspeople, creating a new party within the Republican party as the old party fades from relevance. That would set the stage for a Romney-Like Republican in 2016, which will have a much stronger chance unless Obama has successfully built his own political party with his own heir by this time.

What’s interesting is that the Bushites attempted to do this — build a political apparatus that they then would have handed to their Bush-Clone-Heir, Bill Frist and George Allen. Their respective losses (of electability) in and around 2006 signaled the failure of the Rove plan. Faced without a viable heir (who? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Huckabee? None of them were Rovian candidates) it is not surprising that they lost: they were disorganized. Palin is their idealogical heir, but she seems uncontrollable. In a group that valued message control, Palin does not have it. It therefore seems likely that Bushism(Rovism) is dead. Good riddance. BigOilMilitaryIndustrialNeoConservatism survives under the rump leadership of Dick Cheney, and Cheney will happily sell his movement to the highest bidder. If the Republicans had a chance in 2016, one could worry about Romney buying what Cheney’s selling and becoming corrupted by it like Bush was. However a longer-term interregnum makes it more likely that Cheney’s group will wither and the component parts of the coalition might be realigned. BigOil will eventually be coopted (or coopt) the CleanTech movement, which will be a function of the EntrepeneurialGlobalInvestmentParty. However that happens, its alliance with the Military will come to an end. Where the MilitaryIndustrials go is an open question — but it is likely that they will agglomerate around a newer, leaner, smarter, and quieter force policy that is more in line with Center Left theories of military force — Kosovo’s and Bosnia’s rather than Iraqs and Afganistans. The CIA and the Military intelligence services will rise in importance, the Army and Marines will continue to decline. Discredited, the NeoCons will be divorced from the Military and will fade to yesterday’s thinktank status.

Which leaves the Democrats, which are in a precarious position as well, since their coalition is messy and may not be up to the task of Reform.

Who are the Democrats?

Labor (declining)
MinorityPower (parochial)
LiberalElites (?)

Filed under: Uncategorized

The Boiled Frog

Is America about to become a boiled frog, asks Paul Krugman?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em

I think he gives away the answer in the first paragraph.

“I’m referring, of course, to the proverbial frog that, placed in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated, never realizes the danger it’s in and is boiled alive. Real frogs will, in fact, jump out of the pot — but never mind. The hypothetical boiled frog is a useful metaphor for a very real problem: the difficulty of responding to disasters that creep up on you a bit at a time.”

So America is only going to become the proverbial frog if we are collectively dumber than the real frog, which, contrary to popular belief, is not lulled into self-immolation by a slow increasing heat but knows when its ass is on fire.

So. Are we dumber than a frog?

Filed under: Uncategorized