As good as it gets -- at least for awhile

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/11/wapo-why-arent-people-totally-into-our-awesome-economic-growth/

There's a very good possibility that our economy will remain like it is until serious systemic changes are made and our educational offerings are more effective than they've been for decades now. The systemic changes relate to government interference in the economy. Not only in America, but in Europe and China, too, we're experiencing the consequences of decades of central economic management by interventionist governments, plus America is experiencing the consequences of foreign interventions which grew out of 9/11. Although China has been heralded as the new economic power, China is building a bubble through systemic mismanagement just like America and Europe built their bubbles.

We face a decision of supporting 15% or so of our population while the remainder achieves mixed success. Large corporations have had success in the global economy, but America is stalled at home with not enough wealth creation to afford profligate government spending. Now, our politicians are trying their best to come up with acceptable ways to raise revenues, but raising revenues will only keep us afloat a while longer. We need economic growth and wealth creation, and that's not happening to the extent necessary. There's no need to think the world has hit a natural wall, not with all the urealized potential regarding improvement of living standards from Africa to South America, but all global economies need systemic changes for this to happen.

We in America can release the private sector only through systemic changes in government, but the chances of this happening in the next five to ten years are not good. If we decide to support 15% or so of the population, this will cause class problems as many people are left behind living at a subsistence level. There are many in our society who excell and advance in the current economy with the right education, and they will continue to do well. Another large portion will tread water but still live better than most people around the globe. America can do better, but like the article says -- right now reality is having its say.

The Left is losing

The Left in America had their opportunity in 2008 to show what they have, and what they have is anathema to reality. One helpful consequence of Obama's victory and the confidence it engendered on the Left is that the victory has caused some on the Left to state clearly what they want.

The Left has been busily dreaming of redistributive heaven on earth, but now some see it slipping away, so the pressure on Obama has increased as time runs out. Obama understands, with access to the polls, that he must frame a new center and sell it as the status quo, thus getting re-elected so that progressives can push the center further left. But, out in America, the public hasn't bought the progressive agenda or the New Center -- they certainly are in no mood to double down on welfare and redistribution.

Democrats perceive the nation as needy during this recession, therefore receptive to Obama's statolatry -- the strong Federal Family which will take care of its children in a time of need. This is a misreading of America. Apart from a relative handful of young intellectuals on the Left, Americans don't want government hand-outs funded by the wealth creators -- they want government out of the economy so that economic growth can happen. Americans aren't ready to follow Europe into leisurely bankruptcy -- there's still a big world out there waiting for production, creativity and innovation to crank up again.

A terrible misreading of Libya

http://politifi.com/news/War-in-a-PostAmerica-World-1808245.html

Peter Beinart, in his overly anxious declaration of a Post-America World , believes that America is weak, and this is why Europe is taking the lead in Libya. Look, I've been against the invasion of Libya from the minute it was considered, but to say Europe is "leading" is laughable. So far, the majority of the action has been American action. Sarkozy only wanted the image-enhancement of being strong for his next election.

Europe is weak and in confusion -- America can handle this by itself, but it shouldn't be handling it at all. Beinart says the future will not need America, but all the evidence points to America being needed now more than ever. America has to decide for itself what our role will be, but we are not forced out of the international scene into weakness, not yet. America is needed economically as a leader moreso than militarily, but in the world of realism and politics, America is desperately needed militarily. Europe will not last long without the threat of American support. Again, we need a new doctrine going into the 21st century. It's not that we can't play the role of World Police, but that we shouldn't. Europe is not strong, but they need to become strong, and we need to bring our troops home.

The comparison Beinart makes between Obama and Jefferson is simply silly. Obama is an interventionist, an internationalist, a globalist -- Jefferson, although he initially was a non-interventionist, became an interventionist in the Mid-East when Arab countries became an obstacle to open trade, which makes Beinart's claim sillier. The principles first promoted by Jefferson are foreign to Obama.

Failed Western experiment

Regardless of which northern European countries that apologists cherry pick to praise the successful combination of interventionist government, social protection and reformed market principles, the fact that external protections, such as American military protection and protected markets, have propped up these countries and shielded them from certain economic realities, reveals a flaw in the greater European experiment which has been offered as an alternative to America's focus on profit and economic prosperity as the route to better living. Europe has maintained a cultural superiority which advertises a greater concern for social security, public funded culture, quality of life and intellectual pursuits over the race for riches. In many respects, the imagined "free market" of America has always been a red herring, as America has followed European practices of social security and a State managed economy, although America has allowed much greater zones of economic freedom.

For much of Europe, cultural superiority pertains to a small percentage of European elites. As a whole, there's just as much superficial pursuit of personal pleasures, attraction to commerical fashions and enjoyment of mind-numbing entertainment in Europe as there is in America. The nickle and dime snobbery, though, misses a much greater danger threatening western values which transcends some of our more superficial interests.

The leaders of the European Union are beginning to wake up to the expensive forms of social protection provided by different governments within the union, the lack of economic strength revealed in the recession, and, as America shows signs of Super-Power fatigue and dissolution of power, the individual European states necessarily realize the inability of the EU to protect Europe and the vulnerability of individual European States to deal with global threats, especially radical Islam.

In many respects, Europe feels the same pressure to free-up its markets and transition State power to the private sector, thus freeing up revenue to address national security issues. As Germany and France move economically closer to Russia, security concerns for eastern European countries with good memories become even greater, but expectations of American protection may not be well placed as we bog down deeper in Middle East concerns. Whether America does it or not, we've got many reasons to expect Europe to provide its own national security going foward. We simply can't afford to be the World Police. Once we get out of Iraq and Aghanistan, I doubt there will be much of an appetite for international military operations. Europe and America will do better in an equal partnership of shared values rather than a relationship of resentment regarding our military protection.

There's also pressure in Europe among individual States to regain identity. Whereas, before, the trend toward a New World Order was broadly, although cautiously, supported, now that the reality of this Order approaches and European countries have had a taste of the EU, there will likely be resistance in Europe as countries re-assert their unique identities.

Both Europe and America are at risk as Enlightenment values are threatened by new forms of tyranny and Theocracy. Classical liberal values almost dissapeared from Europe, and in America they've been slowly marginalized for decades. Intellectual emptiness has allowed the Western world to slide into a relativist apathy regarding the old battle of Domination and Freedom. Classical liberal values have been reduced to a meaningless pep-rally cry for "democracy" as recent events from "Cairo to Madison" have awakened at least a sense of purpose greater than maintaining a failed status quo of government/corporate enmeshment, and this loss of understanding of classical liberal principles allows a muddled-headed push for what is basically mob-rule. Democracy means nothing if Constitutional restrictions and supremacy of rule of law are not maintained.

Western, classical liberal values are in danger of being forgotten, and this puts whole nations and regions at risk of mob domination in the name of "democracy". The problem is that mobs never actually rule as democracy suggests -- Majority Rule means that people will be dominated by a few who "represent" the Majority. The individual and the individual's rights are being pushed aside as a coalition of loud and emotional groups fight for power. Intellectuals have a track record of failing to stand when they should stand, but if there has ever been time for those with the historical knowledge and communication skills to put things in perspective to stand and be heard, it's now. 

It's one thing to become passionate about causes, but certain principles of liberty and justice and individual rights are best expressed with calm reason, or else the most impassioned and strong will get their way, and what they demand will likely be something far removed from liberty, justice and individual rights. Europe and America are at a crossroads in Western history -- either we can defend our values, or we can expect to obey other values of which liberty and individual rights have never much mattered.

Private unions

Public sector unions have been propped up by the states. Private unions have been propped up by the federal government for years, but they could not totally withstand a changing economic reality worldwide, nor could the unions in Europe. Union membership has dropped precipitiously for decades, and to the extent that Union Leaders and the State have fought economic and technological changes, the union is now out of touch. Some unions have evolved, but unions in general are fighting creative destruction. If unions want to be a vital part of the American economy, they'll have to let go of the past and find their place in a changing global economy.

On blog after blog, young modern liberals are taking up the union cause as if some liberal value from the past has to be saved in order to fight for the "little guy", but this is an adolescent romanticism of unions that's no longer a relevant narrative. Unions have become an obstacle to workers, and the average worker, even union workers, will figure this out, if they haven't already, and then the unions will be absolutely irrelevant. Unions have to change just like everything else touched by a dynamic reality. All the unions have left as a tactic is brute force, but this is not going to work. Americans want to go back to work, and it's a much different workplace -- a workplace the unions no longer understand.

If young liberals really want to help the worker of the future, then devote time and energy into transitioning education from the public sphere to the private sphere and develop innovative solutions to help everyone get access to education who wants an education, then watch the private sector prepare the culturally disadvantaged for a new world of work that requires specialized knowledge. Without this preparation, the disadvantaged don't have a chance, and unions, as they are right now, certainly have nothing to offer them except the empty promise of State protection.