Meet the Press 9/18/2011 - Bubba, Obama and Political Trauma

On Meet the Press today, David Gregory interviewed Mitch McConnell and Bill "Bubba" Clinton, then had a round table discussion with three guests from the Left, Jennifer Granholm, Helene Cooper and Mark Halperin, and one guest from the Right/Center, Alex Castellanos.

The interview with McConnell went as expected, with McConnell safely repeating Republican talking points -- taxes aren't smart in a recession; economic growth will raise revenues; Republicans are willing to work on tax reform; yada, yada, yada. McConnell is a professional, establishment politician and not of much use in times when revolutionary systemic changes are required to avoid stagnation and steady national decline.

In his interview with Clinton, Gregory asked if Obama can when a re-election -- Clinton said that Obama can win now that he has a "plan", and if Republicans obstruct the plan. Clinton's interview was interesting on several levels. I grew up around southerners like Clinton with his easy charm and folksy faux-wisdom. With Clinton, you have to pay close attention to what he says rather than how he says it, because he has the gift of appearing reasonable and centrist. What Clinton said is radically statist, and now he's moved into the realm of global statist management. Clinton said that he's lucky now that he's on the global state with his Clinton Global Initiatives, because he can propose what works -- then he patronizingly denigrated ideology and political differences in America. You see, Clinton is looking down from a global stage at the foolish games played by those who believe in limited government and a free market. Clinton has a universal wisdom now that clearly shows how the State in different nations around the world play a vital, cooperative role in guiding the process of opportunity, equality and justice. Unfortunately, too many liberals believe as Clinton believes, and one of the main thrusts of the State's role as benevolent and wise manager is to lead the world toward green energy production, in spite of the little mix-up involving Solyndra. There was only a brief mention of Solyndra, but it should be front and center.

The roundtable discussion was about Republican candidates in an election that is over a year away. The narrative is that Republicans will likely obstruct Obama's stimulus plan and face the risk of public disdain in a time of high unemployment. Granholm called for "smart" government. Castellanos warned of Perry being too extreme, and he said Obama is looking weak. Helene Cooper said that Obama is looking strong on the campaign...uh...jobs bill trail pushing his stimulus. Halperin said something but it didn't amount to much. The analysis on Meet the Press leaves a lot to be desired. This focus on Perry and Romney, extreme and center, and on Obama, weak or strong, misses the point. The country is torn between more government intervention or limited government, and this is the fundamental issue.

Clinton-type progressives believe that State power is vital, but States are reeling all over the world. The cost of government intervention has been economic stagnation and a mountain of debt. I will write a post later about "smart" statism -- it needs debunking, over and over.

Will progressives, liberals and moderates get their tax hikes?

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/18/now-we-see-it-all-mitch-mcconnells-pontius-pilate-act-is-cover-for-tax-increases/

If this happens, it's definitely time for a third party -- Ron Paul should run as an Independent right now.

Morning Joe 7/13/2011 -- Statism wins a Pyrrhic victory

It's depressing really. On Morning Joe the crew talked about Mitch McConnell's back-up plan if the House and Obama can't come up with an agreement. Scarborough called McConnell's plan a surrender, and he said the Republicans should have sold tax hikes on the rich to their base. Scarborough says that Republicans should have taken Obama's 4 trillion dollar deal -- the only problem is there never was a deal or a specific offer. All we've heard is talk and political manipulation. The political class circled and pressured Republicans to do what they always do -- capitulate. The Morning Joe crew reprensents a minor part of the political class, but their show gives voice to pundits and operatives who protect the status quo. Big Government Republicans, moderates, liberals, progressives, intellectuals, unions, media, Hollywood, they are all part of the political class determined to maintain our statist system.

Whenever an outside force enters the political realm to challenge the status quo (the statist quo) they are attacked and beaten back. The only route to even stick a foot into the political realm is through the Republican Party, but the outsiders never get past the Republican establishment. The Tea Party is the latest outside force, and they got their foot in the door in the midterm elections, but they are being beaten back, beaten down and beaten up. Every statist pundit, intellectual and political operative went into emergency mode after the midterm elections, and when the money to fund statism was temporarily threatened, they came out in full force, culminating in Obama stating he doesn't know if checks will go out to SS recipients, or veterans, or sickly children and old people. Obama stonewalled the debt reduction talks, and with the help of the media presented the image that Republicans are the sticking point -- they put this out to the American people to believe or to reject. McConnell decided that the American people believe the Democrat scam.

If Boehner has any courage left, he ought to present a spending cut package similar to the cut, cap and balance plan, get it through the House, then present it to the Senate and the President. Charles Krauthammer recommended a smaller version yesterday. It won't do any good, but at least someone would have addressed the problem. Statism wins another battle -- statism is losing the war.

Meet the Press -- 1/30/2011 -- Egypt and our debt crisis

Of course, this morning's show was all about the events in Egypt, with Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell giving their perspectives which were practically the same -- basically they said Egypt has been a good ally although they've never implemented the democratic, liberal changes the American government has for 30 years urged them to implement. So, we've sent billions to Egypt because they've not been a problem regarding our relationship with Israel, and they've kept the canal open, although they've suppressed their people through this thirty years. If I was an Egyptian serious about freedom and economic opportunity, I would not be too impressed with Clinton's and McConnell's assurance that America has been working diligently for thirty years to use leverage to influence a change in Egypt's dictatorial oppression. 

The round table discussion was basically more of the same with the acknowledgement that the Information Age has changed the game, but that the Egyptian military might have to use force to stop the looting and chaos -- the looting and chaos which appears to be allowed by the Egyptian goverment so they have a justification for cracking down. I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptian government is promoting chaos and looting, just so they have a reason to crack down and restore "stability".

So, basically, the status quo perspective is that America should take the middle ground - acknowledging Egypt's, and by extension, Mubarak's, past role as an ally who has not complicated relations with Israel and who has not caused the canal to become a major concern, while leaving the outcome to the will of the Egyptian people. Again, we're missing the opportunity to frame the larger issue, which is that these types of political relationships between countries, which don't take into account freedom and economic opportunity and which are always secondary concerns, must change in the global economy and Information Age -- political pragmatism is no longer good enough when so many people in the world are still oppressed by Gangs of Thugs with official titles and positions of absolute power.

The discussion panel, which again had one token Big Government Republican, Mike Murphy, also talked about the debt and deficit crisis, the SOTU and who will go first to cut spending and reform entitlements. It was the same babble that's been spouted, mostly about political strategy to give the impression that something serious is being done. What struck me, though, is that Mike Murphy's criticism of Obama is that he hasn't come off as a good "economic manager". Murphy's comment represents the Big Goverment Republican perspective, which is the same as the Democrat perspective, that the President is an Economic Manager, and all that matters is whether he/she is a good manager or a bad manager. If the Republican establishment maintains control of the Republican Party, there will be no significant cuts or reforms, and the statist system which created the deficits, debt and entitlement crisis will remain untouched.

Update on Sunday, January 30, 2011 at 12:24PM by M. Farmer

Interesting.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/30/looters-and-leviathan-hobbes-t

Ezra Klein dabbles in psychology

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/motivated_skepticism_draft.html

Klein asks -- "Can McConnell bring himself to support a policy that will help the economy if it also helps President Obama?"

Klein could have answered his own question here and defeated the purpose of his article, but his bias against McConnell or his desire to write something interesting or his desire to find a backdoor way to marginalize Obama's opposition, led him to act if he's applying a legitimate psychological state to explain how McConnell might unconsciously do something to hurt the economy.

We're asked to believe that Mitch McConnell, a senator, a mature, intelligent man who has been in many political battles and has worked with his opposition in many cases to pass acceptable legislation, would allow himself to oppose Obama and harm the economy simply because he doesn't like him and wants Obama to lose in 2012.

For instance, if Obama proposed lowering taxes, and rolling back regulations which are harming the economy, McConnell's internal rage would flair, take contol of his mind, and he would oppose Obama because of this unconscious desire to see Obama thwarted. 

I think Klein had better stick with blogging. Yes, we can unconsciously judge someone unfavorably and unfairly when that person has made a bad impression on us, or we simply don't like the person, and the experiment he uses as an example is psychologically interesting, but he's relating a psychological quirk in humans, who aren't rational machines, to a situation were a senator has a proposal to consider, has time to think about its pros and cons, has time to talk with his colleagues about political and economic ramifications, and then makes his decision based on his responsibility to his constituents and the nation as a whole. To suggest that a person with the experience and intelligence of McConnell, in a situation such as deliberation on a proposal, is subconsciously led by his opposition to Obama to stike out against Obama regardless of the consequences to the economy and the nation is not only an insult to McConnell, it's an insult to all thinking, mature human beings. I don't think much of politicians, but I don't think politicians of the caliber of McConnell would allow himself to be controlled by his desire to see Obama defeated -- I believe he has more control over his faculties than that -- I would hope so anyway. 

Is Klein suffering from motivated skepticism?