Meet the Press 10/9/2011 -- Republican-Obsessive Disorder

Why do I analyze political/news programs like Meet the Press, Morning Joe and, now, Up with Chris Hayes? They are basically useless as far as real issues facing Americans go, because their focus on politics reduces most of the analyses to political tactics, popularity contests, image-making, spin, the back and forth of the horse race, etc., but at least these shows give us a glimpse into the media mindset regarding politics, and it reveals who media favors in the political race -- also, the guests, intentionally and unintentionally, reveal what they really believe about the role of government. Finally, Hayes' show is funny.

David Gregory performed interviews with Rahm Emanual and Paul Ryan. The Emanual interview was a waste of time, because he merely parroted the administration's position that Obama is fighting for the middle class and poor while Republicans are obstructionists protecting the rich. Earlier on Chris Hayes' show, the same claims were made, and both shows played clips of Joe Biden saying the Republican Party has done nothing but say "no".

I've heard this same line throughout the major media outlets, but when Paul Ryan was interviewed, he gave a completely different account. One of the charges Obama and others on the Left made and is circulating in media states that Republicans have no jobs plan, yet Ryan claims that 12 bills related to job growth have been sent to the Senate from the Republican controlled House, and the Senate won't take up the bills and put them to a vote. Plus, Harry Reid is even blocking Obama's jobs bill from a vote, because Reid doesn't have enough Democrat votes.

Anyone reasonable watching the various political shows which repeat over and over Obama's claim that Republicans's have no plan also notice that the hosts of the shows don't question the claim -- they don't ask about the Republican bills stacked up in the Senate, and they don't challenge the political spin which frames Republicans as obstructionists. And when Gregory was confronted on the panel by a Republican representative making the same point as Ryan made, Gregory immediately framed this as a problem of disagreement in congress. A clip Gregory played that showed Biden making the claim Republican leaders are captured by an extreme base was the most revealing mindset revealed during the entire Meet the Press show, but Gregory didn't pick up on it -- no one picked up on it.

Biden said we need a strong Republican Party, one that, like in years before, would make deals. To paraphrase Biden, he said "We need Republican leaders we can present with the deal and they can sell it to their members". Biden wants a Centrist/Statist Republican leadership which will rubber-stamp the Democrat agenda. Since the new Republicans are attempting to put forward a real opposition to the progressive agenda, and because they present their own plans for job creation, they are labeled by the Left as obstructionists. You don't have to be a Republican, which I'm not, to see the arrogant reasoning here. The real issue is that there are two very different visions now regarding what will create economic growth and job creation.

It remains to be seen if Republicans will stick to their vision and not just sell the Democrat "deal", as Biden wants, but so far they're holding strong with their budget proposal and plans for economic expansion and job growth. The public will surely see through media spin and realize they actually have a choice to make -- does the public want more government intervention and stimulus, or does the public want to change the system, limit the power of government, create a free market and, thus, give businesses more confidence and incentives to invest in growth and hire more workers? Right now businesses are faced with the uncertainty of higher taxes and more regulations, so they aren't hiring because they have no way of knowing what their costs of doing business will be. Ryan said that if the planned tax increases go through, small businesses will pay an effective 50% tax rate, while other countries have business tax rates of 10-25%. Is there any wonder our economy is stagnant?

Gregory had a chance to explore Ryan's claims, but he chose to shift the issue back to the charge of obstructionism and the public's anger at Wall Street. Ryan also stated he's for removing all corporate welfare and closing all tax loopholes which favor the wealthy. What else can the Left ask for? I mean this ought to please the Occupying Wall Street protesters. Ryan also said he's not concerned with protecting those already rich, but rather with creating an environment where everyone has an opportunity to prosper - this is obstructionist? Fair is fair, and media is not treating these issues fairly. Let's have an honest debate.

The ongoing liberal quandary

Are there any serious liberals left in America? I ask this question in all sincerity. Forced to embrace a libertarian label because modern liberalism has drifted into social democracy and a vague social justice fashion, I am, like many others who promote a limted government and free market,  a classical liberal at heart, a proponent of ideas that arose during the Enlightenment to end the rule of the few over the many, and to establish reason as man's greatest tool in a fight for liberty, equal opportunity and rule of law not rule of men. These grand Enlightenment ideas have been reduced to statist policy making and technocratic paternalism.

The Progressive turn at the beginning of the 20th century turned the tide of classical liberalism, and the Progressive direction has continued to this day, although periodic efforts have been made to change the direction and return America to limited government and a free market. The modern liberal embraced the Progressive ideology while denying ideology, which has created a spongy Center which has led liberalism steadily leftward away from economic freedom and individualism. This neo-liberalism has attempted to join market forces with progressive ideology on one hand and adopted a utilitarian alliance with neo-conservatives on the other. The modern liberal is lost, and the main reason is the denial of the basic principles that made liberalism a powerful force against State power to begin with. 

Now, the modern liberal supports wars that decades ago they would resist with principled vigor, and the liberal is tacitly, and sometimes overtly and eagerly, supporting anti-capitalist efforts which are designed to make a free market impossible. The liberal thought in 2008 that they'd found the perfect combination in Barack Obama, a sensible progressive who has the intelligence to avoid extremes, someone their kissing cousins, the neo-conservatives, could deal with so that the mideast wars are correctly managed and brought to a win/win end. In many ways Obama is less of a Progressive and more of a Super-Liberal who stops short of far-Left madness so as to have the cake and eat it too. It was inevitable that modern liberalism would produce a President such as Obama, someone who can present war as a tool in social justice, use Wall Street to establish a modern State capitalism not at odds with the IMF, World Bank and UN, and implement the regulations required for social justice at home. This advancement of private/public partnership in a strong welfare state has been a dream of modern liberals for a long time.

But the opposition to a powerful State, which still exists in the form of limited government conservatives, libertarians, true capitalists, free marketers and fiscally conservative Blue-Dog Democrats, have challenged the modern liberal to clarify their position -- has the liberal fully accepted the Progressive agenda, or is the modern liberal prepared to stand for the principles that first established the liberal movement centuries ago? The current statist consequences of high unemployment, mounting debt, military quagmires in the mideast, interdependence with European economies in crisis, economic stagnation from over-regulation and uncertainty regarding future tax hikes, the revealed flaws of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank's impact on finance, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and a breakdown in congress, and more, all make it impossible to hide in the Center uncommitted to a direction, playing pragmatist and saying we'll figure it out democratically as we go. It's not working, and forces on both sides are fighting for control of the direction. The modern liberal has to decide which direction they support. More of the same is no longer an option. 

Morning Joe 10/3/2011 -- The DC/Wall Street Game

On Morning Joe today the guests on the first segment were Richard Haas, Chris Matthews and Steve Rattner, and the various topics went from the obligatory Perry-bashing to speculation on Chris Christie to Obama's performance in office to the validity of Ron Suskind's book to the protests on Wall Street to Wall Street's involvement in the recession.

As I've discussed over and over, political means have overtaken economic means in the US, and the Morning Joe show is a prime example of how the two become confused in the minds of the public, the pundits, politicians and anlaysts. The political aspect of what's happening between Wall Street and DC is often mistaken for reality, when, in fact, it's often pure illusion, or, to be more blunt, made up of lies. This is not my paranoid imagination in an attempt to create a conspiracy theory -- the political class talks openly about the Political Game. Matthews is doing a special on MSNBC with several political players discussing how Obama can position himself to win re-election -- some guests on the special believe the center-right position is best, while others, Like Bernie Sanders, believe the far left position is best for these times. In other words, what image is necessary to fool enough people to vote for Obama in 2011.

The natural position for Obama is the progressive position -- this is where his passion lies, but Obama understands, as do his handlers, that in order to get re-elected and continue the progressive agenda, Obama has to appeal to a wide range of voteres, especially independents/swing voters. There's nothing new about these manipulations in politics -- but now it's become an art, and reality is hardly ever discussed -- it's all about the Game.

Scarborough said that Wall Street has done well and they shouldn't be crying about regulations, while Rattner said that Dodd-Frank does have consequences for Big Banks. There are so many mini-stories in the political realm, it's understandable how the fiction of politics gets confused with reality. The standard story is that Wall Street has bought DC and now Wall Street has to be regulated and controlled by DC.

Another story is unemployment. Mika talked about a jobs line she saw which stretched for blocks, and the guests talked about the "malaise" not unlike the 70s, and how government leaders have to take control and do something about job creation. A clip of Bill Clinton was played showing his skills as the kindly and helpful, beloved Uncle, gently leading the country to better times under the wings of benevolent government.

Matthews and Scarborough talked about how Christie appeals to people looking for strong leaders with passion who are as angry as the public and able to make things happen. So, different forces in the political realm are all converging in a perfect storm to increase State power during a financial/jobs crisis, with Wall Street and Republicans playing the roles of obstructionists, with the twist that a new kind of Republican like Chrisite is needed to bring the parties together in statist action to get the economy moving and people back to work -- that is unless Obama developes passion and finds a way to break through Republican obstructionism -- then Obama is still The Man. These are populist stories meant to marginalize the Tea Party and elevate government as the potential savior, if only the two parties will work together to "get things done" and prevent Wall Street from accumulating all the wealth.

But the Political Game would not be complete without the right amount of insider cynicism to show how the pundits understand the Game. So, another story is that Obama has actually helped Wall Street, and Wall Street was a huge donor to Obama in 2008. So, what do we believe with all these conflicting, confusing stories? It helps to always keep in mind that the Political Game is basically built on lies, then you can see more clearly what's happening past the spin.

The healthcare bill, Dodd/Frank and all the EPA regulations were the first shots fired at Wall Street, even if the bills allowed some large corporations to benefit from the changes. Wall Street hasn't bought DC, but DC has conned Wall Street. When Rahm Emanuel put forth the quote "never let a good crisis go to waste", he wasn't kidding. In the political realm, there are power players who basically favor progressive ideas, because progressive ideas ensure increased State control. A free market is the greatest threat to State power, and the power players in the political realm have long term goals of global control in tandem with other global power players. Just as Britain led global control by power players in the 19th and 20th centuries, until their decline in the latter half of the 20th century, today there are power players from the US and other major countries who want to guide and control the global economy. A free market and limited government in the US are antithetical to the global plans, so any attempt to limit government or create a free market must be stopped. The progressive movement is toward a global order controlled by powerful statists from around the world -- power players from the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, Asian countries on the rise, and all the international organizations moving toward globalism have no patience with a hokey movement like the Tea Party, or with small and medium size businesses in the US throwing monkey wrenches in the progressive agenda.

The US can't be the cowboy nation prospering at the expense of global order and social justice, so the US government has to first co-opt the major players on Wall Street, and this was accomplished through regulations which favor the large players, and although some large Wall Street players will "win" by becoming de facto arms of the State, Wall Street in general, and businesses in general in America have been conned. American businesses now see the writing on the wall, but they are mistakenly moving towards someone like Chris Chrisite who they think will re-establsihment the old Game of which global order and control wasn't a part -- it was just the ordinary Merchant State arrangement that Hamiltonians establsihed from the beginning of America, and which has been threatened a few times, but has always prevailed.

This newest threat to State power originated in the Information Age which is just now taking off, so it's uncertain how this all plays out. The ordinary American has more power than ever, plus the American people know more than ever about technology and making things and innovative services, and they are learning about the Political Game. The American people are suppressed at the moment by government intervention, but they are waking up to this fact.

Statists attempt to marginalize the threat to State power by promising more and more to people through the welfare state and regulations on Fat Cats. Statists want to also tax Fat Cats even more, so that the threat is further minimized. Statists want to fund an infrastructure bank to control job growth and guide the growth to the areas the State chooses.

I apoligize for this long post, but I can't ignore the bogus nature of the political stories being told, and the reality that's avoided. The Morning Joe crew, and most of their guests from the political class, are reprentative of the Political Game being played. This Political Game is destroying our economy, and yet media still runs with stories of Fat Cats and Wall Street greed as the main villians in the story -- the Wall Street crowd made lots of mistakes, and they allowed themselves to be lured by government favors -- this is despicable -- but they will pay -- all of them will pay, because this Game doesn't end well for anyone. It's time to stop the Political Game and attend to economic reality.

The Left's new heroine - Elizabeth Warren

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/22/video-the-lefts-got-a-fever-and-the-only-prescription-is-elizabeth-warren-talking-about-tax-hikes/

Allahpundit does a good job of refuting the claims of Warren that business owners haven't made their success, they owe the taxpayers for the roads and police department and fire department, etc.

This is too easy to dismiss, but the mindset is telling, since Warren was a part of the current administration which has basically the same mindset -- it's the State's world and we're priveleged to use it -- and, by God, we're going to pay -- pay more than we already have. You could hear the anger in Warren's voice when she talked about wealth producers, and this attitude is what has the business community frozen in stagnation. It can't last without America eventually imploding.

The problem with all States which expand power when there has already been relative freedom and industrial/technological development is that those who know how to make things and get things done in the economy have far more power than the power-mongers in government. Aristocracy was dismantled when certain areas started progressing technologically and economically, because the workers and shop-owners gained far more knowedge and experitise than the Aristocrats who depended on the workers to make things happen and support the Aristocrats' priveleged lifestyles. When people realize their own power, vultures at the top begin looking like weaklings living of the labor and knowledge of those who have the know-how.  The State is dependent on those with the knowledge to create economic expansion, and blustering politicians and government officials can't force producers to produce. The more the State attempts to co-opt industry, the more creators will find ways to get around them, and when they are blocked from producing and expanding the economy, the country suffers. More and more people are beginning to realize that economic-know nothings in DC are in the way and have lived off the wealth-producers (not government-favored rent-seekers, but the millions of wealth producers who make their own way and pay most of the taxes) far too long.

Chris Edwards on the Bogus Buffett Rule

Thanks to Chris Edwards for putting this together. I've wanted to do this, but I don't have the research capabilities or the time. It shows why Obama's Buffett Rule is bogus, and it's a disgrace and a shame to have an American President running around the country spreading misinformation. I've heard this Buffett claim passed along all through media circles as if it's the gospel. Thank goodness for Cato, Chris Edwards and the internet -- we aren't stuck with propaganda. Now, we can the facts, and when we do, the political prevaricators in DC should be held accountable in the next election. Just say No.