Meet the Press 12/25/2011 -- Going Big

On Meet the Press today the guests on the roundtable were Marc Morial, Tom Friedman, Kathleen Parker and Tom Brokaw. They discussed the economic, military, foreign policy and political issues of this year. There was a lot of discussion about Obama's performance and the challenges facing him in 2012. Kathleen Parker, the token Righty, describes herself as slightly to the right of center, and Thomas Friedman placed the majority of Americans in the space slightly left and right of center, in other words, they pretty much agreed that Centrism is the major political space in America. Marc Morial didn't indicate if he believed this, but the rest appear to see Centrism as the moving force.

Modern liberalism/progressivism has met a wall, and the panel discussed this -- there is a growing distrust of Big Government. Obama's grand progressive vision was met with resistance to Big Government solutions. The 2012 election will, in large part, be about the role of government in the 21st century. Through the years when modern liberalism has met resistance, it's movers and shakers have relied on obscurantism, and 2012 will be no different. It's easy to see the strategy. Brokaw and Friedman and Morial spoke glowingly of public/private partnerships, and how efficient private partnership with government can get Big Things done. They all implied that Obama has to go big with solutions to our economic problems and the social problem of inequality, plus, Obama has to find a way to compete with China internationally for leadership position in the global economy. This all sets the stage for more Big Government solutions at home and more State capitalist solutions abroad, all under the disguise of bringing the private sector in to help. This strategy can only strengthen government/corporate enmeshment and all the cronyism that goes along with it.

Our problems were not caused, as Marc Morial proposed, by huge tax cuts and too much captialism -- our problems have been caused mostly by government control of the economy and the misdirection of capital. What the Meet the Press crowd is recommending is the same old statist path that got in this mess, just more of it -- they only want to provide a figleaf of New Nationalism in which the American people are brought on board as cheerleaders and willing sacrificial lambs. Modern liberals say we're all in it together, and if we trust our leaders to call on the help of the private sector, we can get out together. The result will be more fairness and a stronger, more efficient State.

Friedman and Brokaw praised Obama for his foreign policy accomplishments, although they did say that the full stoy on Iraq and Iran hasn't been told. Morial was less confident regarding our foreign policy accomplishments, asking what we've gained in Iraq after all the deaths and the costs. The narrative that Obama has been successful in foreign policy is probably the most troubling narrative going into 2012. Our interventions in the mideast, war talk regarding Iran, our operations in Libya, our destructive use of drones, our precarious dealings with Pakistan, civil liberty violations regarding the power to kill America citizens or detain Americans indefinitely without a trial -- all this presents an entanglement in the mideast that's draining us of resources and wasting the lives of good men and women in the military. Iraq can implode any minute, Libya will likely be as bad or worse than under Qaddafi, Egypt is falling under the control of tyrannical Islamists, Pakistan is a powder keg, Afghanistan is a morass of corruption, and US hawks are building up to a war with Iran. Oh, but we shot a decrepit, old, impotent man holed up in a dump, Osama bin Laden, in the eye, so let's have a parade.

Let's elect Obama to another 4 years of security and safety, and this time he'll Go Big. I don't think so.

A New Year's Resolution

With our soldiers returning from Iraq, and with 2012 just over a week away, perhaps it's time to use the critical year of 2012 to reassess our national spirit --our zeitgeist, so to speak. The last decade has been tumultuous both economically and militarily. Economically, the course is clear to those of us who've studied the follies and moral failings of statism. More and more Americans are waking up, thanks to the Information Age, to Washington DC's grasp on centralized power, and Americans want something different. Americans are tired of the corruption and the insane spending which produces poorer results as time goes on.

Militarily, though, many Americans are still under the spell of neocons and progressive hawks who've convinced the public that terrorism must be fought regardless of the financial costs, the loss of lives or the loss of personal freedoms. National defense is important to America as it should be, but our national spirit has been darkened with fear and revenge. 9/11 called forth the best and worst in Americans. It was a natural and healthy reaction post-9/11 to unify as a country and respond with force to the terrorist attack in New York City. Ten years later, though, our presence in the mideast is no longer about unity and national defense.

The military industrial complex built around the response to 9/11 and the War on Terror have become a statist enterprise which feeds on itself, requiring more and more sophistic justifications and rationalizations. Tv shows, movies and video games proliferate which glorify war and stir the primal juices of armchair warriors. Government interventions in the economy and government interventions in countires abroad have sapped our economic energy, confidence and innovative spirit. The Spirit of Peaceful Enterprise lies dormant waiting for the environment in which it can best be expressed. In order to create this environment, though, the State has to be brought under control by the people. States grab power most easily during times of war, because the patriotic citizen believes the leaders who demand money and the sacrifice of civil liberties to keep the nation safe from our enemies. The State hasn't asked for immediate money during these wars, though -- they've just put it on a tab for our children and grandchildren to pay, but the State has grabbed power and demanded the surrender of important civil liberties.

The small groups of terrorists who posed potential threats to us were scattered and weakened long ago, even though the rag-tag groups still gather here and there and pretend they can bring down the Big Satan. No one who thinks for a minute can believe any terrorist group can pose an actual threat to the existence of America, and if one thinks without fear , it's difficult to imagine any group attacking us in a serious way after the devastation caused post-9/11. What remains in the mideast are the regional power games between nations, religious sects and tribes as they transition from one stage to another in their long history of wars and transitions. The mideast doesn't represent a unified, credible threat to our national security. Maybe one day the region will become a force which threatens our existence, and at that time we'll be prepared to answer the threat, but that time is not now. Most of the countries in the mideast are on the verge of collapse, and without oil they would collapse.

Our leaders and the neocon/progressive hawk brigade now tell us that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat, thus, pushing us closer to deeper intervention and involvement in this region. Given what we've been told about Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, it's difficult to understand how Americans can be lured into supporting a conflict with Iran.

Many Americans appear to now understand that removing limits to government power allows powerful interests to collude to consolidate power. These power elite might even rationalize their power as  overlords who are capable of protecting the Good Guys and repelling the Bad Guys in the world. Do we want this type of America? Do we want an American war machine that attempts to control the world, sending commands from above to the little people below? Do we want a government at home with the power to control our economy, deciding which industry thrives and which dies? Where does the control end? Power feeds on power, and even if it starts out as benevolent power, it quickly turns dark and arbitrary. Are Americans so concerned with safety and security we're prepared to give up liberty? Being under the coercive control of an elite few is not the American Dream, and it's not the Spirit of the Nation.

A good New Year's resolution for the America people would be to excercise healthy scepticism regarding our foreign policy of interventionism. America will morally erode if we justify war and interventionism as a global mission. Our original worldview regarding other nations was peaceful trade and avoidance of foreign entanglements. The Founders knew the corroding effects of war and submission to tyrannical power -- and they knew that creating a powerful Militaristic State would end in tyranny. It doesn't matter if tyranny is soft or hard to those who value freedom, peace, justice and civility. The American Spirit has been sullied with a decade of war, and our troops deserve better than the torture they've experienced with so much death and destruction. America can be the constant light guiding all who want to join toward peaceful trade, charity and prosperity. We've done enough in the mideast. Let 2012 be the year we resolve to make war unnecessary and enter a conflict only in defense or circumstances of evil destruction of life so compelling any decent human being would want to end it. These situations are rare -- our natural state has to be peace and friendly cooperation, or we'll waste the gifts of freedom and reason.

Republicans falling into Iran trap

Republicans are making a serious mistake by taking a hawkish position on Iran. Republican candidates and their supporters are using Ron Paul's non-interventionist position to frame him as weak on national defense, but this is a non-conservative, anti-limited government direction that's headed to nowhere. The public is looking for honesty and less government intervention, not another entanglement in the mideast. If we continue wasting resources we don't have in the mideast, we're going to collapse like the British Empire and the USSR collapsed when they became entangled in foreign affairs to the point of economic destruction.

I find it difficult to believe that the Republican candidates actually believe Iran presents a serious military threat to the US. We can destroy Iran many times over, and the last thing Iran wants is an attack from an America that's truly terrified of nuclear attack. Enough experts have testified that Iran is not the threat that many hawks have made it out to be, so I'm sure inside the Pentagon there's similar information showing Iran as a minor irritant. The Pentagon and the military/industrial complex, including big defense contractors, need Iran to represent a threat, though, to avoid cuts to defense, and to justify more military build-up. The military/industrial complex, after a decade of wars, is out of control, far more powerful than any true conservative should be comfortable with. Ron Paul is levelling with the American people. The other Republican candidates are pandering to an electorate they think loves tough talk and military bravado.

A nuclear Iran is no more of a military threat to the US than North Korea or Pakistan. Iran spends about 60 billion a year on defense while the US spends around 650 billion. What a nuclear Iran will threaten is our control of oil in the mideast, but this is a different threat. If we had a sane energy policy, we wouldn't have to worry about mideast oil, so, as Paul suggests, we need to go in a different direction. Bombing Iran right now would be insane, so the Republican candidates who heat up the rhetoric toward Iran are courting disaster. Yet, they make Paul out as the crank, the extremist who will put us at risk.

Iran is not going to bomb Israel either, because to do so would destroy Iran. Iran is blustering to gain influence in the mideast, but that's not our concern. The mideast will have to work out their problems. Our interference will only make things worse for everyone. We should be closing military bases and closing down Afghanistan operations, bringing our troops and our money home where they're both needed. Then we should create a free market for energy and close the book on the mideast. The countries of the mideast and every rag-tag terrorist operation know that if we are attacked again, nothing but destruction will follow. We have nothing to prove militarily -- the leaders of every country in the world know what we can do miltarily. That's enough.

Morning Joe 12/2/2011 -- No, I'm the smartest guy in the room, I am!

Joe Scarborough's Gingrich Obsessive Disorder was full blown today after a short remission yesterday. Scarborough is acting like a high school adolescent who thinks it's unfair that Biff is popular when it's so obvious that Biff doesn't deserve it and little Joey does. It's not faaaair!

Scarborough and Michael Steele got into a shouting match when Steele tried to explain Gingrich's rise in popularity with the base. Scarborough took offense at Steele's attempt to help Scarborough understand Gingrich's popularity. Why, doesn't Steele know that the Republican Party is Scarborough's party, and no one konws the party better? How dare Steele disagree with Scarborough! I don't know why these semi-regulars keep coming on the show, really, because it's demeaning when Scarborough's bluster overrides differing opinions, but, it's a gig, I suppose. Scarborough likes to show how he's predicted the fall of each Republican candidate which has made it to the top of the polls ahead of Romney -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry and Cain. Now that Gingrich has made it the top and it looks like he might stay for awhile, Scarborough says he won't predict Gingrich's demise because he's a real challenge. Later on, though, Scarborough did predict that Gingrich would implode. The entire Morning Joe crew laid into Gingrich. It was fun to watch.

Scarborough said Gingrich is not the smartest person in the room, and then accused Gingrich of running for president to sell books. It got ugly. Steele said that the Republican base is tired of faux-elites telling them what they should think. Gingrich has thrown a bomb in the middle of the Pundit Party. Sam Stein and Mark Halperin tried to give their analyses of the Gingrich rise, but they don't really know what's motivating Gingrich's rise.

Sherrod Brown came on the show as the topic changed to supercommittee, debt and unemployment. Brown accused Republicans of obstruction for not agreeing to raise taxes. Scarborough got in a shouting match with Brown when Scarborough accused Democrats of protecting entitlements. Brown gave an example of a 62 year old woman dependent on entitlements. It all turned into a confusion of ideas. Scarborough calmed down and said he does blame Republicans for not making difficult choices regarding tax reform, but this is ridiculous. Republicans want tax reform -- they just don't want to raise tax rates on job producers. Brown's claim was ridiculous, too, because any reform in entitlements wouldn't affect anyone 62 years old. Maybe Gingrich is becoming popular because he can make an argument that's cogent -- Gingrich might not be the smartest person in the room, but he knows enough to make clear arguments.

Then, later, the very smartest person in the room came on the show -- Mika's dad. The first smart thing Mika's dad said is that Europe will be okay because the central banks are doing something. Andrea Mitchell disagreed and said that the Central bank mini-bailout doesn't touch the underlying problems in Europe. Mika's dad, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski (ZKB), also said that America is one of the most socially unjust countries in the world among industrialized countries because of income disparity. Scarborough didn't challenge this statement, he just asked for clarification. ZKB also said that Greece is the main problem in Europe, but if this was so, there wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm not that smart, but Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Germany's position as the safety net for these countries all appear to be problems -- that and the fact that the people of these nations are resisting austerity measures.

At the end of the program the conversation turned to defense spending, and the consensus is that we spend way to much on defense and mainly because the hype regarding terrorism has given contractors a blank check and no one in government is auditing what's being spent and who's getting screwed. Now, this is smart.

I'll address some of these issues later. It's just too much right now.

Palin, Christie and Ryan - in search of change and vision

I think all three of these potential candidates made good decisions, and for different reasons. Chris Christie is the governor NJ needs, and Paul Ryan is needed in congress. Getting savaged in the media and fighting against Romney is probably not worthwhile at this point. A new President is not going to do much good unless individual states are strengthened and congress is transformed through the cleansing of professional, corrupted politicians who care only about maintenance of power and prestige.

Sarah Palin better serves a private sector effort to strengthen and diversify voices speaking out about various issues which affect us all. Whether you agree or disagree with Palin, she's a strong proponent for limited government and a free market, and we need more voices like this.

I would like to see popular personalities with influence begin calling for a withdrawal from the mideast. I'm not talking about isolationism -- I'm talking about an innovative defense effort at home to combat terrorist threats, then a dynamic movement of free market activity to lead the way globally toward a future of peaceful trade with no wars.

I understand the realities of the dangerous world in which we live, but if there are public and private leaders with strong voices who can change the topic to peaceful, free trade, this will go a long way toward setting the future tone of international relationships. We're in a time when strong individuals have to step forward and set that tone, reveal a vision that inspires. But unless we change the nature of our out-dated mindset regarding the military/industrial complex, we won't have the integrity to lead. We need a much smarter, less militaristic approach to the mideast. If the mideast is determined to follow radical Islamists, there is not much we can do except protect ourselves and punish any attacks, but if we can convince the world we're heading in a different direction, good things might happen.

It's much more complicated, I know, than giving a few speeches, but withdrawing from the mideast with conditions will be a big step toward changing the old relationship with mideast countries. The conditions being that if they leave us alone, we'll leave them alone, and if they want to trade peacefully, then we're more than ready -- however, if we're attacked, our new policy is to punish and leave -- no more games; no more nation building; no more dictator-payoffs; no more aid; no more lying and pretending. We're ready to change the Game, and they can either accept the terms of peace, or they can pay the consequences of spreading violence. We can't change the past, but we can change what we're doing today.