Yet, They Keep Voting In The Same Incompetent Losers
Peggy Noonan writes in the WSJ that people have figured out that we're "governed by callous children":
The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can't figure a way out. Have you heard, "If only we follow Obama and the Democrats, it will all get better"? Or, "If only we follow the Republicans, they'll make it all work again"? I bet you haven't, or not much.This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems--debt, spending, war--seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths--spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone--well, not those in government, but most everyone else--seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.
Noonan talked to an insurance industry friend of hers about new proposed regulations on the industry:
Rep. Barney Frank had just said on some cable show that the Democrats of the White House and Congress "are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area." The executive said of Washington: "They don't understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who've said to me 'I'm done.'" He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, "They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."
(Here's an example, not from Noonan's piece, but from the LA Times comparing how it works in low-tax Texas versus high-tax California.)
She writes about America's current ruling class:
Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry. They talk about their "concerns"--they're big on that word. But they're not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's lap.
They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases--"strongest nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest standard of living"--and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.
We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists--they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.
"The people hate the lizards, and the lizards rule the people."
Gee, I miss Douglas Adams.
And as long as the public exhibits no backbone, no consistency of reason, we will continue to seperate from the path of reason and logic in government.
You cannot expect leaders to succeed when they are ordered by the public to fail. CA is a fine example of that, even to the point of showing us where liberty is lost first.
Radwaste at November 3, 2009 2:00 AM
Regardless, if you have an election in your community today, do make sure you go vote. We're electing a governor, lieutenant governer, attorney general, and delegate in the Old Dominion today. Beautiful day at the polls this morning, too -- sunny, just a little chill in the air, and golden autumn trees.
old rpm daddy at November 3, 2009 6:27 AM
Rad, I try not to fall into that "the American public is stupid" trap. Uninformed, maybe, but not stupid. I think Noonan's point about "having never seen things go dark" applies to almost everyone alive today, and certainly to everyone born after about 1975 (people born that year would not have been old enough to remember the worst of the Carter years).
Last summer, at the peak of the health-care town hall activity, I was commiserating with a friend about Obama's election and how so many could have voted for him in the belief that he would govern as a moderate. The explanation that I came up with is: "Perhaps it's necessary for each generation to experience a bit of socialism, so they can see for themselves why it's a bad idea." Now they are seeing first hand what socialism will do, and they are not only experiencing buyer's remorse, but they are thinking hard about how to trade this model back in despite the no-returns policy. I actually commend the bulk of the American public for having realized what socialized medicine will do, without the bill actually being passed. And, as I pointed out on the related thread yesterday, a lot of people are suddenly realizing that maybe the system we have right now isn't so bad after all. (Not that it couldn't stand some improvement, but...)
Noonan's final point applies, to an extent, to the American public too, and this is another example of the uninformed problem. Over the scope of human history, the life that we in the Western world lead in the early 21st century is very, very much an outlier. We are more fortunate than almost any other group of human beings that have ever existed. It doesn't do to lose track of that.
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2009 6:57 AM
Two words: Term Limits.
Those of you who would tell me that we have term limits and it is called VOTING. I say hog wash. I can vote the senator from my state out of office, but I cannot vote the senator from your state out of office. And if your from West Virginia, for example, you can keep sending the same man back to the senate every year since 1956.
Term limits would effect liberals and conservatives equally and would insure a continual source of fresh ideas.
Nick at November 3, 2009 8:00 AM
If not term limits, then at least make it required that you list on the ballot, to the right of the name, who the incumbent is. That would probably be as effective.
I agree real term limits would help. I say no more than two consecutive terms in office. And you can not run for a senate/house seat if you currently occupy an s/h seat. Resigning to run is not allowed.
Jim P. at November 3, 2009 8:43 AM
Term limits aren't the answer. We have them in California and are now governed by a clown college of amateur legistlators.
The other issue with term limits is that they're for "the other party's guy." If you're a Republican, you want Orrin Hatch or Kay Bailey Hutchison to stay in office, but you want Robert Byrd or John Kerry to be term limited out. Vice versa if you're a Democrat.
Consecutive term limits might be the answer to the term limits problems. For example, a Congressman or Senator could be elected to no more than two consecutive terms before having to sit out for a term.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 9:10 AM
They're not unimaginative. They're uninformed.
Their history classes have become PC indoctrination sessions after which students struggle to understand why Sacagawea didn't ditch those two losers, Lewis and Clark, and head off to Oregon without them.
Any history class study of the Great Depression is concentrated on celebrating FDR's New Deal while ignoring the causes and effects of a global economic meltdown.
And there is no history class that covers anything after World War II - with the possible exception of a eulogy for JFK and a diatribe against Joe McCarthy or Richard Nixon.
When students get to college, they cannot recognize the bias of a professor (right or left) because this is the first they're hearing of these topics.
A few years ago, "The Simpsons" had a parody in which the students are being released for the summer and the history teacher exclaims, "but we never got to World War II." The students look expectantly at her. She smiles and yells, "we won." The students cheer and run off for summer vacation. That pretty well sums up the state of history education in the US today.
A better educated public would recognize that we've been through (and survived) worse economic times than these; that "change" is no better a foundation of government than some tart in a lake handing you a sword; and that although Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all show bias in their delivery of news, they're neutral compared to William Randolph Hearst.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 9:37 AM
I'll quarrel with the 1950-2008 dates. How many of your friends died in Vietnam?
Peggy Noonan never had a draft card, so she can be forgiven. For some of us, Woodstock was not what was happening.
MarkD at November 3, 2009 9:40 AM
Yeah, but I notice that after her waa-waa Peggy Noonan did not deliver us any hard policy choices. She just wails our two parties are not good enough, and our national, state and locak governments are not good enough.
Okay, what decisions need to made?
1. Get out of Iraqistan now.
2. Tax consumption, not production.
3. Radically cut back rural subsidies and military outlays. You hate the federal government? Those are the biggest parts of the federal government. BTW HUD, Dep't of Ag, Commerce and Labor have all outlived their usefulness.
4. Put everybody in Kaiser Permanante-style coverage, in which they give up the right to sue (binding arbitration only) and know that the plug will get pulled if they get old and terminally ill. No more waa-waa that a doctor didn't treat you like a princess. Health care should not be the central focus of your life.
5. Limit overall government revenues to 25 percent of GDP. We gotta do good, but within these limits. Get the money from government from those who spend the most. Never tax productive behavior, only consumption. Very very high taxes on perfume, which all men hate anyway. Why do woman wear perfume? If you are fat, lose weight, but lose the perfume first.
6. Raise taxes sharply on people who get $500k a month in alimony, have 14 homes but waa-waa anyway.
7. Raise taxes sharply on all celebrities-athletes who make more than $1 million a year. The 90 percent top tax rate, applied through the 1960s in the USA, could be revived for this class of people.
Okay--I have concrete suggestions. Noonan?
Noonan just gives us a waa-waa. That was a weak turd of a column by Noonan, not worth blogging about.
BOTU at November 3, 2009 10:29 AM
Noonan is completely unreliable. This week things are daaaark! I don't have to cast back too far to recall that she was at the forefront of the lightworker-Obama-saves-the-day crowd. Of course she was worried that all the southern racists would foil the poor man.
Robin at November 3, 2009 10:43 AM
I tried to go vote today, since I really don't want Texas taxing property according to the highest and best use. But they told me I was still registered in my old county. Despite the fact that when I ordered my new liscense, several months ago, I checked the "register to vote" button. Grrrrr.
Now I have to decide if it's worth driving nearly an hour with 4 little kids in tow.
momof4 at November 3, 2009 10:50 AM
Thank you for linking to Noonan's article, Amy. It was absolutely brilliant! And I think touches upon an undercurrent of feeling not just in your country but around the world the world these days.
Here in my province of BC the supposed right-of-centre government has plans to add an 8% tax to many products & services next year ... while we're clearly in the middle of a recession! Rather than raising taxes, how about cutting spending ... dramatically?!? But that never seems to be possible for these people.
I think there's a huge divide about "Perception of Reality" between those in the Public Sector and those of us in the Private Sector.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 3, 2009 11:18 AM
I voted. There were only democrats and republicans on the ballot.
When I get to Switzerland I'll have a myriad of fun choices. I'll have to get more involved in Swiss politics.
NicoleK at November 3, 2009 1:40 PM
Conan - good points about the sad state of history education in America. But what to do about it? The damage I fear is total and we've already begun the final slide to Soviet Socialism under Obama. The long goodnight awaits this country...
Crusader at November 3, 2009 2:47 PM
BOTU - Obama will increase the govt share of GDP to 30%, then 35%, then 40%, then 50%. It will never stop since the GOAL is 100%.
Crusader at November 3, 2009 2:53 PM
Crusader-
Possibly--but you might have the wrong party up in the noose.
You should check out Jonathan Goldberg's column in today's LA Times. Government spending went gangbusters--in the Bush Administration. In a generally healthy economy.
Goldberg says the R-Party needs to get in touch with its roots.
The problem is, it can't. It is completely corrupted. In the roots.
As I stated, rural subsidies and military spending are huge rivers of red ink for taxpayers--and ardently supported by the R-Party.
Did you know our founding fathers considered banning a permanent military in the US Constitution? That the Second Amendment--that strange language about forming militias--was intended as a compromise, that affirmed that ordinary citizens had a right to form militias at any time for any length of time, but not the federal government, unless Congress said so, and funded only annually (never any long-term funding?
Hmm, long-term funding for a military is specifically banned in the Constitution? What does that tell you about how Founding Fathers felt about the military. And these guys had just been invaded.
George Mason argued for an outright ban, and Thomas Jefferson later rued that a ban was not in the Constitution. They detested foreign entanglements as well.
But no serious R-Party candidate (well, Ron Paul maybe) can run on a platform of wiping out rural subsidies and whacking military outlays, and getting the hell out of Iraqistan.
Three steps that could cut federal spending by $500 billion pronto. Annually. $5 trillion in in 10 years!
Vote for Ron Paul, but likely we will get Sarah Palin--who just loved the Bridge to Nowhere. (Like her thought processes)Rural "infrastruture."
I predict the R-Party goes with Sarah Palin for president in 2012, and for vice preident--Terri Schiavo.
BOTU at November 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Unfortunately, education in economics, science, and English are also in a sad state.
The modern concept in education that "kids should know how to look things up rather than memorize" doesn't hold up when they have no framework for the things they read or hear. Memorized facts give one a foundation on which to build using the things one reads or learns later.
When you have no knowledge foundation and someone comes along telling you things have never been worse and promising change, you'll vote for him because you've got no internal reference to tell you he's wrong (or even to tell you where to begin looking for counter-arguments).
We had an example of this lack of a knowledge foundation on this blog a few weeks back when someone posted that no president had ever inherited a worse situation than Obama. The poster didn't seem to know that Johnson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all inherited major issues from their predecessors.
What's scary is that Obama doesn't seem to have that internal knowledge foundation, either.
--------------------
Jay Leno did a "Jay Walking" segment once at the graduation ceremony of one of the smaller UCs (not UCLA or UCB), asking students and graduates some basic history questions. Even though he probably censored out the ones with the correct answers (no comedic benefit), the sheer volume of ridiculously wrong answers was disturbing. And this was after 4-5 years of college.
I got stopped in San Francisco once on July 4 for a radio station remote segment, a quiz about American history. The questioner was startled when I knew the answers to every one of her questions. She said no one else she had asked could answer all the questions. And they were pretty basic questions (e.g., Why do we celebrate July 4th? or Who was the first president?).
It's getting scary how much effort we are expending to teach our children nothing.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 3:19 PM
And he's back!
Only until he became president and had to face reality.
Jefferson ordered the production of the first purpose-built warships in US history.
Jefferson also dispatched the US Navy and Marines on the first foreign entanglement in US history - against the North African sultanates that were engaged in anti-US piracy on the open seas (kidnapping US sailors and selling them into slavery).
Jefferson also established the permanently-funded US Navy and the permanently-funded US Military Academy at West Point.
Sounds like his idealism took a back seat when Jefferson was confronted with the harsh reality of keeping his country safe in a hostile world.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 3:29 PM
Conan - I wonder if we've reached the tipping point where the ignoramuses will decide everything from now on. Have you seen "Idiocracy"?
Crusader at November 3, 2009 3:51 PM
Devolution? Are we not men?
I saw Idiocracy and thought the first 15-20 minutes were way too funny and unfortunately true. The rest of it was okay (good concept, flawed execution).
UFC and professional wrestling are the most popular sports among young people today. While that's not a sign the apocalypse is imminent, it's not a positive reflection of the state of our collective intellect. Can "Ow, My Balls" be far behind?
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 4:03 PM
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207
"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
There is a difference betwen the permanently mobilized military industrial complex we have, and a small professional military leadership class, that can be expanded at time of war through volunteers.
Remember, we mobilized and then beat the Germans and the Japanese in less time than we have spent in Iraqistan with a permannelt mobilied military--and we ain;t out yet.
A permanent, standing military necessarily becomes fat, wasteful, ineffective, embedded with legacy costs, heavily politicized in its spending, and deeply corrupt.
A mercenary army doubles all those fualts, ands that is what we have.
George Mason, a strident anti-federalist, was the loudest voice for no permanent military, though he was joined by most Foundig Fathers.
BOTU at November 3, 2009 4:12 PM
Conan - OTOH were popular entertainments of the past any more intelligent:
http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/mass_entertainment/index.html
Crusader at November 3, 2009 4:15 PM
BOTU:
A permanent, standing military necessarily becomes fat, wasteful, ineffective, embedded with legacy costs, heavily politicized in its spending, and deeply corrupt.
I don't get the sense of that with the American military. Also you can't justify how in our current world we can get by without a permanently standing military, especially an air force and navy. You are living in fantasy land.
Crusader at November 3, 2009 4:18 PM
And, as I responded this very same assertion of yours in a previous thread, thousands of drafted US citizens died unnecessarily in the early days of World War II because of a lack of modern equipment, a lack of proper maintenance of existing military stores, a lack of adequate training, and poorly prepared leaders.
So, since you'll be the first to sign on to dismantle the military, you'll also be the first in the event of war to charge the enemy with outdated equipment, unprepared leaders, and poorly trained comrades...right?
It takes two years to train a combat infantryman in today's military. The complexity of the equipment, tactics, and knowledge required to stay alive on a modern battlefield preclude using hastily mobilized volunteers.
In Jefferson's day, a group of embattled farmers by a rude bridge could stand up to a trained field army and fire the shot heard 'round the world. Today, they'd be lucky to even see the enemy.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2009 4:40 PM
I see that moron is spewing the same crap about a standing military. He lives in a fantasy world. I suppose we should get rid of all our nukes to? What a moron .... How well did that militia do in the revolution there butthead? Last time I checked, it was not until we had a standing army and help from the French, were we actually able to beat the British. And how did that nicely demobilized army do in Korea? Ya, almost got rolled off the peninsula by a 3rd world army. Get a grip moron, you are not as big a fucking genius as you make yourself out to believe.
ron at November 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Our mobilized force didn't prevail in Vietnam, struggled against a few punks in Iraq, and it is still a draw in Afghanistan.
Standing militaries inevitably (like any federal agency) becomes self-serving, parasitic, bloated, politicized (especially in spending) and embedded with legacy costs.
Check out spending on military pensions (remember you can retire in 20 years) and at the VA. Embedded costs.
Military spending is designed by Congress. Enough said.
The Founding Fathers said we need a military only when threatened with attack.
There is no nation even with a military that has an invasive force left on the planet, except for us.
Who would invade the United States (except jobseekers from Mexico?).
We have a relic Cold War military with no foes to fight. We habe to hunt down little packs of punks in Afghanie with a $600 billion military?
24 Saudi Arabians, domestically domiciled, armed with box cutters on 9/11--no aircraft carriers could stop them.
BOTU at November 3, 2009 5:34 PM
If you want a clue about why politicians screw up, just consider that they are elected by the kind of people who "learned" about war and military service by sitting in the dark with a box of popcorn - and who don't bother to check their budget numbers.
That applies to a couple of the above posts.
Radwaste at November 3, 2009 6:41 PM
Our mobilized force didn't prevail in Vietnam, struggled against a few punks in Iraq, and it is still a draw in Afghanistan.
...In every case above, this had nothing to do with the competence of the mobilized force, and everything to do with the incompetence of the civilian politicians whose policies tied the hands of our professional soldiers.
As someone has said, the military's role should be to kill people and break things. If we are not prepared as a people to allow them to do that to achieve a complete victory, in as short a time and with as few American casualties as possible, and then get the hell out as quickly as possible, we should keep the troops home patrolling our borders instead.
cpabroker at November 3, 2009 7:51 PM
I can't stand to see Noonan quoted without reminding people of this from Salon:
[I]n a column critical of Enron and its culture of wealth, she informed her readers that she'd once done speechwriting for the failed Houston energy company. Like almost everyone else involved, however, Noonan had trouble coming right out and telling readers how much she pocketed. Instead, she wrote that "if memory serves," she earned between $25,000 and $50,000 for her work. But even those numbers were hard to come by -- readers had to calculate on their own the number of hours she worked (between "100 to 200 hours"), and multiply that by the rate she charged ($250) in order to get the final eye-popping invoice.
Noonan then admitted the speech she wrote for Enron wasn't very good and that only portions of it were even used. Yet going by her high-end estimate of 200 hours billed, Noonan spent five weeks straight, working 40-hour work weeks, to deliver contributions that, she conceded, "weren't helpful."
___________
So there's that.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 3, 2009 9:40 PM
zAs someone has said, the military's role should be to kill people and break things. If we are not prepared as a people to allow them to do that to achieve a complete victory, in as short a time and with as few American casualties as possible, and then get the hell out as quickly as possible, we should keep the troops home patrolling our borders instead.
Amen. Bring them home from Afghanistan and Iraq now please.
Whatever at November 3, 2009 9:55 PM
"Can "Ow, My Balls" be far behind?"
We've already got "Jackass".
Cousin Dave at November 4, 2009 6:49 AM
Leave a comment