Yesterday the SOPA/PIPA controversy developed a direct tangible climate. Do you all remember that when the first chapters of the ZOD were leaked, some were made available at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IJ40UFBT?
Yesterday the Fed’s shut down megaupload techland begins their article with
McLEAN, Va. (AP) — One of the world’s largest file-sharing sites was shut down Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said.
techfleece writes
Megaupload, one of the most popular sites for storing and sharing information, was today shut down by US federal prosecutors in Virginia on the grounds of copyright infringment. An indictment unsealed today and dated January 5th 2012, which you can read in full here, claims that the Kim Dotcom owned site was responsible for the loss of over $500 Million in lost revenue and reported income in excess of $175,000,000. The indictment makes the allegations at the following defendants:
and also includes a copy of the indictment.
These shut downs occurred without the additional powers that would be granted by SOPA or PIPA. I think those of us concerned about the ability of people to freely discuss controversial subjects and exchange information should be watching this case.
A blow up over intellectual property rights is long over due. I wonder how much Antony’s data could be appraised as worth 🙂
capt. dallas–
I assume it’s not registered at the copyright office. So he could, at best, get actual damages (I think.) Are there any potential paying customers? If not, it would be difficult to establish worth.
What’s even more upsetting is that this is just one example of the destruction of due process in the name of government efficiency. Confiscation of property is no longer a result of prosecution, but of accusation. The couple whose case is at the Supreme Court is another where an agency threatens someone with what amounts to financial destruction without trial. The Supreme Court now allows government to take your property and give it to another private citizen (gee, that won’t cause corruption in government will it /sarc). Corporations are given the same rights as people (how do you jail a corporation?). SOPA and PIPA are just more examples of what’s comming.
BarryW (Comment #88851): “The Supreme Court now allows government to take your property and give it to another private citizen…”
Give?
I had gotten inured to the idea that your property could be devalued by being declared “Historical” or “Environmentally Sensitive” or by other regulatory actions which drop its value without compensation of any kind, for the “greater good,” but help me with the “give to another private citizen.” How?
I had enough trouble with loss of Habeas Corpus if they deem you a “terrorist.”
We live in very worrying times.
Re: j ferguson (Jan 21 09:02),
See Kelo vs. City of New London. It’s called eminent domain. There is compensation, but the government gets to decide how much your property is worth. Note which justices voted against individual rights. That’s right, the entire liberal wing of the court. So much for liberals being for the little guy.
Dewitt,
Eminent domain has a long and checkered history; nothing new there.
I took “take” to mean without compensation and “give” without cost.
There was IIRC a very interesting discussion at the Supreme Court in the time of Douglas about the constitutionality of use of eminent domain for urban renewal where private property could be taken from one citizen with compensation, and in turn, sold to another.
Douglas has been gone a long time.
Surely there is something more in what you are getting at.
DeWitt,
Yup. The only “right” liberals are really worried about is the right of government to do whatever it wants to limit individual rights and choices…. and especially so when that government is controlled by “liberals” (AKA those on the left). The Supreme Court justices on the left consistently support leftist policies, even when those are in clear conflict with the plain meaning of the constitution. If you want to be depressed some time, read about how liberal justices claim the constitution is a “living document” which must be subject to re-interpreted whenever the plain meaning of the words would stop social progress (AKA leftist policies). Kelo V New London is of course a perfect example.
j ferguson (Comment #88856)
The taking clause historically was intended for something like a park, road, ect. The justices have totally perverted it with that ruling. By “giving” I meant selling at a pittance of what the actual value to the developer is on the open market. That in my mind is “giving” it away when you sell it below what it is really worth.
In Northern Virginia a number of neighborhoods were approached by developers who wanted to develop the land near to the Metro system stop and were willing to pay well above the housing prices in the area for the land. Under the Kelo ruling all they would have had to do is go to the government and get the land taken under eminent domain for what the houses were selling for, sold to them at or below cost, and saved millions.
If nothing else the possibilities for corruption are enormous. If I’m a billionaire and want your property for my mansion, all I have to do is get the government to seize it and give it to me for the “public good”. All they have to say is that it will raise revenue for the government though higher taxes.
BarryW,
I concur with everything you say. On the other hand, one could say that the pennies on the dollar might apply to the situation where the landowner had the good fortune (read windfall) to be located near a new metro right of way and in a place ideal for the creation of a mall or office building. Had the metro alignment been a mile away, there would have been no increase in the value of his land, would there?
So if he get’s pre-metro value for his land, (whose increase in value has nothing to do with anything he’s done), are you certain a wrong has been committed?
What about the landowner who finds himself living on short-final for the new airport?
It would be interesting if a Torontoite could share with us what happened to land values when they located their metro stations out where nothing much then existed.
Although, as you say, opportunities for corruption abound, the experience of “takings” is very long, has, I think, been frequently adjudicated, and what we live in is a world, (not only the US) where such things happen.
I would like to think that I’m fundamentally Libertarian, (closer to anarchist) but when the horse has been out of the barn for hundreds of years, I’m not going to look for him.
I find the current threats to our freedom of speech and habeas corpus much more susceptible to citizen outrage, and hopefully, action. Don’t you?
I still get the FOIA Megaupload link with Google. I am in Canada. Has somebody checked in the USA?
j ferguson
Yes, you can get lucky as to where you’re land is located, but the developer is making a contract with the owner which is their right. The government taking from one person to enrich another (with malice of forethought) is corrupt and, yes, there is corruption in the location of public transportation projects to enrich the current owners of land also (the parallel span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge for example). Extending the concept doesn’t make it any better, just worse. Far worse.
As far as free speech and habeas corpus goes, most libertarians would place property rights at the same level. What is habeas corpus but a form of property right (your physical self)? Without property rights anything you have can be taken from you, including that which you need to survive. In my mind a truly free society depends on all three. Remove any one of the three and you’re at the mercy of despots (including those we call bureaucrats).
SteveF (Comment #88859) January 21st, 2012 at 10:51 am
“he Supreme Court justices on the left consistently support leftist policies”
There are ZERO Supreme Court justices on the left, except in some purely relative microscopic sense. SCOTUS is centre, centre-right and right.
“These shut downs occurred without the additional powers that would be granted by SOPA or PIPA. I think those of us concerned about the ability of people to freely discuss controversial subjects and exchange information should be watching this case.”
There are no implications at all. You can buy any amount of storage if you want, no one will stop you. The free service from MU was also used to distribute pirated content. That is why it was shut down.
From wikipedia
“Megaupload.com
Megaupload, the file-sharing service of the company, allowed all users to upload files to the service. After a successful file upload, the user was given a unique URL which allowed others to download the file.
The service was available in two flavours: basic and premium. The basic service was available for free and allowed users to upload files of up to two gigabytes. Free users could not download files larger than one gigabyte, however. Registered free users were offered 200 gigabytes of total file storage. Premium users had unlimited file storage.
Any file uploaded anonymously expired if there were no downloads for at least 21 days. For the registered free accounts, the file expiration period was 90 days after the date the file was last downloaded. Premium accounts had no expiration period as long as the user remained a premium member.[8]
Non-registered and registered users had to wait a few seconds in the download queue and a certain amount of time between transfers after a certain number of megabytes had been downloaded.[8]
Paying premium members also had the benefit of hotlinking: They were able to share a direct link to a file they owned on Megaupload so that anyone could download the file with a single click on that link. The links given to the free users however, were not direct: They were taken to Megaupload website, where they had to wait their turn and possibly respond to a CAPTCHA challenge.”
Note that if an anonymous file was not downloaded for 21 days, it was deleted anyway.
Like many free services, you get what you pay for.
Now if you want to talk about freedom of speech, that is another issue.
Nyq only:
ROFLO!!
So anyone who is not an outright Marxist is a centrist? This from a court with Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg? What planet are you from?
BarryW (Comment #88876) January 21st, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“So anyone who is not an outright Marxist is a centrist?”
No – because even the far-left is more diverse than just “outright Marxist”. Actually even “outright Marxists” are a pretty diverse bunch (including the quasi-libertarian off shoots of the Revolutionary Communist Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28UK,_1978%29#RCP_and_later_organisations )
I’m not aware of any particularly LEFTIST decisions from SCOTUS or even dissenting opinions. I’m aware of many that upset US conservatives but “upsetting US conservatives” and being leftwing are not the same thing.
Re: Nyq Only (Jan 21 16:59),
It’s definitely the left wing of the Supreme Court. Where they rate on an absolute scale is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Nyq Only,
.
Please. This is a complete disconnect form reality. To believe such rubbish you must be either 1) very young or 2) very disingenuous. This POV is typical of convinced leftists, for whom even being disingenuous is OK…. if it consistent with long term leftist goals. The Supreme Court has consistently broadened/changed/reinterpreted, via the votes of justices on the left, the ‘meaning’ of the constitution to match left leaning policy, with the net always being people have fewer options for personal choice, not more.
.
Of course, you and yours (of legal age) should make sure to visit the polls in November. Else-wise, the balance of the court may be shifted against leftists policies after Mr. Obama is gone.
Nyq Only (Comment #88877)
Since you spell center as centre I might guess you’re not from the U.S. and have a different outlook on what is left and right. (that’s not a criticism, just an observation).
As DeWitt says we’re getting into an argument of what is left vs right, progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist…Without defining an absolute scale there can’t be a consensus.
The general consensus in the U.S., however, would place Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg well to the left of Roberts, Thomas and Alito with Kennedy in the center. Opinions by the former that support racial quotas and Second Amendment restrictions would certainly be considered left of center for example. Kagan and Sotomayor one would assume left of center but we’ll see.
Re: DeWitt Payne (Comment #88879)
“It’s definitely the left wing of the Supreme Court.”
At least nominally – but that is not unlike saying that in the aftermath of Lenin’s death the right wing of the Bolshevik’s supported Stalin and the left wing supported Trotsky. Whatever the truth of that maybe there isn’t much we can generalise about left and right here. SCOTUS is a small ‘c’ conservative body and its decisions tend to reflect that by typically siding with whatever maintains the current balance of power within US society. Within this is a group who are more inclined to a more radical (and bigger c) conservatism.
“Since you spell center as centre I might guess you’re not from the U.S. and have a different outlook on what is left and right. (that’s not a criticism, just an observation).”
Correct but I don’t believe I’m particulalry ignorant of how people from the US percieve left and right – nor do I believe that the terms are purely ideologically subjective (i.e. each ideology gets to make up what they mean) or purely relative (i.e. only meaningful relative to some arbitray point or within some arbitary set of people).
“To believe such rubbish you must be either 1) very young or 2) very disingenuous.”
Or just not think the same way as SteveF. Wait…yup that is exactly it. I do find that the 1) very young and 2) the very disingenuous often claim that those who don’t share their subjective opinion are disconnected from reality. It is well worth spending a bit of time working out which ideas are things that correspond to objective truths and which are closer to subjective opinion. Confusing the two can cause you all sorts of problems.
“The Supreme Court has consistently broadened/changed/reinterpreted, via the votes of justices on the left, the ‘meaning’ of the constitution to match left leaning policy, with the net always being people have fewer options for personal choice, not more.”
Let me guess? Roe v Wade? Or is it that whole civil rights thing? Bad justices! Naughty! Bad!
Nyq:
If you do really know how the terms left and right are generally understood in the US, then when talking to US people you should use their reference frame, if only to avoid misunderstandings.
As it is, your post 88871 reads like nothing but a deliberate provocation, IOW, a troll.
Nyq Only (Comment #88886)
Brown vs Board of Education. Good law, terrible reasoning by the court. Ranks up there with “separate but equal” in poor reasoning. Civil rights? Title II and VII, regardless of how I feel about discrimination, were bad law and undermine property rights (Ron Paul stated something similar). Using the commerce clause as an excuse to ignore the 10th Amendment and centralize power is as dangerous as any actions by the right.
“If you do really know how the terms left and right are generally understood in the US, then when talking to US people you should use their reference frame, if only to avoid misunderstandings.”
Whose reference frame? SteveF’s? Barack Obama’s? Barney Franks? I think what some people want is to use a very specific reference frame that is not one universally shared by Americans but rather is something specific to radical US conservatism. I’m loathe to use that specific reference frame because it is 1. stupid 2. incoherent and 3. incoherently stupid. It amounts to little more than right=us and left=them. That isn’t a political taxonomy worth bothering with and is effectively useless.
“As it is, your post 88871 reads like nothing but a deliberate provocation, IOW, a troll.”
Really? You give SteveF’s comment a pass but think a reasoned analysis of his nonesense is trolling? Disagreement isn’t trolling Julio. I can back up my comments with reasoning and coherent explanation. That doesn’t make me correct but it does distinguish what I’m saying from trolling.
“Brown vs Board of Education. Good law, terrible reasoning by the court.”
I agree – right decision but poor reasoning. It also demonstrated that both the constitution and the supreme court are unwieldy instrument in addressing basic issues of individual rights. The wide scale systematic segregation on the basis of race was manifestly a breach of basic rights. However dealing with this abuse of a whole section of the population without aggregating powers to central government or impacting the individual autonomy of states or indiviudal property rights was a nigh on impossible.
All the conflict and human cost was substantially less it reflected the same conflict of freedoms within the US Civil War. Manifestly slavery was a gross evil but in modern times the right of territorial self-determination is broadly recognised.
Nyq Only (Comment #88889)
Even though liberalism has abandoned the term in favor of populism it is still left of center.
After looking at your web site and this comment I can see that your views such that at any agreement on terms is probably impossible. In fact, based on what I read, you’re just trolling and what you’ve said about the right is just as applicable to you. No need to waste anymore time on this discussion.
Re: BarryW (Comment #88882)
FWIW, it is true that the location of the political “center/centre” varies, generally speaking, between the US and Europe. Thus (as I have remarked in the past), here (in the US) I’m slightly left of center, and over there (where I come from) I would be slightly right of center. In Europe I would have voted for Merkel, Sarkozy, or Rajoy, whereas in the US, as it happened, I voted for Obama and will vote for him again.
This puts me at odds with Steve, but certainly not so much that we cannot speak civilly. 🙂
(While on the subject of Europe, though, I probably should add that the United Kingdom’s politics are a bit of a mystery to me. I have no clear idea what any politician there stands for.)
julio –
Interesting observation about the UK. I’ve lived here all my life and the ‘having no clear idea what any politician stands for?’ – me too..
Whereas, without making any effort to study American politics, Obama and Romney seem like chalk and cheese. Almost so their understandings are incommensurable.
Re the UK, I’ve heard it said we’re voting for either a 42% or 43% total tax burden, where the accounting errors are always more than 1%.
julio (Comment #88894)
One thing that I’ve seen about the left and right is that both want to control what people do. The only difference is what they want to control. For example, the left in this country want to liberalize marijuana but restrict tobacco. The right tends to go the opposite. I don’t see the difference. Iraq intervention bad, Libya good? What decides, by outcome or ethical standards?
The one dimensional scale of left/right is totally unwieldy. Where do you place a Ron Paul? He’s usually place on the right, but many of his positions would be considered liberal by some and many on both sides would disagree with some of his positions. I wouldn’t vote for Obama but OTOH I don’t like any of the major Republican candidates. In the center? Not as I see it, since I see both sides as statist. Libertarian is as close as I can come to a term, but I disagree with some of their positions as being unrealistic. Does that put me on the right or the left? Damn if I know.
As far as the United Kingdom goes, I don’t think the politicians know what they stand for either. 😉
You know, I’m glad to learn I’m not the only one at a loss when it comes to UK politics 🙂
I think that there is a bit of a libertarian slant to this particular forum. I have no problem with that, although it definitely does not describe me–whether from the left or the right, I do not have a problem with the government regulating what people can or cannot do in principle (exceptions, of course, are both possible and necessary).
Generally speaking, if a person is intelligent and can make his or her point in a manner that is both respectful and reasonable, I care very little what his or her politics might be. We will be able to talk about (and even agree on) surprisingly many things, regardless.
“Even though liberalism has abandoned the term in favor of populism it is still left of center.”
Sounds reasonable – but I think you mean “progressivism” rather than “populism”. Populism itself is very interesting in the US context and has wandered through both the left and right of US politics (eg both the OWS and Tea Party in recent years).
“After looking at your web site and this comment I can see that your views such that at any agreement on terms is probably impossible.”
I don’t see why. I’m leftwing. I don’t make a secret of that and I’m happy to be called a leftist (or a socialist or a even a moonbat). I don’t think it is impossible to come up with broad meaningful and mutually comprehensible names for ideological groupings – at least in an open, democratic and stable society it should be. If you honestly don’t think it is possible to do so then surely the correct thing to do would be to not use the labels at all.
“For example, the left in this country want to liberalize marijuana but restrict tobacco.”
That is a good example. I think tobacco and marijuana should be legal but regulated. My view might be wrong but clearly it is consistent. The non-libertarian right appear to want one to be very illegal and the other to not be. That seems somewhat inconsistent.
“Iraq intervention bad, Libya good? What decides, by outcome or ethical standards?”
Like any ethical decision both matter. The likelihood of success matters as does the likely harm inflicted on civilians. I think there were reasonable arguments for the Iraq war (cf the late Christopher Hitchen’s position) but I think the arguments against it AT THAT TIME IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES were stronger. Supporting an insurrection in Libya that was already underway and which would likely end in mass murder if it failed was quite a different kettle of fish.
This is my political party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTqdbBI0XQ
Re: Left compared to Right in the US
A fairly important and clear distinction between left/progressive/Democrats-&-some-Republicans thinking and right/conservative/other-Republicans-&-libertarians thinking concerns the distinction between “Equality of Opportunity” and “Equality of Outcome.”
The US Civil Rights movement was originally based on the Opportunity stance — e.g. Brown v. BOE, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and the retro theme of the recent book/movie “The Help”.
From the mid-Sixties to the present, the rhetoric provided to children in the classroom and the voting booth has remained fixed on Opportunity. However, the movement’s intellectual and political heart has moved steadily leftward, embracing Outcome as the essential indicator of fairness. In its decisions, the Supreme Court has both reflected this transformation, and driven it forward.
This is one of the most important and wide-ranging transformations in American society (IMO), extending well beyond black/white relations. Consider, for example, the narratives of feminism, immigration/La Raza, reform of the criminal justice system, and gay rights. The shift is full of non-obvious consequences — “unexpected” by some parties, while “eagerly anticipated” by others.
In this respect, BarryW’s placing of the Justices on a left-right spectrum (Comment #88882) makes sense. Nyq only’s “distinction without a difference” argument (Comment #88884) doesn’t hold up, IMO. (I’m paraphrasing not quoting — correct me if I’ve got you wrong, Nyq.)
Meanwhile, in Europe, the Left’s grand socialist experiment is coming to a screeching halt because, as predicted by fiscal conservatives, they’ve run out of other people’s money. US to follow.
AMac (88906),
I agree that the clearest change during my lifetime for those who classify themselves as liberal is indeed the change from a goal of more equal opportunity to a goal of greater equality of outcome. I think part of this is due to frustration with the growing economic gap between those who are more successful and those who are less so, combined with the general view on the left that all people are of inherent worth, and therefore “deserving” of a lifestyle which is commensurate with the total wealth of the society in which they live. Which leads to Robin Hood politics, of course. I think most of those who are considered “conservatives” are all for increasing equality of opportunity, which was the “liberal viewpoint” of my youth. For example, in Florida, the current Governor is “ultra conservative” (and utterly loathed on the left), yet he is pushing to increase state expenditures for public education, and focus the university system more on science/math/technology, so that graduates are better equipped to climb the economic ladder; even while he cuts overall state spending.
.
I think a reasonable measure of the change in the political center is the fraction of government expenditures which can be classified as ‘wealth transfer’, including both direct transfer payments and programs such as national health care, which disconnect payment for services from use of those services.
“There are ZERO Supreme Court justices on the left, except in some purely relative microscopic sense. SCOTUS is centre, centre-right and right.”
Of course, anyone can define what is politically left or right – and often do in attempts to make a partisan political point. What would make this statement more meaningful would be for Nyq to define and/or give examples of how a leftwing court might rule (differently) on some cases that have already been before the court or might be in the future.
SteveF (Comment #88912) —
Charles Murray is the public intellectual who has thought most carefully about the implications of Equal Outcomes, and discussed them in light of the realities of economics (socialism’s practical shortcomings) and biology (human biodiversity). He is a co-author of “The Bell Curve,” and thus one of the figures who is most heartily loathed by the left. The loathing is amply justified by his doubleplusungood approach to issues, even to the extreme of making truthful statements that are uncomfortable to hear. I always feel much better when I see his ideas straw-manned and speedily dispatched by pundits, whether of the right or left (e.g.).
As with another subject occasionally discussed on this blog, it’s much better to make policy based on what the establishment elite consensus believes. The objective merits of those beliefs are — and should be — secondary to the virtues accorded to those who profess them.
[Edit — Whoops! I used a Bad Word in this comment, sending it to moderation purgatory. Not sure which one… Murray? Socialism? doubleplusungood?…]
Nyq Only (Comment #88900)
Your right I meant progressive, although that term has morphed over the years. I doubt if all of Teddy Roosevelt’s positions would have been approved of today by the self termed progressives.
As for likely harm, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs might beg to differ with you about the merits of letting Sadam continue his genocide.
Conversely, if Kadafi had been allowed to use overwhelming force would there have been more or fewer deaths?
AMac (Comment #88906)
I agree with your comments. The right vs left in the U.S. has really come down to a “Equality of Opportunity†and “Equality of Outcome†axis in most cases. People who otherwise may have wildly different philosophies tend to group into one or the other camps.
AMac, BarryW,
“Equality of opportunity” versus “equality of outcomes” is indeed the clearest political distinction I can see in USA politics.
The reason that Murry’s ideas are so loathed on the left is that greater equality of outcomes can be easily justified by suggesting that those who are successful are so because they happen to be born in the right circumstances or are extraordinarily lucky, etc; that is, their financial success is not the result of their ability combined with their willingness to apply it.
.
If you accept that most successful people are more productive than unsuccessful people because they are smarter and/or work harder (the basis of Murry’s argument), then greater “equality of outcomes” is politically tougher to justify, and ultimately boils down to Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Marx’s argument is a much tougher sell than “the successful are largely undeserving” argument.
OK, here’s my perspective…
When I think of the basic left-right distinction, I think back 80 years or so, when “right” meant pro-capital, and generally against regulations (or taxes) that might reduce profits; and “left” meant pro-labor, and generally in favor of taxes or other measures that might provide social services.
I believe that this distinction is still alive and well in America, and probably is even sharper here than in Europe, where the development of the “welfare state” after the war has left the historical left with relatively little meaningful work to do.
I also think that by the above distinction, Obama is clearly a leftist politician, and Romney clearly a rightist one. (I have no idea what Newt Gingrich stands for, other than Newt Gingrich, however.)
Steve, AMac, hopefully you’ll forgive me if I say that framing the discourse in terms of “equality of opportunity” versus “equality of outcome” is a bit of a rhetorical trap? Few people–if any–would argue outright for “equality of outcome”. When I support Obama or the Democratic party in general, I believe that it is, indeed, “equality of opportunity” that I am supporting.
I realize that there is a lot of waste, and of programs that go nowhere; I realize that the Democratic party has become in places a hostage to unions that may have grown too powerful for the common good; and I cringe at a good many pronouncements and attitudes that are common among the liberal left. But I still cling to a Camelot-like vision that the primary role of government must be to protect the weak, because the strong will always be able to take care of themselves.
SteveF (Comment #88919) —
My own opinion (FWIW) is that success is often the result of good luck and happy circumstance. It’s also often the result of the development and application of talent, combined with foresight and hard work. For the most part, the relative importance of these causes of success or failure can’t be disentangled in a meaningful way.
A different, Teddy-Rooseveltesque question is, “Regarding inequality, what sort of society do we want to bequeath to future generations?” My view is that the trend towards a winner-take-all economy bodes poorly for my (hoped-for) grandchildren. I’d prefer to see a strong middle class, instead of the few lording it over the many. It hardly matters that most of the elites self-identify as progressives or liberals, instead of as top-hatted Republican fat cats.
One example of the trend towards concentration of wealth and influence is the way that employee compensation has changed at public companies over the past half-century. I don’t know of any evidence of a growing Ability (intelligence, perseverance, training, etc.) gap between top-tier managers (on the one hand) and middle-managers and hourly workers (on the other). But CEOs and CFOs take a far greater share of the pie than would have been imaginable, fifty years ago.
What to do about it? “Don’t just do something, stand there” strikes me as a good starting point for a complex problem with no obvious “answers”.
.
julio (Comment #88921) —
The EEOC’s “Four Fifths Rule” is the cornerstone of discrimination law; it is an endorsement of the idea that outcomes trump all else. It’s not a very ‘fair’ or common-sensical approach (e.g. the Ricci case, AP exams), but those aren’t the elites’ top virtues.
.
Anyway… these musings have strayed far afield, even for an open thread.
“But I still cling to a Camelot-like vision that the primary role of government must be to protect the weak, because the strong will always be able to take care of themselves.”
And how is that approach working out in reality? In order for a government to protect the weak (however that might be conveniently defined) that government must be granted extensive power. Are not the weak assumed to be a majority in order to make the politics “work” in a so-called democratic form of government? Subsidies are given to and rescues provided for those who most would not consider weak and done so by liberals and leftists. I would think in the current political environment that the leftists and liberals need the “weak” more than the “weak” need them. How do you define who are the weak? If the weak banded together politically to obtain optimum government subsidies through their majority status I wonder if they would still be considered weak. It would be interesting hear what the weak need to be protected from. With a strong government, that is required to protect the weak, who protects the weak from the government – or the non weak for that matter?
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #88913) January 22nd, 2012 at 10:25 am
“Of course, anyone can define what is politically left or right – and often do in attempts to make a partisan political point. What would make this statement more meaningful would be for Nyq to define and/or give examples of how a leftwing court might rule (differently) on some cases that have already been before the court or might be in the future.”
Your first comment I agree with and reflects some of the points I have been making. Political classifications are often themselves a tool of a given ideology. However we aren’t wholly at sea – we have plenty of information about political thinking in the US and we know a lot about political attitudes in the US. It isn’t hard to look at what constitutes the centre of US politics and consider the extent to which SCOTUS deviates from that centre. Now it is important to note that a supreme court judge being a political centrist is not a good thing (nor neccesarily a bad thing) nor does it validate their judgements.
Let’s go back to Kelo v City of New London – which is what set of this side discussion.
Was it a decision in tune with the US right? Obviously not – it caused outrage and even some legislative attempts to prevent similar outcomes in some more conservative states. But was it a particulalry LEFTIST decision? No. The action by the City of New London was essentially a pro-business decision – one in which local government acts on behalf of private commercial interests and against the interest of a poorer social class. As such it was a decision that supports what we might call ‘businessism’ – i.e. where government exerts power over society to further the interests of larger private commercial entities. This is very much the compromise politics of the US and is symptomatic of policies adopted by both Republicans and Democrats. Such policies are often at odds both with free-market thinking (eg the use of tariffs by George Bush Jr) and with pro-social equality thinking.
What might a leftist court have decided? Fairly simply that eminent domain applied only to transfers of property from private to public and not from private citizen to private company. Note such a decision is at odds with libertarian or even originalist thinking in that it still asserts that the state can strip property (with compensation) from private individuals.
“But I still cling to a Camelot-like vision that the primary role of government must be to protect the weak, because the strong will always be able to take care of themselves.â€
Recent events haven’t mapped well to a simple strong/weak, protect/exploit framework. Instead, ISTM that a thread common to many current-events narratives is that one group of Strong Men proposes themselves as champions of the downtrodden. This righteous bunch will protect the poor against the rapacity of a competing group of Strong Men.
Sometimes the poor and downtrodden benefit along with the strong. Other times, not so much.
The strong (and sometimes the weak) typically gain at the expense of some ill-defined, blurry mass. We can call them the Middle Class.
Thus, high-low versus middle competition as the new normal.
I think this is a more useful mental model for looking at the 2008 mortgage crisis, the financial meltdown in general, the immigration controversy in the US, and — even — the ongoing allure of Green alternative energy technologies.
.
Nyq Only (#88927) —
“The action by the City of New London was essentially a pro-business decision – one in which local government acts on behalf of private commercial interests and against the interest of a poorer social class.”
I’d describe that decision as a victory of certain crony capitalists allied with local elites, in the name of economic development to benefit “the poor” via job creation. Lower-middle-class homeowners were the losers.
And who protects the individual from the government? That’s where this thread started. When the government can arbitrarily decide who are the winners and losers and make things “fair” you’re headed for tyranny. It then becomes a question of who holds power to redistribute the spoils to their supporters. You can read such writers as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell to see how government creates the inequalities that they then claim that they are going to “fix”.
Nyq Only (Comment #88927)
You might call it pro business and the term in use has been crony capitalism, but when the government is picking winners and losers in the private sector I’d call that a form of socialism. When the government throws bankruptcy law out to protect Union interests (GM) I’d also call that socialism. Whether or not the state owns the means of production dejure, they own it defacto.
Nyq, as a libertarian, I would judge that I am in the least amount of agreement with most of the participants’ political philosophy here, i.e. the rest of you are in more agreement with each other than with me. I find that the definition of libertarian is more precise (although not always) as used in discussions than the terms liberal (modern and not classical) and conservative are -or even than the terms leftists and rightist. I certainly would not be concerned about whether someone obtained and was allowed to keep his wealth through good luck or hard work and abilities (although I would if it were by force or through government force or influence). Either an individual has private property rights or he does not -or for a constitutionalist – there are either limits on the what the government can take from an individual or there are no limits.
Your take on the SCOTUS decisions on the takings clause of the constitution does little to define leftist and rightist and, in fact, would appear to me to muddy the waters. We first and primarily have a case that tests the interpretation of the takings clause and whether a government takings from one private entity to another can be interpreted as having a government purpose. Justice Stevens wrote the “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public”.
The first consideration then would be how a leftist views interpretations of the constitution or whether indeed they look favorably on a constitution.
The second consideration would then appear to be whether the members of the Supreme Court rule sometimes along leftist lines and sometimes rightist lines and are not to be considered left or right wing themselves. We would not know unless someone went further and defined those lines for us. It would appear that your view (as a leftist I assume) and those of the right wingers on the court correspond for this case – or maybe they do not given the first consideration above.
AMac,
I actually agree with much of your analysis. American politics does involve, largely, a battle of special interests, some allied with one party and some with the other (and some shifting all the time), all trying to carve out as large a piece of the common pie as possible. In the end, the “middle class” ends up being squeezed the hardest. That is the zeroth order approximation.
The first order correction, though, as I see it, is that under the democrats a little more wealth flows down from the top to the bottom. Or at least it seems that way to me. Certainly the “obamacare” initiative was an attempt to help “the weak” (the sick and uninsured in this case), even if the final result was rather pathetic, in part because the interests of two large special interest groups, the pharmaceutical companies and the trial lawyers, were declared off-limits from the start. It is not much, but I prefer it to nothing at all, which is what we would get with the republicans, especially now that the Tea Party is calling all the shots.
(Oh, and the democrats are also a bit more likely to protect the environment, which also matters to me. Although here again the record is mixed, and filled with empty gestures and disastrous investments.)
Re: BarryW (Comment #88930)
True, the thread started with the Internet, which was a wonderful present from the US government to the world. 🙂
I do not feel particularly threatened by the US government (although I disagree with, for instance, some of the restrictions on civil liberties that were introduced in the name of the war on terror, it is not something that keeps me awake at nights). Living in any form of society involves compromises and tradeoffs, and I am comfortable with mine.
AMac, NYQ Only,
The Kelo V New London decision was important primarily because it confirmed the supremacy of local government prerogatives over private property. The key phrase in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution is “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Where in Kelo V New London is there a claim of public use? There was NO public use, and no public use was ever contemplated. No roadway, no library, no school, no public park, no public utility right-of-way; not even a fig leaf was on offer. It was a blatant confiscation of private property for resale to another private entity… the side benefit of which was to drastically increase property tax take. This is among the worst abuses of the Constitution by the Supreme Court over the last 200+ years. IMO, history will treat the 5 who voted in favor of New London rather harshly. It is for me no coincidence that these are the 5 left leaning justices, who apparently believe the ‘public interest’ (in this case, the total tax take) trumps all private property interests.
.
What is the opposite of ‘landmark’ decision? Perhaps a ‘toilet filling’ decision? An ‘idiotic’ decision? I am at a loss for a suitable description.
.
julio,
I do not doubt you believe it, but I also do not doubt that many on the left in the USA work consistently for more “equality of outcome” than “equality of opportunity”. In the day of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, equality of opportunity probably was the main objective of Democrats, but I do not think the current leadership of the Democrats, and certainly not Mr. Obama, still strives for equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome seems more the goal.
.
Vastly unequal outcomes do pose a social problem, and I am not sure there are any easy solutions. I am reminded of the difference between an excellent computer programmer and a not so good programmer: the excellent programmer is an order of magnitude (or two!) more productive…. but it causes problems if you try to pay those two programmers in proportion to their relative contribution. There are vast differences in the value contribution different people are able to make, even among trained/qualified individuals. Compare an educated/qualified individual with one who is not educated/not qualified, and the differences become astronomical. And these differences are only increasing with time. Society faces some very difficult choices in addressing large differences in ability…. and outcomes.
julio (Comment #88933)
And many of the problems are the product of previous government meddling and tax laws that distorted the health care market (employer provided health care for example).
Much of the transfer of wealth gets eaten up by the bureaucracy in the process. Someone once calculated how much could be given to each “poor” person if they scrapped all the programs and just gave them the money and it was magnitudes larger than what the programs provided. Having been in Washington for most of my life I can believe it.
Actually it the concept was co-opted by civilians in a similar fashion to GPS. Dial-up systems existed like Fidonet, and Compuserve in the civilian sector while many people who worked in the Defense industry and related academic institutions had grown used to being able to communicate electronically. So yes you could say the government gave it. I’d say the people took what was rightfully theirs since they paid for it.
SteveF (Comment #88935)
I agree that Liberals such as Moynihan and Humphrey wanted equality of opportunity, but the present generation of
liberalprogressive assumes that there can be none because of our racist, sexist, homophobic society in which anyone who does not succeed is a victim and not responsible for their predicament.One problem we are going to face is that more and more of our society may become unemployable both by culture and innate capability. Skills such as programming are as much an innate ability as they are education. What do we do with those whose only abilities are manual labor when we no longer need them?
An interesting discussion that has raged for centuries. I think Winston Churchill may have defined Right vs Left and Capitalism vs Socialism with some clarity over 50 years ago:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Throughout human history, no matter how generous the intent of socialism, at some point it runs out of other peoples money.
SteveF (Comment #88935)
…maybe. Probably the same people who still refuse to believe that communism was a failure. I do not regard these as very rational people, and I do not believe Obama is one of them, despite his populist rhetoric.
BarryW,
Manual labor will always be needed, but the supply of qualified manual laborers outstrips demand… so they can demand only the lowest of wages. Demands for increasing minimum wage is symptomatic of the problem. More important I think is the export of relatively low skill manufacturing jobs to lower wage countries. While the net global economic benefit of the process is large, there are negative local and individual impacts as low skill jobs are inexorably lost to lower wage countries. Nobody in government seems to be addressing the real need to produce more competent workers (technically, intellectually, skill set, etc.). Unemployment benefits, even when extended to 18 months or more, seem mainly designed to act as segway to a generally lower standard of living, rather than an opportunity (or requirement?) to acquire the skills needed for higher wage employment. Public education seems blissfully disconnected from the economic reality of international competition for manufacturing jobs, and public university education is in some sense even worse: why train so many capable students to appreciate the underlying themes of Shakespearean plays when that qualifies someone to flip burgers at McDonald’s or live in the street under a cardboard box? It makes no sense to use public funds for universities that only add to the level of structural unemployment/underemployment.
BarryW,
Manual labor will always be needed, but the supply of qualified manual laborers outstrips demand… so they can demand only the lowest of wages. Demands for increasing minimum wage is symptomatic of the problem. More important I think is the export of relatively low skill manufacturing jobs to lower wage countries. While the net global economic benefit of the process is large, there are negative local and individual impacts as low skill jobs are inexorably lost to lower wage countries. Nobody in government seems to be addressing the real need to produce more competent workers (technically, intellectually, skill set, etc.). Unemployment benefits, even when extended to 18 months or more, seem mainly designed to act as segway to a generally lower standard of living, rather than an opportunity (or requirement?) to acquire the skills needed for higher wage employment. Public education seems blissfully disconnected from the economic reality of international competition for manufacturing jobs, and public university education is in some sense even worse: why train so many capable students to appreciate the underlying themes of Shakespearean plays when that qualifies someone to flip burgers at McDonald’s or live in the street under a cardboard box? It makes no sense to use public funds for universities that only add to the level of structural unemployment/underemployment.
julio,
“I do not believe Obama is one of them, despite his populist rhetoric.”
Hard to say. A politician’s primary objective is winning election, which can hide his/her honestly held beliefs. Should Mr. Obama win re-election (which seems at least a 50:50 chance), we will see in his second term what his honest priorities are. Since at least one house of Congress will likely be in Republican hands for the next 4 years, there will be little long term harm done by Mr. Obama’s second term, should he win re-election. I do expect a lot of populist rhetoric in the campaign and afterward. I would be pleased to be mistaken about Mr. Obama, but I doubt I am.
ivp0,
“Throughout human history, no matter how generous the intent of socialism, at some point it runs out of other peoples money.”
You should credit Margaret.
j ferguson,
apparently part of the property issue was left out.
I do not WANT to sell my property even if you enrich me. I want to live out my life quietly right there and am in contravention of no laws. Why does someone(s) or the gubmint have the RIGHT to decide that my property can be taken to enrich themselves and not the general public?
The gubmint talks about increasing the tax base by moving the land to a different owner. This basically means that there are NO private property rights left. There is almost ALWAYS someone who can come up with a “better” use for the property!!!
One of the failures here is that there is no guarantee that the “better” use of the property will be!! Another failure is that this is just more money for the wastrels to spend and not benefit the general population.
This is an absolute infringement of my right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. If I am not as financially active or able as the next guy the gubmint can continually take my property for the good of the people!!! How do we get compensated when we don’t WANT to move and change. I am planning on living there the rest of my life and structured my finances so this would work. The gubmint now makes it so that not only do I have to move I cannot guarantee equivalent housing with my financial state etc. etc. etc.
As far as the new detention bill, if there is no method built into the process to guarantee that our rights are protected, that is, that we are who they THINK they are looking for and are actually terrorists, the gubmint can lock us up illegally and no one will ever know or be able to find us to spring our rears. Where is the review process done by disinterested third parties to insure accidents or on purposes don’t happen?? Yeah, it is that simple to take away habeas corpus without saying that is what is happening.
AMac (Comment #88928) January 22nd, 2012 at 1:37 pm
re: crony capitalism
Fair point – and it is worth comparing this with SOPA which has similar cack-handed quality of toadying to powerful private commercial interests.
SteveF (Comment #88941) January 22nd, 2012 at 9:49 pm
“why train so many capable students to appreciate the underlying themes of Shakespearean plays when that qualifies someone to flip burgers at McDonald’s or live in the street under a cardboard box?”
I rarely agree with you Steve but I at least assume that you are willing to consider data when drawing a conclusion. Is it the case that those who major in English Literature at college are particulalry unemployable? I find that claim implausible but if you have data to hand that would seem to be the best way of demonstrating your case.
KuhnKat (Comment #88944)
I don’t like it either, but what you write about has been with us since the ’50s in exactly the form you describe. And at least in lands whose laws and customs descend from the English experience, no citizen has absolute, total, inalienable possession of real property.
What’s happened since the war is that the bases of takings have been expanded, or more expansively interpreted, if you will.
One might ask if the takings which accompanied the expansion of railways in the US in the 19th century to enrich the railroad robber barons were any different.
Custom certainly doesn’t make right. I’m reminded of the elderly lady who refused to sell to a developer out on Long Island, with the result that her property occupied a notch in the very large building that would otherwise have been continuous. Bless her.
Maybe one of the Readers will recognize this and find a photo of it.
Pursuant to the above,
I’m reminded of the fellow who, in 1939, chose Guadalcanal as a good place to get away from it all.
As Garrison Keillor put it, “Property is the enemy of leisure.”
nyq_only,
You might look at tables 39 to 42 in this document:
whatsitworth-complete.pdf which you can find with a google search. And yes, literature majors have among the highest unemployment rates among college grads, as well as among the highest “part time” employment rates. I don’t find that at all surprising.
College graduates who end up in bankruptcy can’t generally discharge their student loans — they’re still on the hook for the unpaid balance.
Someone (Half Sigma? Glenn Reynolds?) recently suggested that colleges be made to share in the liability for student loan defaults. I suspect that this sort of reform would rapidly make the answer to Nyq Only’s question quite clear.
Re: SteveF (Comment #88951)
Thanks for the reference, Steve. Of course, details may change, sometimes pretty fast (today’s “hot” major may be overcrowded five years from now), but it looks like a good start, now that my oldest child is about to go to college 🙂
This recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education also bears you out:
http://chronicle.com/article/Unemployment-Varies-by-College/130212/
as does this Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/not-all-college-majors-are-created-equal/2012/01/12/gIQAfz4XzP_story.html
Both of them actually are based on the same recent report:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.pdf
As anecdotal evidence I could introduce my wife’s sister, a bright kid who graduated in Creative Writing, and ended up working at Target (a department store chain, for those not in the US) as a sales assistant–only a step up from the proverbial hamburger flipping.
One of the major backstories to the question of “which majors fare best?” is the outsourcing of high-value manufacturing — and now, R&D functions — from the US to China and other East Asian countries. Blogger Randall Parker regularly discusses this development, e.g. yesterday’s post on the iPhone.
Re: AMac (Jan 23 09:17),
My son-in-law works for a high precision specialty machining company. They had been losing business to China a few years ago. It’s coming back. Their capacity is now essentially sold out. My daughter has horror stories about drug manufacturing in India and China. Outsourcing was something of a fad and, as a result, was overdone. But labor intensive manufacturing has always moved to the lowest labor cost area. It did so within the US. Textile manufacturing moved from the Northeast to the Southeast. When labor rates went up in the Southeast, it moved overseas. Norma Rae may have won short term gains in pay, but twenty years later, the mills were closed and the jobs were gone.
julio, AMac, DeWitt,
It is possible to manufacture profitably in high wage countries (consider the level of German industrial exports, for example), but you can’t possibly compete with low wages in the production of high volume/low cost ‘widgets’, and the production of even higher value/high volume consumer goods (microwaves, televisions, cell phones, etc.) is probably out of reach in higher wage countries.
.
WRT outsourcing of R&D functions: sure, technical talent can be found in many places, but unlike manufacturing, there are additional barriers that inhibit the process, including language/communication issues, concerns about intellectual property theft, difficulty in duplicating the concentration of technical talent needed to facilitate overall excellence, and the physical mobility of the most talented…. it is more efficient to fill a some jobs in Houston with a few super programmers from Bangalore than to move the entire software development function from Houston to Bangalore.
SteveF (Comment #88941)
True, and in many cases even the most basic capabilities are more than the lowest level of worker can handle. How many people could make change at MacDonald’s if the cash register didn’t do it for them? But many industries are automating the entry level jobs. Why pay someone, give health benefits and maybe even retirement when I can buy robots who can do the job and I won’t have to worry about union work stoppages? I listened to a program on NPR where they were discussing the town in China where most of the computers, phones and tablets are made. They use hordes of people. Why? Because they’re cheaper than automating. So your high tech is being made by manual labor. Not possible here.
When I first started programming companies had hordes of coders (not even programers) with a few senior designers to oversee the production. Now I can use WYSIWYG IDEs that do most of the grunt work for me. So even what was high or medium skilled jobs are going to disappear.
SteveF (Comment #88951)
One interesting finding of late is that one of the highest unemployment rates is among architects. Seems obvious when you consider the downturn in housing, but there you have highly skilled technical degreed individuals struggling to find work. Same thing after the aerospace downturn at the start of the 1970’s with engineers and physicists.
Re: BarryW (Comment #88961)
The conditions of those workers in China appear to be now as horrifying as the conditions of workers in the industrialized Western countries a century ago. This is profoundly ironic, when one considers that at the time communist and socialist movements were flaring up all over the West with the explicit goal of trying to free the workers from their inhumane conditions–and China is, supposedly, a communist country!
Anyway, presumably, things will improve in China as well, someday… although I have no idea how that will come about. (It took a world war to straighten the West out.)
I have made my statement about obtaining and keeping wealth in free society, but I wonder, as a practical matter, whether those here are who are concerned about the so-called uneven distribution of wealth, and it seems to be the case for many on all sides of the political issue, would continue to be concerned if it were shown that that uneven distribution also resulted in a higher standard of living for those towards the bottom of the ladder. In other words, is the concern a matter more of class envy, or simply that there is something immoral about an uneven distribution, than concern with the so-called down trodden. It is certainly obvious that politicians use, as a practical matter, the uneven distributions of wealth and incomes to rationalize a source of revenue for their government programs just as they do for sin taxes on the not so wealthy. It has nothing to do with morals but rather a means to support a growing government.
Bill Moyers interviews David Stockman on the issue of crony capitalism:
http://dailycapitalist.com/2012/01/21/bill-moyers-interviews-david-stockman-on-crony-capitalism/
Stockman makes some excellent points that were surprising to me, given Moyers slant on politics. Stockman continues during the interview to maintain and school Moyers on the point that crony capitalism is very different than free market capitalism and is the result of government interference with the free market. He points to the Federal Reserve’s role in this game of crony capitalism and how financial rescues and interest rate manipulations favor the Wall Street cronies and how both Republican and Democrat administrations play the game of crony capitalism. He noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to change the game and in fact is playing it as it has been played in the past. He downplays Dodd-Frank as being a funding bill for lawyers and regulators. He also points to Glass–Steagall Act as an act of regulation (separation of banking and investment operations within a bank) that is required given that the Federal Reserve banking system is a government run entity that requires guarantees on deposits and can provide near zero overnight rates and bailouts to sustain the banking system, i.e. the government should not be, in effect, guaranteeing risk taking operations that government banks might undertake through investments.
Moyers later brings in Grethen Morgenson to give a liberal point of view on the matter that points back to capitalism without the crony as a cause and fails to connect the government’s and politicians’ role in the matter – other than to call for more regulations.
Well, for some years my BA (in a social “science”) got me great secretarial jobs. Now that profession has died out but luckily I learned other languages in the meantime so in the rare cases that anyone gives a damn, I get work making sure their English is good (well, it’s actually excellent when I do it).
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #88965) —
I’ll follow your recommendation and give Moyers a listen. I was unaware that he had ever encountered a “Left” idea or practice that he disliked, or a “Right” one that he might consider ethical or workable. This predictability has made his preaching a bit tiresome, to me.
Even small doses of Moyers’ PBS show would bring to mind that Orwell quip, “Only an intellectual could say something so stupid.”
Kenneth Fritsch #88964,
.
I would be concerned, even if there were some improvement in the standard of living of the lowest tier (though I think you can argue that there has been little net change, at least in the USA, over the last few of decades). My concern is the goose which lays the golden eggs (AKA economic incentives for excellence) will be eaten for dinner out of jealousy/envy…. and the rhetoric of the populist left continues to incite that envy.
.
I personally find nothing ‘immoral’ about differences in economic outcome, and I think these differences are inevitable except in a ‘workers paradise’ of shared misery/poverty. But as a practical matter, inciting the less capable to vote for confiscation and redistribution of wealth seems to me to pose a real long term risk of economic decline. The danger is that demands for increasing taxes on income and public restrictions on economically productive activity (justified as ‘saving the Earth’) will lead to either a stagnation of growth in total wealth, or even a net decline in total wealth year on year in developed countries…… cooking the magical goose for dinner indeed.
AMac,
You are being much too kind. I gave up on Moyers 20+years ago when I realized he had never actually done anything constructive in his entire life. Being preached to by a useless idiot quickly becomes too tiresome to tolerate.
It doesn’t really help a company like Megaupload that it’s owned by a mega crook like Kim Schmitz, a hacker who doesn’t hesitate to rat his fellow hackers when it suits him.
.
Here’s a video of Kim “Dotcom” when he was still a kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pR1rZZHEs&feature=fvst
Hoi–
Yes, grown up Mr. dotcom didn’t sound like the most admirable fellow either!
Was that really him?!
“I would be concerned, even if there were some improvement in the standard of living of the lowest tier (though I think you can argue that there has been little net change, at least in the USA, over the last few of decades).”
Perhaps what I was reaching for is not a measure of standard of living but rather a look at what devices and conveniences that were, not that many years ago, considered in the exclusive domain of the wealthy being available to those near the bottom of the wealth ladder today. Even though we do not have completely free markets and enterprises I think what freedoms have been afforded to enterprises have been responsible in a large part in providing once expensive items at more affordable prices.
I also think what gets lost in these discussions is that the wealthy are the most able to save and invest in those enterprises that provide these affordable products.
Certainly it is clear that Obama has hit on the class warfare theme for a big part of his upcoming campaign and I judge that he thinks it will work. Polls appear to confirm that, but then poll results can depend highly on how the questions are presented. I also think that Romney’s hesitancy to reveal his tax returns shows that the Republicans will not be able to handle this issue head on.
I think the “class warfare” rhetoric is a flash in the pan (although it seems to have momentarily served Gingrich well against Romney; Charles Krauthammer had a good article about this in the Washington Post the other day: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-legitimize-obamas-reelection-rhetoric/2012/01/19/gIQA5pB5BQ_story.html). Americans as a rule do not respond well to this kind of rhetoric, though. As has been said before, Americans do not generally resent the rich, rather they find them inspiring.
What really should decide the election is whether the economy improves enough by November and unemployment continues to go down. Normally I’d expect Obama to win reelection but lose the Senate.
But that was before the Gingrich surge. Now I am concerned that–especially if economic conditions do not improve–the republicans first, and then the nation at large, may be just perverse enough to elect Gingrich, just because he is such an entertaining, flamboyant, larger-than-life figure…
julio–
The thought that Gingrich could win worries me. On the other hand, I don’t like Obama either!
julio (Comment #88974)
I know at least one independent who would pull the lever for Obama rather than for Freddie Mac’s million-dollar
lobbyisthouse historian. There must be quite a few: enough to make Gingrich unelectable, I suspect.Reality is there is plenty of blame to spread around on that one, and Newt is in there at maybe the 0.01% level (but perhaps I exaggerate his importance). I see that as just more over-blown finger pointing from the people 99.99+% responsible for that mess towards anybody they can lay part of the blame on.
Lucia, I had the good fortune to visit the old USSR in 1980 after realizing that the US NAS was purposefully misrepresenting findings on the Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy.
I went to present a lecture on this subject [and secretly to see for myself what that government was like]. They published valid information on the Sun as we understood it then, but I also felt the unease of tyrannical control and learned that Russian citizens could not obtain George Orwell’s book, “1984.”
Over the past 30 years, tyranny has increased here, but the Russian NAS has been more honest than the US NAS in admitting Earth’s heat source might be the nuclear furnace that made our elements [It is.]
The book, “1984”, is still available here. Does anyone know if it is available to Russian citizens now?
Oliver–
I know your interpretation about science related to the sun’s origins differs from the one advocated by the NAS. That doesn’t mean the NAS is “purposefully misrepresenting findings on the Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”.
I have no idea if 1984 is now available to Russian citizens. I imagine it is but I could be mistaken.
One thing that has been overlooked in the discussion of “equality of opportunity” vs “equality of outcome” is that this doesn’t apply to government programs that are driven by ideology. Prime example is the Great Society. Regardless of the damage that it did, it’s adherents vehemently fought any changes because it “should” have worked. Same with the sub-prime debacle.
“I know at least one independent who would pull the lever for Obama rather than for Freddie Mac’s million-dollar lobbyist house historian. There must be quite a few: enough to make Gingrich unelectable, I suspect.”
I know one libertarian, who no longer plays along with the Civics 101 myth that voting is an all important civic duty, and will not be pulling the lever for any of these candidates. I personally think the system is broke and it certainly will not be fixed by any of these motley crew of politicians.
I know the candidates’ issues, I know where to go to vote and I make sure I am free that day to go vote and then I issue my non ballot to express my public opinion. I should perhaps notify the League of Woman’s Voters so they will not feel responsible for this non voter.
“But that was before the Gingrich surge. Now I am concerned that–especially if economic conditions do not improve–the republicans first, and then the nation at large, may be just perverse enough to elect Gingrich, just because he is such an entertaining, flamboyant, larger-than-life figure…”
Let me understand what you are saying here,julio:
Gingrich effectively used the 1% case against Romney and Obama will no doubt apply the same tactics.
Gingrich might get elected because of a poor economy which is the reason Obama got elected.
Gingrich might win because of his personality over substance and many would argue that that is how Obama was elected.
Neither my wife nor I can stand Newt and have not for years. It makes no difference to me since I will not be voting – or cheering from the sidelines. My wife is a life long Republican and I know she would never vote for Obama.
Kenneth– I vote but I’ll happily leave some races blank or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #89006)
The way you put it, it sounds like it would just be fair if Gingrich got elected–or, at least, no less fair than Obama getting elected. In some grand, poetical justice sense that may be true, but in practice I share all the concerns of these (conservative) columnists:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrichs-troublesome-lack-of-prudence/2012/01/23/gIQAslX6LQ_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-time-to-rally-himself-against-gingrich/2012/01/23/gIQAy4FULQ_story.html
I also feel a little bad for Romney, frankly. I think he deserved better. It has to be a little depressing to see everybody in your own party scrambling to find a candidate, *any* candidate, other than you.
Somebody recently described Gingrich as “a bull who carries around his own china shop”, apparently a Churchill witticism. I find it conjures up a really funny image.
Obama (IMO; YMMV) sounds like an ideologue, but has governed mostly like a pragmatist, and with a Republican congress would have to steer a pretty centrist course (if he can steer at all, that is). This may sound crazy, but I think it might be our best shot at some sort of entitlement reform; like Clinton’s welfare reform, it may be one of those things that only a Democratic president and a Republican congress can pull off.
Julio,
My thoughts re:Obama exactly. If you really want conservative moves, you need a democrat although he may not do it and he comes with a lot of off-the-wall liberals, (who will want to do things the middle would hat), but…
He can afford to do things his base won’t like because where else will they go in the next election. He may also do things which will appeal to a different part of the independent population which might have wanted a Repub, more but couldn’t appreciate the Repub candidates for one reason or another.
Remember that Nixon did a lot of things which liberals might have wanted but conservatives would have never let them do: China, EPA, 55 mph national speed limit and advocacy for a health care system not wildly different from what Obama has sort of done.
there may be an error of fact in the above, but i think the gist of it is accurate.
We don’t do coalitions over here, but the winning national candidate must necessarily appeal to a significant part of the middle. Romney and Obama can fight over where the cut in the middle occurs, but Gingrich would find himself with very very few of them.
lucia (Comment #89008)
The problem with 3rd party candidates is that you are increasing the chances that the major candidate that is closest to your position will lose. Happened with Gore and Nader, happened with Bush Sr. and Perot. To my mind that creates a worse situation than your intent. Until they come up with runoffs or candidate ranking elections it doesn’t work. Of course if you hate both candidates and don’t care who wins then sure vote 3rd party. As far as not voting I do a figurative face palm when I hear “get out the vote”. If you don’t know what your doing Don’t Vote. You’re just as likely to make things worse.
I am going to have an extra glass of wine… then listen to Mr. Obama’s speech tonight. I hope the extra wine will help me from shouting at the television screen. Good grief, I have not liked a president since Reagan! (OK, I liked Reagan only most of the time.)
.
WRT third party candidates: In the USA they are poison to your own objectives. The system is not set up to reward votes for a third party candidate, indeed, exactly the opposite.
.
Lucia,
I understand your revulsion with Mr. Gingrich. He is a nut-cake-loose-cannon in search of a china shop to destroy (to mix metaphors from some of the above comments). What I wish was that I could know the results of House and Senate races before voting for president, that way I could safely choose the presidential candidate with the lowest potential for real harm to the country. How sad a commentary on USA politics.
“Obama (IMO; YMMV) sounds like an ideologue, but has governed mostly like a pragmatist, and with a Republican congress would have to steer a pretty centrist course (if he can steer at all, that is).”
Most candidates at some point sound like ideologues but they rule as pragmatists – and I use that term pragmatist in the worse political sense.
I think most informed and interested voters truly believe, or at least want to believe, that the system is not broken and all it needs is a bit of tweaking from the “right” candidate. And thus we endure debates about things at the margins and personalities become important. And the things about the system that need fixing never do get fixed.
The fix will take an intellectual approach that is different than that of the current intelligentsia. Part of the problem is the two party system we operate under where politicians get a pass from a partisan voting public and the philosophical basis of politics are ignored and substituted with “pragmatic” approaches. I suspect we will never fix the current problems without a multiple party approach, but the two major parties will fight that tooth and nail.
Finally when people have to be cajoled to represent the voters and not instead make like a run-away train at a Black Friday sale, as they do today, in attempts to get elected, we will know we are on the right track.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Jan 24 16:40),
You seriously think a multi-party proportional representation form of government will fix things? Based on what evidence? There is certainly none from any developed country on this planet. A two party system may not be ideal, but I see no evidence at all that a multi-party system is better. In fact just the opposite.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s the young Kim, but I can imagine he would look exactly the same.
.
I’m not an American, so who am I to judge, but IMHO Gingrich is an unguided missile from what I can see overhere (Euroland), with an army of skeletons in the closet. Mitten “Slick” Romney has no voters appeal, Bachmann and Perry are/were exotics and Ron Paul is the only Rep candidate who makes sense, somehow, anyways I would give him my vote if I was an American republican.
.
For the time being, again from what I can judge across the pond, very little has been done by Obama to curb Wall Street. Personally I never listen to candidate´s speeches as actions speak louder than words.
.
Looking back the only POTUS I admire is Eisenhower, JFK 2nd (mainly how he handled the Cuban Crisis) and FDR 3rd.
.
Reagan has, besides starting talking to Gorbatschov, done much good which has stuck in memory, reaganomics were a disaster.
.
But who am I to judge, ich bin ein “Abendländer”… 😉
DeWitt Payne:
A multi-party system could encourage more philosophical debates instead of the partisan cheerleading that I see here in the US that passes for critical political debate. I would be surprised if you do not see how the partisan two party system is used to keep voters in line. We have people who see a distinction where none exists merely because an action is backed or not backed by the party of their choice. We have Democrat wars and Republican wars and never do we truly discuss what is gained, or better what is lost, from the military actions. We have people who see the world ending as they know it because Obama is President and we saw the same for George Bush on the other side of the political divide. And in reality what do we have? We have essentially the same policies in action – although perhaps preceded with different rhetoric.
The two party system works like fandom works in a city like Chicago with Cubs and White Sox fans where people take sides and the debates are more emotional than intellectual. I am not saying that a multi-party system is the fix, in and of itself, but I damn well know that the two party system has many flaws. Maybe a no party system would be even better.
And finally I could care less what the rest of the world does with a one, two or multiple party system because I do not see the rest of the world having answers for what is required to fix their political systems – although some, I think, have anesthetized their thinking to accept whatever their governments deal them.
“Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider’s analogy between elections and markets, America’s faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? … This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.”
—Lisa Jane Disch, 2002
Re: SteveF (Comment #89014)
Unfortunately (?) I stopped listening to State of The Union speeches at some point during the previous administration (it may have been 2004), and never felt the strength to tune in again. I’ll read the highlights tomorrow; I find it’s a lot less frustrating that way. (Although I admit that wine might help, too. :-))
Re: j ferguson (Comment #89011)
Or look at Reagan and disarmament (since Steve mentioned him). That was impressive.
9:40 PM,
OK, even the wine wouldn’t do it; too many blatantly false statements….. I quit watching.
We were at dinner with Rosemary at the Devonshire. She’s moved in. Jim is spending the night there. I’ll be spending much of tomorrow with her while Jim runs around organizing paperwork and his brothers pick up Jim Sr from the hospital.
I guess I’ll read the highlights of the state of the union address on tv!
Lucia,
Let me give you the quick synopsis:
.
“Soliders are really brave, yada, yada, yada, I killed Bin Landen, so I am reaaly brave, yada, yada, yada, time to double taxes on the rich, yada, yada, yada, you have to re-elect me to make sure we double taxes on the rich, yada, yada, yada, and if we all agree to take the money from the rich, then everything will be OK, yada… yada… yada…… No, I will not address climate change or the Keystone pipeline. Lastly, we can all be really brave, just like soldiers, if we just agree to gouge the rich…. and sing Kumbaya together afterward. Controversial subjects? Are you nuts? I’m trying to get re-elected!
Hoi Polloi (Comment #89019)
Sorry, but Reagan took over with stagflation and high unemployment and turned the economy around after the disaster of Carter. Revenues rose under his administration. Unfortunately, congress reneged on the deal they made and never cut spending which increased faster than revenues. Frankly, while I admire him greatly, I don’t think he fully recovered after the shooting.
BarryW,
Hoi Polloi is, sadly, demonstrating how effective ‘progressives’ are in rewriting history.
He does however peg our current President’s striking similarity to other world figures.
I wonder if that was the longest SoU speech ever?
Who else has been famous for extremely long speeches?
I used to watch State of the Union speeches and found that talking (actually yelling) at the TV is not a very sane appearing thing to do. I took to reading the speeches after the fact, and without yelling, found that speeches are invariably contrived and feeble attempts at marketing a strategy (I would never use the term ideas here). Lately I have taken to viewing a few clips and snippets of the speeches and that is sufficient for my purposes.
What I do find humorous is the people (and I do not intend to offend any people here) who by way of their views taken from Civics 101 feel obligated to consider these speeches informative. I think the MSM plays a role in this portrayal also.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #89041)
And there is no requirement in the Constitution for a speech, only that the president inform Congress of the state of the union from time to time. It’s just become a piece of political grandstanding.