Meet the Press 1/8/2012 -- New Hampshire debate

Meet the Press was replaced with David Gregory monitoring the New Hampshire Republican debate. The debate started out with Gregory giving all the candidates a chance to attack Mitt Romney. Ron Paul called it superficial and suggested they talk about the issues.

All the candidates, except Paul, are hawkish on the mideast, especially Iran. Santorum said that Iran is a theocracy and this makes them different, because they want to go to the next life with Allah rather than remain in this worldly mess. I wonder why they haven't already gone. The top leadership is pretty damned old -- it seems like they would have checked out a long time ago if this world is so terrible and the next world is so great. They could have martyred themselves long ago.

Santorum and other hawks who take this line of reasoning regarding Iran are either rationalizing their desire to bomb Iran, or they are so simple-minded on this subject all they can do is present a cartoon version of radical Islamists dreaming of virgins in heaven, going out in a blaze of nuclear glory. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a reasonable position on the mideast and defense spending.

All the candidates said the right things when it came to economic issues, but most of their records in office tell another story. I didn't hear the word "limited" throughout the debate, and, aside from Paul, I didn't hear anyone call to deal with the Fed and create a true free market. I heard of lot of talk about statist tweaks from the right, but none are willing to take the radical measures needed for systemic change.

Gingrich appeared angry and bitter as he brought up the Super Pacs again. Santorum looked dangerous when he talked about Islam and Iran. Perry appeared reasonable, but he's fading. Huntsman, I don't know about. Huntsman looks uncomfortable, and I don't think he has conviction when it comes to limited government and a free market. When Romney criticized Huntsman for helping Obama spread his ideas when Huntsman served as ambassador to China, Huntsman said that America is in trouble if we can't trust one another. Huntsman also said that Romney's rhetoric which dissed Huntsman for supporting Obama's policies and leadership is what's tearing the country apart, and this is what Huntsman's use of "trust" related to.

I don't think any candidate who believes in limited government and a free market should trust Obama's policies and leadership. Huntsman has to deal with this problem is he wants to go anywhere, but it's probably too late. If Huntsman can't stand up and distinguish himself, he's toast.

Morning Joe 1/5/2012 -- New Hampshire, Santorum and war

On Morning Joe today, the guests were Steve Rattner, Donnie Deutsche, Harold Ford, Peggy Noonan, Wes Moore, Michael Hastings and a few more I can't remember. The subject in the beginning of the first two hours was the New Hampshire primary and Santorum's rise from oblivion. The panel wondered if  social conservatives and political conservatives will rally around Santorum as a chanllenger to the moderate/establishment Romney, and whether Newt Gingrich has a chance, or Perry. The consensus on the Morning Joe panel was that Santorum has government experience, is a serious player and, regardless of his social positions, might inspire independent voters with his blue-collar, old-style American story. Santorum is from a union, manufacturing state, PA., and appeals to blue-collar type voters. The problem is that blue-collar is disappearing in a high-tech world. Can Santorum revive manufacturing in America with his combination of economy and values?

Economy&values is one of these Bushian/Clintonian/liberal weasel concepts which is not made clear. Most likely it will entail statist actions of protectionism and favoritism to unions, which means opposition to Right to Work states in the south and other areas of the country where unions aren't allowed to bully workers and companies. It will also entail opposition to free global trade as a concept. If South Carolina realizes that Santorum is antithetical to their Right to Work philosophy, Santorum might not do so well -- the only way Santorum can do well in South Carolina is if social conservatives overwhelm political conservatives, and that's possible in SC.

Santorum was built up by Scarborough and others on Morning Joe, but the only justification they have for the build up is that Santorum has government experience and tells a good story about his grandfather working in coal mines to purchase young Rick's freedom. It's too bad that Santorum has a stunted view of "freedom" -- civil liberties mean next to nothing to Santorum. Santorum is anti-individualist, more a collective/union/solidarity type thinker. Santorum is the traditional type conservative who leans more toward social tradition and the idea that strong leaders are necessary to lead selfish individuals to collective sacrifice for the Greater Good. The wise few at the top decide what is the Greater Good, and what sacrifices are necessary. I say no thank you to Santorum -- he's not qualified to tell me what constitutes the Greater Good, especially when he supports the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, would bomb Iran and would have permanent bases in the mideast. This is the worst foreign policy possible, continuing the never-ending wars in the mideast, sacrificing young men and women for what is basically political manuevers in an attempt to turn the mideast into American puppets. This is not a Greater Good in my book, and, besides, history shows it's futile. The US military/industrial complex is no longer concerned about national security in the mideast, but rather American power to control the mideast. The mideast, however, doesn't want to be controlled by America, and none of the countries there are a threat to our national security.

I hope New Hampshire, SC and Florida reject Santorum, and that Republicans voters find a real alternative to Romney.

Broad support counts only if you're a hawk

Ron Paul is pulling in support from independents and disaffected liberals. With any other candidate this would be a sign of electability, but with Paul it's a liability, according to those who oppose Paul, because the supporters are obviously non-interventionists. The Republican Party had a chance to tap into public weariness with extended war. Republicans had a chance to lead the intellectual debate regarding foreign interventions, but the party has opted for belligerence and faux-patriotic militarism in spite of the overwhelming evidence that mideast military involvement is increasingly immoral and counter-productive. This is more evidence that we can't rely on government to pull back the monsters it creates, like the military/industrial complex with all its government/corporate support.

If anything is going to change in foreign policy, the American people have to send a strong message, and a vote for Paul will send that message. These wars are wasting valuable lives and misdirecting capital. On a spiritual plane, war that is not in self defense, and in which innocent people are killed, is immoral. America strives to be a better nation. We can't hide behind rationalizations such as 9/11 -- that was a decade ago, and the terrorist groups are not an imminent threat to our national security. We will continue to experience terrorist incidents, but keeping ground troops in Afghanistan won't prevent these incidents, nor will bombing Iran make America any safer. There will be other Irans -- at some point we have to realize we can, and should, do only so much. The less we interfere in the affairs of other nations, the more likely we'll avoid problems in the future. Americans must think beyond the war propaganda to what it is we're talking about. Our national security is not threatened by any other nation on earth. What other nation can destroy America? Which nation would try? None will try.

We can only destroy ourselves by driving our debt up to an amount that collapses our economy. It makes no sense to spend more and and more and more on national defense when we already have the military capability to destroy the world many times over. It makes no sense to become entangled in the affairs of the mideast when there's no good outcome we can achieve. The mideast will do what the mideast does, and the various nations there will have to make their own decisions and handle their own problems.

Ron Paul realizes that America has plenty of work to do at home, and the quicker we get to it, the better. Republicans might have misread the public's attitudes toward mideast war and what needs to be done at this point regarding terrorism.

Meet the Press 1/2/2012 -- Santormentum

On Meet the Press today, David Gregory interviewed Rick Santorum. Santorum is the latest Republican rising in the polls. Santorum says he will bomb Iran if they continue with their nuclear program. I'm not sure what's going on in Iowa or in the Republican Party, but it's a big disappointment and doesn't represent the general electorate which is weary of statist stagnation and continuous war.

Santorum defended his compromises in Congress and made the claim of being the true conservative. If Santorum is the true conservative, then conservatism is in trouble. Santorum vehemently opposes Ron Paul and libertarianism. The Republican Party is blowing an opportunity to change government. Candidates like Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman are as Big Government as Obama -- they simply want Big Government to control us in different ways. Limited government conservatives and independents are being marginalized, and liberals dissatisfied with Obama aren't helping. The usual capitulation to Big Government is happening once again.

On the Meet the Press panel, David Brooks lamented the fact that a faction on the Right leans toward libertarian principles. Mike Murphy was concerned only with strategy and winning, even, I suppose, if winning makes no difference to the American people and our economy. Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the panel made references to Ron Paul's unpopular foreign policy positions. Economic freedom, anti-statism and non-interventionism are viewed with more alarm than what was once reserved for social conservatives. The status quo political class know that social conservatives have lost the cultural war, so now they turn their reactionary zeal against those who promote free market/limited government principles.

If someone like Santorum actually becomes President and involves America in a war with Iran, the consequences will be devastating, and America might not recover. The one voice of sanity, Ron Paul, who pleads with America to understand how our foreign interventions are slowly draining us of needed resources and precious lives to no good results, is framed as an extremist, while media marvels over Obama's unexpected strength in the arena of foreign policy. Iraq, after practically a decade of war, is on the verge of implosion -- Afghanistan is corrupt, while Pakistan works against our every effort -- Libya will likely spiral into a vicious dictatorship which ignores even the most basic human rights -- and, now, US hawks are angling for an Iranian War against a pathetic, blustering regime that is no threat to America at all. A war with Iran will create more terrorists at a time when terrorist groups are basically impotent. Over 200 years of interventions in the mideast have taught us nothing.

The guests on Meet the Press talked about irrelevant issues, though we face problems than can cause years of decline and suffering. This focus on the Republican primary is indicative of Old Media's priorities.

Progressive hawks

Progressive intervention in foreign affairs, as we're seeing under Obama, is as much a concern as neocon interventionism. The Progressive vision of global community requires enforcement at some point. Progressive hawkishness is not limited to national security -- it expands to cover vague concepts such as social justice and global stewardship. In many ways, George Bush's foreign policy was rooted in progressive interventionism, not traditional conservative non-interventionism. 9/11 was used as a justification for the global ambitions of Senior Bush. The strategic attack on Iraq was planned under Clinton, which followed from Senior Bush then on to Jr. Bush and now to Obama, so our foreign policy is not attached to individual Presidents, but rather to a US doctrine developed long ago. There might be differences regarding means, but the ends have been consistent -- US management of the emerging global order.

Those who've criticized our long history of foreign interventions have been attacked for blaming America for 9/11, but the historical truth is that our interventions have consequences, and the effects are usually so far removed from the original causes that hardly anyone can follow the path from causes to the eventual consequences. Our actions now in the mideast will set in motion consequences down the road which most people will not understand when they happen, thus causing more interventions which set other consequences in motion. The US was justified in responding to the 9/11 attack, because we can't sit by while innocent people are killed, regardless of what happened in the past, but after punishing al Qaeda, we should have immediately come home to take a serious look at our foreign policy and then make the necessary changes called for in the 21st century. We can't manage the world, and the world doesn't want to be managed by us.

We have to stop and reassess our foriegn policy to determine if what we're doing is helping or making matters worse. It's been proven by our debt and economic problems that our powerful State can't even effectively manage our domestic situation much less the entire world. Rather than progress, what we're doing in foreign policy is regressing to past tragedies caused by the hubris of dominators, power-mongers and planners.