Hey kids! POP QUIZ!
By Shaun Kenney | Wednesday, July 27th, 2011 | Politics
Check out the Radtke 300 fundraising effort!
http://radtkeforsenate.com/Radtke300/
Obviously, a ploy on those famous men who stood at the Hot Gates and held back 2 million Persians…
Quick history question! How did those intrepid Spartans fare at Thermopylae? Did they:
A: Hold off the inevitable Persian hordes, force them back into Asia Minor, and return home as champions?
–or–
B: THEY ALL DIED.
I hate these comparisons. Loathe them. Evidence of an uneducated soul wandering God’s green earth.
Everyone wants to be the Spartans… but they don’t talk about how the Helots (the slaves of these freedom-loving Spartans) eventually overran their city, and they in turn were crushed by the Thebians before Macedon crushed them, and Rome after that, then the Turks, the Nazis, and now their own debt.
Or Braveheart. William Wallace? Died. Robert the Bruce? Crawled through the swamps and forests of Scotland for years waiting for Longshanks to die. Don’t worry — they don’t talk about all the Irish and Welsh and Scots that tried to rebel… AND LOST.
The Patriot? All well and good for the Americans (who lived)… sucked for the Irish, Indians, Kenyans, Nigerians, Boers, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs, Ugandans, Zulu, Iroquois, Huron, Quebecois, and other victims of the British Empire who tried to rebel and were mercilessly crushed.
For a movement that desires to be so reflective of history… these guys sure as hell miss the point that most “revolutions” end in an asskicking. Not small ones, either.
There’s a little scene in the movie Kingdom of Heaven that always impresses me. In it, one of the Islamic mullahs questions Saladin as to why he withdrew from Kerak after confronting King Baldwin IV:
Mullah: [the mullah pays a visit to Saladin in his tent after the battle at Kerak] Why did we retire? Why?
Saladin:God did not favor them.
Mullah: God alone determines the results of battles.
Saladin: The results of battles ARE determined by God, but also by preparation, numbers, the absence of disease, and the availability of water. One cannot maintain a siege with the enemy behind. How many battles did God win for the Muslims before I came… that is, before God determined that I should come?
Mullah: Few enough. That’s because we were sinful.
Saladin: It is because you were unprepared.
Mullah: If you think that way, you shall not be king for long.
Saladin: [Saladin rises to his feet] When I’m not king, I quake for Islam. Thank you for your visit.
[the mullah does not budge; Saladin takes a step forward and extends his hand]
Saladin: Thank you for your visit.
All of the greats who were able to rise above the mendacity of the existing order knew this — instinctively. It is what separates them from the forgotten.
Once again: amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. It’s the one lesson people learn and forget very quickly in this world… gimmicks such as someone’s “300″? These are simply that — empty shells.
(HINT): The Spartans died to a man — one man. He had to go back and tell a squabbling alliance of Greeks to unite or lose their freedom. Anyone else see much “unity” in the Greek camp today? Such leaders?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
52 Responses to "Hey kids! POP QUIZ!"
At some point the “revolution” needs to turn into true conservatism: practical, smart, commonsense governance in a calm, cool, and collected manner – with lots of checks and balances and a slow approach to change.
Amen — and well said. I can’t be the only one tired of the gimmicks and BS, can I?
Want an effective revolution? Learn how to put on a Brooks Brothers suit and a cool tone. Just look who’s in the White House now.
“At some point the ‘revolution’ needs to turn into true conservatism: practical, smart, commonsense governance in a calm, cool, and collected manner with lots of checks and balances and a slow approach to change.”
If you establishment guys were already doing this, delivering “practical, smart, commonsense governance in a calm, cool, and collected manner with lots of checks and balances and a slow approach to change” there wouldn’t be any need for a revolution, would there?
Everything else is “gimmicks and BS,” right?
You guys really don’t see it, do you?
There are folks on both sides of the aisle that are fed up.
It’s a simple proposition – “We the People in order to form a more perfect union” have chosen to do A, B, C, and D. We also value basic freedoms and fundamental rights that have been endowed to us by our Creator.
Government is supposed to study things. They’re supposed to deliberate. They’re supposed to have discussions with one another based on their perspectives, but with the mindset that they are representing the UNITED STATES. Yes – they have a constituency. But, ultimately, our national prosperity and standing in our global environment is at stake.
True leaders need to step up and ensure the best, most intelligent decision is made – not the flavor of the month.
I’m so tired of the Spartan myth that ’300′ perpetuates. The Spartans were the closest thing the Hellenic world had to fascists. Additionally, the obsession with Thermopylae ignores the actual victories the Hellenic alliance(with largely Athenian naval contingents) won at Salamis later that year and at Plataea and Mycale.
I guess I’m probably just an Athenian partisan.
Establishment guys… riiiiight.
Where the hell were you in 2004 when we were fighting the Chichester tax hike? AWOL.
You’ve come to the wrong shop to play that tune and expect sympathy…
@Chris —
Even worse than that, it encourages people to do stupid things against all odds. Like play the lotto.
Establishment?
So, taking something from nothing. Helping point out what’s wrong with GOP party leadership. Challenging tax hikes advocated by Republicans when no such hike was necessary – that makes us establishment?
Establishment is a bad word to only those who can’t break through.
@Jim –
Straight up, 80 proof, God’s honest truth right there.
Not sure some are up for that kind of liquor.
Don’t fret, Shaun. I have the 100 proof handy too, if necessary.
I’m not the one who claimed the mantle of “practical, smart, commonsense governance in a calm, cool, and collected manner with lots of checks and balances and a slow approach to change.” Sounds great, still waiting for delivery.
And don’t go 2004 on me, I was Mises Institute when libertarian wasn’t cool. I was gun rights when you guys’ parents were in high school. I was handing out economics literature when you guys were in popping zits in middle school.
In the meantime, by all means, yes, slay the messenger.
Slay the messenger?
The sooner the conservative movement boots the Randroids from our camp and the rest of the kleptocrats, THE BETTER.
What annoys me is this libertarian nonsense that anarchy is good governance! That was NEVER what the founders advocated. There was ALWAYS a role for government. And how does one pay for government…hmm, someone please enlighten me. Unless, of course, you don’t think roads, weights and measures, security, a post office, etc. are important.
Wow, you guys are amazing with what you’re willing to contrive and spin.
I went to that link. Sure like all campaigns, they set a goal of 300 people. Now are you really so sure the number 300 had to do with that movie and not a set goal for fundraising short term?
I dunno. I just don’t see Jamie Radtke screaming, “We are Sparta!”
And JR, when you make legitimate points where you have taken anti-establishment position, you kinda ruin it with that “establishment is only a bad word to those that can’t break through it” line. Are claiming not to be Establishment or are you defending being establishment? You’re sending mixed messages if you want my honest opinion. (Probably not)
Apparently you can’t pick a number without the Establishment trying to paint that as childish in some way. What was the 2nd choice? The 700 club? I’m sure Kenney would have joked that too.
Really guys. When we’re talking about being cool, deliberate, taking a methodical approach to achieving much needed improvements, why don’t you bother to consider that sometimes………a number is just a number? Or maybe that just wouldn’t be convenient enough for you.
Nice lumping anarchist in with the rest of us Libertarians. As if the “libertarian nonsense” is a monolithic philosophy among libertarians.
Some of us while appreciate certain point made by Rothbardians etc., still hold a consstitutional republic style of limited government to be the ideal. Maybe one day, we will practice it, instead of pretending too.
I’ll concede your last point Britt. Thanks for making it.
If she’d gone for Radtke/305, she could’ve been the Intimidator.
http://www.kingsdominion.com/attractions/detail.cfm?ai_id=631
And yes, he is.
Name one government that has ever operated on Rothbardian principles. Just one.
Fact of the matter is, the libertarian/objectivist wing continues to try to infect the rest of the conservative movement, same as the progressives did with the “America First” crowd.
Just because the anarchists have found common league with the America First progs — doesn’t mean we all have to come along for the ride.
Please… go back to the LP where you belong, and send the sane libertarians back to us where they belong.
And Shaun when you throw out words like “randroids”, how do you mean that? Rand Paul? Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, btw. Just saying, no you didn’t specifically say she was.
And how can you describe any libertarian or objectivist as a kleptocrat? They are inherently against theft and hardly proponents of government confiscation of wealth to spend the country into oblivion.
Fact of the matter is, I am not Rothbardian. I believe there is a purpose for government.
The true question should be the role of government. Are they to protect the individual? Or the Collective? It seems a lot of people confuse protecting the individual with anarchy. Our government has clearly taken the role of protecting the collective.
Oh, BTW Michael. Careful with the Intimidator, he is a legend. Only in NASCAR do we have an invocation that thank God for his smoking hot wife. Isn’t America great?
It’s a shame that most of these dumb ass politicians feel like they need shots to be with us common folk. These are the same individuals who blame the Tea Party for the debt crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301521,00.html
Careful with that word governance, it is an evil unforgiving word.
Really if they wanted an accurate account of the tea party I would have named the fund raiser after the Children’s Crusade. Like Shaun said
“amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics”
Didn’t know that Jamie has 300 more supporters.
Wow Shaun… petty much? What is this, kindergarten? No wonder you’ve become known as an Allen shill.
Mock the Tea Party all you want. They took down two Dem incumbents last Nov. (And Rick Boucher was no small fry) They’ll just make you look all the more foolish. Here’s a hint. It’s not about the people in the power structures… it’s about normal people. You know… the “common folk.” Don’t forget it.
You say you helped point out what is wrong with the GOP and challeneged tax hikes advocated by republicans.. Rightr.. You noodle strokers for Allen have no shame do ya. Form a circle next time ok guys.
“There was ALWAYS a role for government.”
Yes; protecting my liberty and property, not becoming the single largest threat to those things.
“And how does one pay for government…hmm, someone please enlighten me.”
Glad you asked. That depends, really, on just how much government one wishes to have. If one wishes to have limited government, then one must have limited funding of government activities. If one wishes to have giant, overweening, security state, welfare/warfare, special interest kleptocrat government well, then, that costs a bit more, doesn’t it? And so the funding mechanism for such a government necessarily looks quite different.
(I can’t believe you tried to paint the liberty movement as kleptocrats. Are you stupid?)
That funding mechanism pretty much taxes everything possible, and at the highest level it can get away with. And so we have multiple levels of government that each tax many different things in their efforts to raise as much revenue as possible, thereby to employ as many bureaucrats as possible to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Patrick Henry: “This government will operate like an ambuscade.”
And so it does. At every level, government writes self-serving and self-empowering regulations that the unwashed masses must either comply with or be fined or worse.
From Atlas Shrugged, echoing Henry’s sentiment:
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
Hey Shaun & JR, got poll data? George Allen is virtually tied with Kaine even though the GOP won the gov, LG, AG, and 4 congressional seats. George Allen has extremely high name ID and Tim Kaine has been the cheerleader for Obama.. yet they are only tied? What the Foxtrot you say? I can’t make this stuff up. Virginians know all they need to know about both, and they aren’t happy.
Compared with Allen, independent voters are in love with Tim Kaine whose favorability breakdown with them is a whole lot better than George Allens. In fact, poll data seems to indicate George Allen has a problem with indys.. they really don’t like Allen. About 20% rate him positively to 47% with a negative opinion. Real numbers Shaun and JR.. That breakdown was 32/47 in May, 36/41 in February and 38/45 last November. Allen does not have a good image with independent voters (increasingly conservative) in Virginia who remember why they voted against his repeated debt hikes and pork barrel antics and that’s why he’s down with them right now. He knows this, his handlers know this, his high dollar consultants know this and you guys are being good party line loyalists for George “debt hiker” Allen, the Debt Hiker’s debt hiker.
Has anyone else on this blog had enough Tim Kaine and George Allen big government tax borrow and spending?
Hey Mike T –
Pseudonyms? Aren’t common people. Frankly, I don’t take kindly when consultants ruin good candidates… and take advantage of “common folks” that I consider friends.
Cheers!
“What annoys me is this libertarian nonsense that anarchy is good governance!”
I am certain that if the libertarians were presented with an opportunity to no longer perceive government itself as the single greatest threat to (our) liberty, we would stop considering anarchy as an increasingly attractive alternative.
Here’s another very simple truth that no one in the establishment seems to understand: revolutions occur when the perceived danger of continuing to live under the current system is greater than the perceived danger of probably dying in a revolution. It’s not any more complicated than that.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
I know words like these are alien to men such as yourselves. I know this because the OP crowned this piece with
B: THEY ALL DIED.
and
“…these guys sure as hell miss the point that most “revolutions” end in an asskicking. Not small ones, either.”
I hope you don’t wear out the knees of your trousers.
Jeez, I go away for a week and look what happens. I take Shaun’s point about triteness and Spartans. And yes, there’s a need for every revolutionary to settle down after the shooting (real or metaphorical) has stopped. Otherwise, one soon has a new Terror on one’s hands.
But I would strongly recommend that as an antidote to triteness, folks take the time to read Gordon Wood’s “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” for perspective on our own revolutionary experience.
Within those pages, Shaun will find that the Founders, too, made frequent allusions to the Romans, Athenians, and — gasp! — Spartans. Though, mercifully, they had nothing to say about William Wallace.
And as they were enamored of theory and tactics, as opposed to logistics, one could just as easily write them off as rank amateurs who had no business instigating a revolution, let alone trying to build a nation.
Then again, the pros of the time did eventually find their level. As Canadians.
Well, just to be fair, I have seen some articles on BD in the past that criticized taxes, Republican cowardice, Will Sessoms taken to the woodshed, etc. I have enjoyed past articles on natural rights that some Republican AND Democrat leaders could stand to read.
I say that just to be fair. I still think they aren’t thinking straight, bought off, or something on this Senate race. Treatment of the Tea Party often isn’t fair either.
…the self-purported “voices” of the Tea Party in the comments section here have done a gross disservice to the movement, to be sure.
@Norm –
There is a great and very short book on the Founding Fathers — specifically the Virginians — entitled “Seat of Empire” that goes through how the Virginians of the time were uniquely suited for leadership. Plantation owners by and large, they all understood the nature of running an organization (slaves, freedmen, overseers, shipping things to market, etc).
The Founding Fathers were logisticans of the highest order.
They were able to marry logistics with tactics, and not hang their hopes on ignoring tactics and hoping to be one of the “300″ — people forget that the Spartans were heroic because their stand was unmatched in history. Only Agincourt comes closer… and even then, the fate of the West was not hanging in the balance.
I finished reading Wood’s “Empire of Liberty” — which is a hefty tome in its own right. I have the latest… it’s on the nightstand.
Still, the point is well taken. There are precious few voices who read their history. There are too many who use the wrong allegories to push people to risk time, talent, and treasure (and reputation) for the temporary gain of the consulting class — most of whom are more bark than true bite. They love the Tea Party because they are (1) naive, (2) angry, and (3) pushing $$$ towards anything that will fix the problem.
This is all well and good… until you get to the voices that try to hedge out the furthest right-wing position possible… and yes, those are the Randians, the objectivists, the anarchists, and the malcontents on the fringe.
Those people simply want to see Rome burn. And it’s why the Tea Party has shrunk from a movement for genuine reform based on the principles of liberty, to a ever-shrinking circle of kleptocrats and eccentrics.
It takes both. Logisticians temper the rhetoric of those who preach tactics uber alles; tacticians apply the logistics train in the right direction.
THIS IS THE MARRIAGE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE MOVEMENT THAT MADE REAGAN GREAT — and sadly, because there are many who simply are doomed to repeat history (or make money in the process of laying out tantalizingly distant goals), the voices we’re hearing today purporting to be leaders simply are walking off a cliff… and they’re being shepherded by those who stand to profit from their demise.
I really wish Tea Party folks got this:
(1) There are a good many conservatives who have been in the trenches for years that want to help, but…
(2) …they are pushed out by bottom feeders (read: consultants) who are promising folks the world when they know in the back of their heads that winning isn’t in the cards. The only winner is the consultant who survives for another election year…
Turbo asks: “Has anyone else on this blog had enough Tim Kaine and George Allen big government tax borrow and spending?”
YES! I have… that’s why I’m strongly considering Tim Donner’s qualifications for the job. I would prefer that he had a background in elected office, but I do like his business experience, and knowledge of policy.
Let me quote JR, “you’re obviously part of the generation that got us into this mess in the first place.”
There you go again with the word kleptocrat and no back up, Shaun.
And, btw, I only claim to speak for myself. I do claim to be part of the Tea Party, but I have never claimed to speak for them or even for Libertarians. Of course when you mislable people, you ought to be corrected.
It is REAL easy to talk about logistics when you are a former Senator/Governor and establishment poster child. When you have to step up your organization to a new level, theory comes before actuality. Logistics will come and it is.
Pretty sad when you have to make up a story about the selected number of 300 having to do with a movie. You must be worried to have to stoop to such a level.
Guess a drowning man will clutch at straw, Britt…
I guess you will, Shaun. Hence the delusional connections made to movies or the repeated mislabling someone as a kleptocrat.
But our country is on the brink of grasping at straws, Shaun. It doesn’t have to be that way. A repeated poor performance by George Allen will just take us down the same destructive road of kicking the can down the road as far as possible.
People often speak of social security as a ponzi scheme. Clearly, with our government, Responsibility is a ponzi scheme. It is past time for our representatives to do their job and make responsible decisions. The soution to over indebtness is not additonal credit. Given Allen’s past performance, we have no reason to trust he will do what is needed. Jamie Radtke is a fiscal conservative at the core. She believes it. That is why I am supporting her.
There we go again with the tactics.
*sigh*
Who are these consultants?
And what is this kleptocrat thing?
As for TP people being willing to try to use their money to solve problems, that should not be hard to understand, as the existing political system has created, through acts of both omission and commission, a surfeit of problems to solve. Perhaps someone would care to argue otherwise, and explain how things are going just swimmingly right about now? And if not, then maybe someone would like to explain why it is wrong to try to correct them?
And finally, are you content, Shaun? And if not, does that make you a malcontent? And if mainstream (non-fringe) ideas and rules have been those by which society has been operating for these past decades, and if those have led us to this sorry state of insolvency, excessive promises, and impasse, then one can be labeled “fringe” merely by insisting on pointing out the abject failure of those mainstream ideas.
But by all means, Shaun, continue to look for solutions in the existing political and economic orthodoxy. All we need to do is tinker just a bit here and there and everything will be allright, right?
Genuine free market ideas have been replaced by market-socialism. The right and the left have embraced wealth redistribution.
There’s an excellent piece on zerohedge right now titled “Who Are The Extremists?” Here’s a teaser:
“When you see the old time party hacks and the shrill pundits declare that an agreement must be reached on these fake distant theoretical cuts, you know they just want to protect the status quo. These people have gotten rich from keeping the status quo intact. If EXTREMISM is living within your means, spending less than you bring in, addressing unfunded liabilities, and leaving a country where our children have a fair chance to have a decent future, then count me in the extremist camp. The time is approaching when we need to stand up and be counted. What kind of country shall we be? Do you care?”
@Jacoby –
Wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
And I strongly encourage Tea Partiers to use their resources to change the system for the better, but be very well aware that (1) there’s people who want to harness their political power and (2) not for the best.
Example? Look at Sarah Palin — the VP pick of none other than John McCain… transformed to Tea Party darling. Really? How so? How much is she making off of this? How much are her handlers making off of her brand? What — if anything — has she reformed to the scale any of us would want to see reformed?
Totally agree we should stand up and be counted. But there is a right way, and a very, VERY wrong way to do this.
Sarah Palin is not my darling. She is the darling of the national TP caucus thingy, which I view as an early attempt by the national R’s to corral and claim the mantle of Tea Partiness.
I’ve written pieces critical of Palin, mostly for her lack of intellect which, in my view, disqualifies her for genuine leadership, but which also makes her a perfect “useful idiot” and therefore someone likely to be supported and elected by big money interests. Just like Obama. And Bush 2. Like Palin, Bush is dumber than a bag of rocks. Obama is desperately inexperienced. All are easily manipulated.
My take on nearly everything that’s happening is economic. Economics is about how things get made, politics is about who gets to keep them. As such, politics is a bastardization of economics, a bastardization that has morphed into a politically-controlled economy. Command economies do not work, ever. The political process should be about protecting free market economics, but instead has been transformed into a mechanism for guaranteeing market share and profits to the best-connected businesses (like banks, for example), and an accompanying system of bribing the masses to agree to it.
I cannot any longer try to stand up and be counted from within the existing system. The existing system is part of the problem; it is the thing that has brought us to where we now find ourselves. The existing system, and its players, cannot be part of the solution, because any solution thus created would guarantee continuation of the existing system. This renders impossible the kind of real changes that are needed. The system cannot change until it is forced to. The system is struggling with that reality right now.
I think you and I disagree significantly on the actual severity of the economic situation we are in. I am absolutely convinced, and I and others have written numerous pieces which I believe show, that we have been living in an unsustainable credit bubble for the past three decades. Each time the bubble has sagged it has been deliberately reinflated “because the consequences of not doing so are too severe.” This has been done through lower interest rates, ever-increasing permanent monetary stimulus (federal deficits), and increased financial leverage (lower capital ratios). The deficits have finally reached the critical point, as they had to, and as we knew they eventually must. The business-as-usual approach cannot and will not succeed this time.
My frustration occasionally boils over.
The media (and others) get a lot of things wrong about the TEA party, but there seems to be no way to fix it.
The media portrays the TEA party people as really, really die hard, born again Republicans, the “right wing of the Republican party”, when that is very far from the truth. The reality is that TEA party people tend to be more centrist than the Republican party and they care about a much smaller range of issues than Republicans. You wouldn’t catch most TEA party people blathering on about social issues, for example, or trying to defend high levels of defense spending, or any of the other things that Republicans go on and on about.
It seems like the media in general totally ignores what TEA party people actually say about themselves in favor of listening to people like Sarah Palin. Palin is, without a doubt, a Republican cheerleader, she really is part of the right wing of the Republican party, and is out of touch with what TEA party people want.
Many TEA party issues are rarely talked about and the general public, in my opinion, doesn’t even know what the TEA party is going on about most of the time, mostly because the media creates such a cloud of confusion about it. An example of that is the increasing inevitability of currency devaluation as a means of default, that is a very important core issue to TEA party people yet you never hear anything about it in the media, it sometimes seems like the media doesn’t even understand the concept. The only time you even hear about opposition to the stimulus spending is as “spending” and “increasing the debt”, they never talk about it in terms of currency dilution and devaluation, even rarely as a transfer of wealth from savers to spenders. And that’s if you hear about it in fiscally conservative terms at all, usually it is reported simply as opposition to Obama’s agenda for political ends as if it had no real merit as an issue on its own.
The reality is that the TEA party agenda is so simple your great grandfather would have understood it, but that is also what makes it so “extreme” and dangerous to the establishment. Only crazy extreme TEA party could come up with an idea so radical as balancing a budget, and that is what concerns both parties, that common sense might actually be more common than they’ve lead themselves to believe.
Hi Joe, what ya thinking about?
Logistics.
Whatcha thinking about that for?
I’m trying to figure out what good logistics is to people who are raising their hands in surrender because of tactical mistakes by their leaders.
@Jacoby –
Now you see, when I mentioned that certain elements of the Tea Party were being bought up by the national guys before (here on this blog), I endured the attacks of more than a few TPers. You and I (and a lot of others) know otherwise.
I view today’s problems in much the same way you do — as primarily economic, though I would additionally treat this as a symptom of a misplaced values system.
The question is twofold: (1) how do you wean a “kleptocracy” from socialism, and (2) to what role should the government protect or promote the free market?
On (1), I’m sure we all know that just about everyone is at the till. If they’re not taking Social Security checks, they’re taking Medicare or a government-funded or -backed pension. Or on a military pension. Or benefit from mortgage exemptions or any host of tax credits. Or they’re doing business with someone who does take some form of government funding (defense contractors, or the business plopped in the middle of a business park with independent gov’t contractors, etc).
Let’s make it worse — we all know that our monetary policy is driven towards cheap energy, cheap food, cheap credit, cheap housing, cheap everything. When done wrong… a Keynesian model creates that “bubble” that we’re witnessing now.
The only way we are going to change anything within the existing system is to get to 50% +1. That is the nature of constitutional government.
…and some of those within 50% +1 are your armchair patriots, your kleptocrats (and they exist on the right just as much as on the left) and your moderates aren’t going to want to give up anything — ANYTHING.
So how do you preserve and protect (2) the free market?
My solution: Freeze the denominator; grow the numerator.
Gov’t has to be put into a box. You and I both know that at every level of government, their budgets are designed to grow. Designed to do this. Solution? Box them in, push them to live within means, kill the mysticism that surrounds it, and find ways to push back.
The additional solution? Create more producers rather than consumers. The free market doesn’t survive without producers — right now, we have consumers who think their definition of “liberty” is to continue to consume on cheap credit, cheap monetary policy, etc. just as mentioned before — the kleptocracy defined.
This will require a massive change in the way we approach a number of things: education, vocational training, SBA loans, microfinance, workforce education, manufacturing, innovation economies, etc.
…but, all of those things have to occur while freezing the denominator.
AND THERE… there lies the rub.
Are we willing to give ourselves the time to grow our way into a new economy? To put the Leviathan in a box and give the free market enough time to grow so the free market is big enough to kill state capitalism?
I don’t know that our Tea Partiers are adept enough to understand that the socialists have us outgunned, outnumbered, and an entire government at their disposal — while within our own ranks we are rife with some folks who truly do get it, but a lot of others who just want to keep what, by all rights, we stole as a society through state capitalism, Keynesian economics, an an over reliance on consumerism over production and self-sufficiency.
I’m not sure we really disagree entirely on the severity of the problem… and I do believe that the Congress will fix the problem (temporarily) this time. But it will get progressively worse.
The question is, are we willing to freeze the denominator, and invest in the numerator — and that requires a re-orientation of the public trust while putting Leviathan in a box.
…and that will require temporary fiscal pain.
Now — does anyone in the Tea Party want to do this? Heck no. Of course not. They don’t want to pay anything more. The kleptocrats within will want to save as much as they can for the short term and to hell with the long term — the next generation and the generation after that.
The alternative is to let Rome burn. Sorry… I’m just not interested in that.
So… we have 70 million Baby Boomers who want all their government promises and their nest eggs which were inflated by cheap monetary policy protected, along with all their gov’t credits and exemptions, and they don’t want to pay for it. Meanwhile, 40 million Gen Xers have to foot the bill… and why should we?
Equally frustrated. But in my heart of hearts, I can’t believe we are willing to give up collectively on the idea that is America. I’m willing to fight for it, pay for it, sacrifice my time and talent, whatever it takes to make sure we restore America’s greatness.
Producers not consumers. That’s the key to it all. That’s something the Fed and the government can’t take away… self-sufficiency is the cornerstone to a free republic.
Shaun,
Why do you feel the need to talk down to other people (i.e. Tea Party)? To the point at which you think that they do not have the capacity to comprehend what is happening.
Have you ever considered that life experiences have brought us to different conclusions? Rather following the rule of Hegelian dialectics, only moving us closer to Totalitarian rule. It’s just that some of us have chosen a different path. Or we have listened to others who may have provided us a different view that makes sense to us.
I still contemplate the seat belt law which hasn’t changed the amount of traffic fatalities.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Temporary: +1
Shaun:
Now I understand which kleptocracy you were referring to, and I agree 100%. The government has capitalized on well-known human weaknesses and endeared itself to everyone. It has done so on purpose, giving itself the power I described above.
I have not been hopeful that the kind of change we need is possible without a collapse of some kind. Power, once gained, is never given up voluntarily, General Washington’s example being the recent exception. Many libertarians have long accepted the idea that the only way to kill Leviathan is to stop feeding it. Those ideas have only gained widespread interest recently, as the simple math of our debt has begun to assert itself. Everything works until it doesn’t, it seems.
The opportunity for radical change is now. We know for a fact that our debt-fueled lifestyles are unsustainably high. But the majority does not yet know this. There is only one way to convince them, and that is to stop paying them to do nothing, or take away their free stuff, or their mortgage interest deduction, or their high-paying MIC jobs, or whatever.
They will never voluntarily go along with this. It is not possible. The belief system is the thing that has to be broken. The only way for that to happen is either for the system to collapse, or for someone to force the issue. We are trying to force the issue.
This might sound cliche, but we are willing to do this because we actually believe in the future. Americans may have become fat and lazy, but that is not our nature. Leviathan appeals to human weaknesses. We want to appeal to human strengths.
The world is a much less scary place when one can stand in it as a self-sufficient and independent person. Government promulgates an environment of endless fear. Roosevelt defined freedom as “freedom from want.” What he really meant was “freedom from responsibility for one’s self.” Parents in their retirement didn’t want to be a burden on their children (but apparently didn’t want to miss anything by living beneath their means, either), and they were fooled into believing they could shift this burden onto “everyone.” Now, as Social Security and Medicare costs skyrocket, parents in their retirement become…a burden on their children. You know the numbers.
Denninger over at Market-Ticker has written somewhat extensively about the fact that no one in the establishment has been publicly talking about what it really means to balance the budget (I’ve been writing about this fact extensively for years). We’ve been deficit-spending 10% of GDP for the past three years. If we balance the budget, GDP shrinks 10% overnight. This fact is beginning to be discussed in the financial media.
more…
(1) how do you wean a kleptocracy from socialism, and (2) to what role should the government protect or promote the free market?
1) is going to happen. It’s happening right now. Rome IS burning. And, AFAIAC, muddle-through, while being the scenario that the establishment is clearly hoping for, is the worst-case scenario because it will convince everyone that we can continue to get away with business as usual. For my own part, I gave up on Social Security twenty-five years ago, I stopped including it in my retirement planning, I knew even then that there would be no SS buying power for me. The math relies on constant high rate population growth, and simply doesn’t work. I started telling friends that I’d withdraw from the system if I could. They all thought I was some kind of nutcase.
Obviously, we need real economic growth, and in order to get it we need real production. The phrase I have chosen to use is this: “We need to reinvigorate our love affair with our farmers, miners, and manufacturers.” The entirety of the tax code and regulatory infrastructure functions as a means for Congress to wield power and thereby get “campaign contributions.” What do we need to do to “promote” the free market? Just get out of the way. But that requires Congress’s willingly giving up its principle sources of power, plus all of the vested interests allowing that to happen. Absent a collapse, how likely is that? Those vested interests, as you pointed out, are also accustomed to not having to compete in a true free market, relying instead of legislated market share, government contracts, etc etc. Most of them are so bloated, inefficient and corrupt (BANKS) that they could not compete in a genuine free market, and frankly I think they know it. The moment the banks claimed “Too Big To Fail” status they became the embodiment of collectivism; enemies of the republic.
I believe that we have already crossed the event horizon for a very very significant economic event right here in the U.S. Maybe I have come to that belief on purpose, but I have chosen to concentrate on “where do we have to get to?”
Free market economies function on simple arithmetic. Government and central bank market interventions distort that arithmetic, and everyone knows it. Why are businesses holding back?
1. They don’t know who the government is going to pick next as winners and losers.
2. They don’t know what the madmen at the Fed are going to do next.
3. Nearly all available assets are falsely priced due to the existing market interventions.
4. They don’t know if all of the price-distorting interventions will continue.
Example: Drive around and see all of the empty commercial space. Why have these assets not been put back into play? THEY’RE PRICED WRONG. Why are they priced wrong? BALANCE-SHEET SUPPORT AND MARKET INTERVENTIONS BY THE FED AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE PREVENTED THE BANKS FROM BEING FORCED TO SELL THEM AT A LOSS. Why have the Fed and the government intervened? WELL-CONNECTED BANKSTERS DON’T WANT TO TAKE LOSSES, THEY’D RATHER CLAIM PROFITABILITY AND PAY THEMSELVES MASSIVE BONUSES. An examination of the Fed’s balance sheet will illustrate my point. You need merely look at “excess reserves.”
The hardest thing to convince people of is this: sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. In the case of the economy, that is always the best thing to do. But, doing nothing would convince people that the government really isn’t in charge of the economy, and the government would lose prestige and power.
So I sit and watch while government tries to continue to intervene and try to manage the economy. And I know their efforts are doomed to fail for the simple reason that Washington can’t manage the American economy any more than Moscow could manage the U.S.S.R.’s. But they will try right up until they fail catastrophically. To not do so would be to admit their own powerlessness, and that is impossible for them.
It is absolutely ludicrous to say Shaun Kenney is “establishment,” as in 2005 he was one of few who had the courage to challenge rino republicans who voted for Governor Mark Warner’s 2004 tax increase.
In 2005, Shaun ran for the House of Delegates against a republican who went south on conservative principles and voted for VA’s largest tax increase in VA history.
Though Shaun didn’t win, he never sacrificed his conservative principles during the campaign just to gain the votes of the “Centrist” that Temporary says are in large the Tea Party.
If Temporary is correct about the majority of the Tea Party not agreeing with social conservative principles or that we, social conservatives, are blathering on, than we are in more trouble than I thought and the future of the Tea Party truly is limited. A Tea Party that doesn’t agree with social conservative principles truly does not understand Liberty or the origins of Liberty.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.