The Republican Party isn't the Democratic Party's conservative opposition. Had it been, government spending at all levels wouldn't now equal almost 40% of the nation's gross domestic product (versus under 10% a century ago), over 40% of the citizenry wouldn't now be receiving some type of government assistance (versus virtually none a century ago), Federal regulations alone wouldn't now comprise more than 200 volumes occupying about 20 feet of shelf space (versus none a century ago), and the Federal debt alone wouldn't now equal almost 110% of the nation's gross domestic product (versus close to none a century ago).
And if you
pick up any newspaper anywhere in the world, you get nothing but the elitist
official viewpoint. This morning, the local paper here in Panama quoted the
'President' of the US complaining that GOP obstructionism may lead to a greater
disparity between rich and poor. There was not a word about how the debt his
administration created is undermining the financial soundness of our country.
That kind of 'journalism' is downright criminal! The upshot could be that after
the inevitable worldwide crash, compliments of our wastrel in chief, the
earth's population would blame the effects of this obscene debt on the
conservatives. That means it never gets fixed because, as a result, the world
would drift farther away from fiscally sound policies and continue to seek the
remedy in more and more lethal Keynesianism. It is analogous to blood letting,
which existed throughout the world for an astounding 2500 years before finally
someone applied the scientific method and realized that the practice was killing
people.
Of course, the
gap between what they are taught and the outright lies of the press could
eventually be so evident as to overcome the cognitive dissonance.
But there is
no telling, is there? You'd think by now they'd have caught on. But the beat
goes on. The Left spends and borrows recklessly, in amounts that no nation
in the world could ever pay off, and fiscal conservatives get the blame.
Will Keynesianism live on like blood letting, despite its disastrous
results?
At this rate,
Russia and the nations within its sphere of influence -- no one gets a free ride
in Russia, where debt is manageable (8.4% of GDP vs our 101% ) -- could
eventually be the only country left with a sound economy. What irony! And yet,
despite Putin's warnings to the West, many 'conservatives' insist that Putin is
nothing more than an evil commie out to get us. As if we were not out to get
ourselves, racing headlong to our demise and enslavement!
I wonder it
there is anyone reading this who really thinks that our economy can survive a
debt to GDP ratio of over 100%, or that Russia's manageable debt somehow
represents a communist policy. If so, kindly let me know your theory, and tell
us how we will pull out of this. And how it is all his fault that we spend
ourselves to death.
Don
Hank
September
16, 2013
Michael
L. Grable
A video (Preview) (from
the Daily Caller) reveals the Republican Party's real angst about
the Tea Party.
David
Brooks (the Gray Lady's idea of a housebroken conservative) laments, to PBS's
Judy Woodruff that Republican legislators like Ted Cruz aren't "normal
members. . . going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances and . . .
pass a lot of legislation" while interesting themselves
in "the perks . . . the leadership has to offer." Indeed, Brooks asserts,
"They're not [real] legislators" at all -- just obstructionists "who want to
stop things."
All
of which conversely implies Brooks believes real legislators are ones who go to
Congress only because they can pass lots of legislation, create coalitions, make
alliances, interest themselves in the perks the leadership has to offer, avoid
obstructionism, and fail to stop anything.
"The
Tea Party types," says Brooks, are "running against the Republican
establishment[,] . . . having a very obstructive role, and making John Boehner's
life even more difficult." Indeed, Brooks moans, they have no real policy goals
at all and "Their [only] object is to take over the Republican
Party."
Let's
devoutly hope Brooks knows whereof he speaks. One could hardly ask for a better
divination of what the Tea Party's real aspiration should be than Brooks'
denunciation of Ted Cruz and what Mark Shields (Brooks' Democratic "sparring
partner" in the video) disparages as "these people . . . the Tea Party people .
. . the ruin or rule people -- mostly ruin because they're not really interested
in ruling . . . " Let's hope so because the present establishment duopoly which
is, in fact, very much interested in ruinously ruling constitutes, in reality,
little more than a one-party state in which either party, if the other didn't
exist, would have to invent it in order merely to preserve the illusion of a
two-party state subject to substantive political opposition.
In
political reality, there has in living memory been no conservative political
party in the United States. There is none now; and, absent reforming the
Republican Party or creating a third party, there will be none in the future.
The
Republican Party isn't the Democratic Party's conservative opposition. Had it
been, government spending at all levels wouldn't now equal almost 40% of the
nation's gross domestic product (versus under 10% a century ago), over 40% of
the citizenry wouldn't now be receiving some type of government assistance
(versus virtually none a century ago), Federal regulations alone wouldn't now
comprise more than 200 volumes occupying about 20 feet of shelf space (versus
none a century ago), and the Federal debt alone wouldn't now equal almost 110%
of the nation's gross domestic product (versus close to none a century
ago).
Creating
coalitions, making alliances, passing lots of legislation, and enjoying the
leadership's perks (i.e., for Brooks the ideal behavior of normal Congressmen)
have, in other
words, been the rule which has already ruined the Republic and will soon enough
complete its destruction unless the "Tea Party types" whom both Brooks and
Shields so scorn can manage in time to create a substantive political opposition
which, in fact, returns the Republic to something like at least a genuine
two-party state. It's not only time
to, in Brooks' words, "stop things." Indeed, it's time to reverse things. And
who -- other than Brooks, Shields, and their ilk --would believe legislation
reversing the unconstitutional governance which has created a collectivist state
is neither legislation per se nor the prerogative of normal congressmen in a
representative Republic?
Does
"the rise of Ted Cruz-ism" (Brooks' phrase for "the Tea Party types") really
mean "to take over the Republican Party" as Brooks bemoans? We'd better hope so
if we aspire ever again to become anything like free men with free markets in a
representative Republic constitutionally governed.
No comments:
Post a Comment