Morning Joe 5/7/2012 -- Socialism, bipartisanship and not a word about free markets

The big news on Morning Joe today was France's socialist shift, Obama's campaign opening day after campaigning for the last year and the call for political unity so that government can get things done.

So, in order to give a balanced analysis, the guests were Sam Stein, David Gregory, Chuck Todd, Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Ignatius, Ron Wyden and maybe a few more I can't remember. Oh yeah, for true balance there was the scarf wearing, no-label guy Mark Mckinnon who's a Centrist like Scarborough, David Frum, David Brooks and Bruce Bartlett -- in other words, they are champions of the status quo, of bipartisan compromise, political unity, and they oppose extremes, i. e. principled stances.

This question of Centrism runs throughout modern politics. Obama is positioning himself as a Centrist by establishing the modern progressive positions as normal Center, with the Right established as extreme, radical and out of touch with the middle class and actively at war with the poor, women, gays and minorities. Scarborough and other Centrists have a problem with Obama only because he has been too divisive, although they understand the problems he's had dealing with a Republican Party captured by Tea Partiers. However, the Centrists believe Obama could do more to compromise with those who want more energy production, for instance. David Ignatius said this morning on Morning Joe that America is in a great position to be an economic powerhouse for decades to come, that we have enough natural gas to become the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

The Centrists criticize Romney for Romney's criticisms of Obama on relations with Russia, Iran and China. The Centrists believe that Romney should give credit where credit is due, then attack Obama on the economy. But, the Left and the Centrists are saying the economy is in much better shape than the doomsayers claim, if only we'd develope political unity and do the things necessary to combine limited austerity and economic growth. Ron Wyden said on Morning Joe that he's willing to reach across the aisle to find a solution to Medicare and SS spending. But, government would need to tax the rich at much higher rates.

The idea seems to be that Romney and the Republicans are too set against Obama and the Democrats and not open enough to compromise and political unity, and that Obama has reacted to harshly to extreme Republicans and should try harder to find bipartisan solutions. When it's all weighed out, the Centrists have a bigger problem with Romney than with Obama, because they think Romney will be business-focused, when what is called for is political solutions that only a good understanding of governance can bring about. Yes, Romney has business experience, but if he concentrates just on business and economics and gives in to the narrow-mindedness of the radical right who want to gut government except for the parts that benefit their worldview, then the opportunity for the Republican Party to attract independents and create political unity with Democrats willing to compromise is lost, and even if the Republicans win, they will destroy the Centrist influence in the party and ruin any chance of political unity for a long time to come.

The Centrists are looking for a transformed GOP, but not all that transformed, only transformed from what the Tea Party has created in the last three years. The GOP has always been controlled by Centrists who talk "small" government and govern Big Government. The Centrists see their hold slipping and they want a better grasp on the process -- Romney is not their choice, but they can live with him if he will moderate his positions, which are already pretty moderate. Romney is hardly a rightwing zealot, but because Romney is critizing Obama too sharply, the Centrists worry that this will give the impression that the Tea Party has captured the momentum and is leading the way. The battle in the GOP is between Centrists and Tea Party types, with a small faction of libertarians having some influence thanks to Ron Paul. There was no talk about a concerted effort to establish limits on government power and allow a free market to emerge as a way to combine austerity and economic growth. This idea is off the table, except among that small faction of libertarian minded supporters of Ron Paul.

When the discussion turned to Hollande in France, the panel stated that Hollande will not be able to implement his socialist policies because the global financial community will not allow it. The panel thinks Hollande will compromise with Merkel and Obama. The problem for France is the same as the problem in the US, the change of direction that happens when the majority of the country votes for redistribution and more welfare/benefit programs. They may not get all of their agenda through, but will likely get enough through to kill the economy and create decades of decline that could become collapse, like for which Greece is destined. France is wealthy, but they have problems, and a socialist direction, even if moderated, will only enhance the problems and create many more.

Morning Joe 2/24/2012 -- Phony political class

Morning Joe is a great representation of the political class. This political show offers players from the Right, Left and Center in the political class -- mostly Left and Center. Joe and Mika are players in the political class as are all their regulars and semi-regulars, like this morning's guests, John Meacham, David Gregory, Steve Rattner and so forth.

You can make your living in politics and political commentary without being a member of the political class, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson as politicians who think outside the political class mindset, and perhaps Marco Rubio and a few of the New Republicans, and John Stossell or Judge Napolitano, and perhaps Glenn Greenwald, as pundits/journalists who don't think in terms of political means. What makes a person a member of the political class is whether they view the world through political lens.

This morning on Morning Joe was a perfect example of the phony nature of the political class. Scarborough, each morning, attempts to frame the Republican candidates in the primary as incompetents, as he portrays Obama as someone with whom he disagrees but has a good chance of winning, because Obama is winning the perception battle. Rarely do Scarborough and crew talk about economic reality, because to Scarborough and those in the political class reality has secondary importance to the importance of political perception. Scarborough made a passionate argument this morning about the "math" of the deficit and debt, but he was going off charts manufactured by Steve Rattner which show Obama's "plan" cutting more money in the next 10 years than the Republican candidates. Rattner admitted that he wasn't taking into account what Romney, for example, said he would cut once he was in office and could study what needs to go, because Romney hasn't done it already. What? Scarborough is definitely not an intellectual, but he's smart enough to know that Rattner's charts are bullshit. 

When you have a discussion about "math" that's this convoluted and deceptive, you've exited reality and entered the political realm where the political class has their own logic and math. Who knows what games Scarborough and his guests are playing -- they all have their political agenda. They can't be believed, and they will change positions at the drop of a hat. Scarborough and the No Labels crowd, the Centrists, have criticized the faction of the Republican Party which has worked outside the political realm to address real economic problems because these fiscal conservatives and free marketers are too rigid and not willing to compromise, according to Centrists. But then Scarborough will criticize Romney or Santorum for working with the other side to accomplish certain legislation when Scarborough thinks it will make him look like a strong conservative. So which is it?

If Republicans should work with Democrats to get things done, as the Centrists like Scarborough have claimed in the past, what will they compromise on and what will they get done. I don't know of anyone on the Left who wants serious cuts like Scarborough pretended to support this morning -- the Left wants higher taxes. The Left has been offered tax hikes if they'll help reform entitlements, but Pelosi and Reid and Obama have made it clear that Medicare and SS and Medicaid will not be cut. The entitlements are where the more is, and in big gov. programs. Are Republicans and Democrats willing to work together to decrease the size of the welfare state, cut programs like Dept of Education and cut all unnecessary spending from the military budget?

The political class talks in circles, says anything and does anything to please everyone they can while obscuring reality and blocking any real changes to our statist system. The political class live off a powerful State, and once the power of our interventionist government is limited, the State will shrink to its right size and importance, and over half the political class will scramble to find new employment. The political class needs statism -- they need a powerful State -- they are afraid to face economic reality, and afraid for the people to understand economic reality.

Meet the Press 1/15/2012 -- Harry Reid

On Meet the Press today David Gregory interviewed Harry Reid. Reid is a poster child for what's wrong with government. Reid repeatedly called Republicans obstructionists on steroids, then talked about how hard the Democrats have tried to work with Republicans to get things done. Reid said that there is no one who has done more to achieve compromise with Republicans than President Obama. This is political spin, of course, and it's expected in DC. What makes it so egregious is that Gregory doesn't hold Reid's feet to the fire and expose his dishonesty. This is the job of media -- to cut through deceptions.

Gregory asked Reid about the failure of Democrats to create a budget and the fact that Republicans in the House proposed a budget, but it was blocked. Gregory accepted Reid's non-answer. Reid said they have to have consensus in Senate, which says nothing. Reid hasn't considered any Republican proposals to deal with budget or jobs issues -- Reid has obstructed every Republican House proposal, not even allowing debate and votes. How can you reach consensus without debate and the process of compromise? Gregory didn't challenge Reid.

In the world of Media and Democrats like Harry Reid, compromise means Republicans going along with the plans and direction of Democrats. Gregory did say that since both parties have different views and no one is willing to compromise then we can expect stalemate. Obama has quit governing and he's attacking Republicans on a daily basis. Reid said that he will continue trying to work with Republicans, and this is where Gregory should have laughed at Reid -- Gregory let it slide, giving the impression that Reid is doing all he can and will continue to do everything possible to work with Republicans and do the nation's business. Yes, this is hilarious. What's sad is that media personalities like Gregory have become patsies for Democrat controlled government.

What ideologues?

It's mostly a claim made by the Left -- Rightwing ideologues are obstructing common sense compromise and pragmatic problem solving -- although the Right also accuses the Left of adhering bull-headedly to ideology. Many historians talk about the ideological battles from WWI to WWII and through the Cold War conflicts between communists and capitalists. History and close observation of political parties today reveal something quite different. Although, rhetorically, one might find ideological posturing then and now, in reality, the opposite has been more true than not. From Stalin's NEP to Wilsons socialist measures -- from Gorbachev's perastroika to Reagan's eventual expansion of government power -- from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Clinton's capitulation to budget balancing and wefare reform -- and from Bush's Big Government Republicanism to Obama's militaristic interventions in the mideast, the underlying motivating causes have been related to State power maintenance and expansion than adherence to any ideology. Vague ideas regarding welfare and regulation and national defense have driven the government toward a statist system, but no can blame ideology for this system. It's banal-- government gains control by giving people stuff and promising security. There's been no careful efforts to create a system that's effective, efficient and fair, based on a well-reasoned set of ideas, even if that is possible. Government has implemented a hodgepodge of regulations, entitlements and interventions which have eventually strangled the economy.

No powerful American leaders have ever fought for strict limits on government power and an authentic free market, as, on the other hand, none have fought for government control over the means of production, and, although Russia attempted socialism, they mostly floundered between different schemes and five year plans that could be totally opposite from an ideological perspective. In America, particularly, rather than ideology being a problem in the political realm, lack of an ideological foundation has been the real problem, and still is the real problem. The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination to run for President in 2012 are accusing one another of being the biggest flip-flopper. There's been a lot of ideological rhetoric, but not much ideological consistency. Even when one party stands on "principle" to obstruct the party in power, when power switches, that principle is usually violated by the winner in a matter of weeks or months.

Ideology is spoken of as if it's a modern evil, regardless of the set of ideas in question, so, in practice, pragmatism and ad hoc convenience are the preferred political methods, even though ideology is used to give a good speech every now and then. Has the public shifted Right? Oh well, better give a rousing free market speech. Has the public shifted Left? Well, then, let me pull out my welfare, regulation and fat cat speech. Although Obama has been one of the most ideologically consistent political figures in quite a while, a progressive in congress, and a fighter for universal healthcare in his first two years as President, when push comes to shove, he's more ordinary statist than Super Progressive with a clear agenda he's willing to fight for against all odds. Maintaining or expanding power is the name of the game. If the public turns against power-grabbing, then work to maintain the gains in power. If the public has been bamboozled, then work your ass off to expand power. If each political party did have a set of ideas they belived in, and if they were clear about the ideas, then it would be easier to determine which set of ideas make the most sense, but we're stuck with pragmatic tweaks and schemes that are supposed to give the appearance of wise, common sense governance. As it turns out, government doesn't have a clue how manage an economy, or deal with the affairs of other nations. Our Founders had a good set of ideas that they worked out over a period of time. The results were not perfect, but it was the best blueprint for governance developed so far. What our government does now is so far from the blueprint, it's more like a theater of the absurd.

Ideology is not a matter of political taste. Some ideas are more true than others. The biggest problem I see in the political realm is that not enough representatives are sent to DC who defend and act on the best set of ideas. It's clear that governing by ad hoc convenience and whatever protects the status quo of power has not worked. The main ideology that threatens statists is the set of ideas that promote dynamic economic growth in a market not managed by government. Government favored corporations which act as allies of the State fear a free market that upsets the established economic order. Through the years Big Corporate players have welcomed government regulation that suppresses competition. An ideology that promotes limits on government power is a threat to the political realm. The rigged game depends on government control over the economy. An ideology that promotes peaceful, free trade and non-intervention in foreign affairs threatens the military industrial complex that our Founders warned against and hoped to prevent.

The image of an "ideologue" as a wild-eyed, close-minded fanatic who holds on tight and stubbornly to discredited ideas overlooks the fact that ideology can include the idea that the intellectually honest person always adjusts his/her views when new information calls for adjustment. Promoting a set of ideas a person believes have been validated by experience is hardly fanatical. The main criticism against ideological "purity" is that in politics there must be compromise, and that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good enough for government work, but this has been the problem. For too long, too many politicians have compromised on important principles, justifying their compromises by claiming politics is a game of give and take. The result of compromises, however, have put the nation at risk because too few representatives have stood on principle to do what's best for the nation. When you can't find a representative who doesn't agree that entitlements, unchanged, are unsustainable, yet there isn't a consensus to tackle the problem and avoid collapse, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. When practically every representative agrees that defense spending can be cut without threatening our security, yet defense contractors continue to over-charge and build unneeded weapons, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. When all representatives agree that waste, fraud and abuse of tax-payer dollars are realities in government, but the waste fraud and abuse continue unabated, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. 

The charge that ideologues are blocking progress is a ridiculous charge. We are at a point where ideology, the best set of ideas, are needed more than ever. Yes, I know that there is disagreement over what represents the best set of ideas, but if government worked through reason rather than partisan power-mongering, it wouldn't be too difficult to agree on the set of ideas that make the most sense, and, as I said, we have a blueprint. But these ideas will never find their way to DC unless the public rejects the demonization of ideology and begins to develope a better vision for America. It's not up to politicians -- it's up to the nation as a whole. The 2012 elections should be primarily about the role of government going forward, and only an ideology which understands the problems of unlimited government will lead to the best results. 

Morning Joe 11/9/2011 -- Increasing government revenues

Today on Morning Joe, the guests were Jeffrey Sachs, Steve Rattner, Harold Ford, Michael Bloomberg and a few others, like Bob McDonnell, the Gov. of Virginia. There were many topics, but the main topics focused on job growth, debt and how to raise revenues. Scarborough made the point over and over that Republicans working with Democrats, sans ideology, to get things done for the American people is the middle way of the nation. An example given of ideological overreach was John Kasich's loss in Ohio regarding collective bargaining -- Scarborough said Kasich overreached, and now he's humble and realizes he has to work with Democrats.

The union victory in Ohio can hardly be called a success when you consider that collective bargaining will drive Ohio further in debt, as it has in the past. Scarborough's hero, FDR, was against collective bargaining in public unions. With all the protests going on regarding fixed games, the fixed game of public unions blackmailing states to receive pensions, benefits and higher pay for which the states can't pay, it doesn't appear this fixed game bothers moderates, liberals or progressives. Kasich was characterized as "humble" after the defeat, but I saw from Kasich was resignation to the public's lack of understanding of basic math and economics. Scarborough said several times that Republicans have to understand math and drop the ideology. This is incoherent.

What made the "math" claim more incoherent is when Sachs made the statement that climate change is with us now, and that the sceptics are defeated. Scarborough said one of his conservative friends used "math" to confirm climate change by looking at the rising costs of extreme weather. In order to do better "math", though, Scarborough's friend would have to consider the increased number of properties built in areas susceptible to bad weather. Just consider the increase in expensive properties in general, but everyone has their own math when they want to proptect their non-ideological ideology.

Sachs also thinks that Greece, Italy and America need to raise taxes. Sachs believes that the disparity between spending and revenues has to be solved by raising revenues. Moderate Republicans are now praising Republicans in congress for agreeing to raise revenues. Bloombery wants to raise taxes on all Americans. Rattner said that raising taxes will not solve the problems, but, rather, there has to be economic growth. The moderates, liberals and progressives on Morning Joe all believe it takes a multi-faceted approach, though -- reduce spending, raise revenues, create jobs through infrastructure, and incentivize small businesses to hire. A lot of government solutions.

When Bloomberg was asked about OWS, Bloomberg said that the protesters don't really know what they want, just that they're unhappy with current conditions. Bloomberg said it's understandable that OWS doesn't know the solutions -- solutions are to be provided by government and those in the media and political class who understand the policies needed to affect change. Herein lies the problem.

Morning Joe today revealed the mindset of the political class. Not once was there a discussion of limited government and a free market, or how government policies have mostly created the problems we face in the economy. Here are all these bright people discussing how government can create policies to solve the problems created by government policies -- discussing raising revenues when the debt is approaching 15 trillion -- blaming ideologues for the problems. Sachs said that people criticize Europe for their failed states, but that we should become more like Northern Europe. I don't have the time to go into it here, but the EU, which includes Northern Europe, is in big trouble, and the main cause of their problems is statism -- to the extent Northern Europe is succeeding is related to free market principles -- to the extent Europe is failing is related to statism. For an explanation, read Thomas E. Woods book, Rollback.

If moderate Republicans succeed in pushing the Republican Party to the center, we're never going to fully recover economically. At least they held to not talking about Herman Cain. All in all, it was a good show, becaused it shows us how the political class thinks. They avoided discussing what else happened in Ohio, although McDonnell mentioned it, and that is the thumbs down on Obamacare mandates. Maybe there's hope.