Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Florestan]

It was a full-force war where each country delivered its maximum damage - case closed.  Was any of it based on revenge?  If so, I'm okay with that.  Are you some kind of pacifist?

No I'm not. Sometimes war is unavoidable. But I don't like it when war crimes are assigned only to those who lost a war while victors find all kind of rationalization for theirs. History is written by the victors, true, but morality has no flag. I find killing innocent civilians en masse in revenge for the ennemy doing exactly the same thing morally repugnant.

[Florestan]

Florestan, if you are saying that democracies (or so-called democracies) can perpetrate terrible acts, I'll agree with that.

Thanks.

If you say that an atrocity carried out under the imprimature of an elected government casts a deeper moral stain upon the populace than an action ultimately attributable to one person, I'll say it's a valid argument.

Thanks again.

However, if you say (as you seem to be implying) that we should therefore ditch current arrangements in favour of a monarchical or feudal situation, well, expect me knocking at your gate with torch and pitchfork.

I'm implying no such thing as "should". When the full cycle of the democratic age will come to an end the transition to other forms of government will come by itself, just as any other previous transition in history.   

[eyeresist]

I'm implying no such thing as "should". When the full cycle of the democratic age will come to an end the transition to other forms of government will come by itself, just as any other previous transition in history.   

And then it will be "All hail King Florestan" (I'm guessing you don't imagine yourself at the bottom of the social heap in this new world order).

[Karl Henning]

(I'm guessing you don't imagine yourself at the bottom of the social heap in this new world order).

I'm interested in your reasons for disallowing the virtue of humility in Florestan's case.

[eyeresist]

I'm interested in your reasons for disallowing the virtue of humility in Florestan's case.

You mean, all this democratic prosperity is denying him the chance of truly Christ-like abnegation? C'mon, you know what monarchies are like - you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Large Man: Who's that then?
Dead Collector: I dunno. Must be a king.
Large Man: Why?
Dead Collector: He hasn't got shit all over him.


Sorry, it's late at night over here, and I'm turning into snyprrrrrrrrrr

[Karl Henning]

... Sorry, it's late at night over here, and I'm turning into snyprrrrrrrrrr

The horror....

[Brian]

So anyway... the election?

[Florestan]

And then it will be "All hail King Florestan" (I'm guessing you don't imagine yourself at the bottom of the social heap in this new world order).

It might come as a surprise for you but my background is lower middle-class (I'm what Lenin would have called a sentimental petty bourgeois). I am a liberal (in the European, not US sense of the word) and a demophile but not a democrat. A careful and unbiased study of European history have led me to the conclusion that e decentralized monarchy with a parliament whose power of legislating is strictly circumscribed is the most liberal regime of them all. And apropos democratic prosperity: FYI the most prosperous, happy and tranquil times of Romania were when it was a kingdom and the suffrage was censitary. With the advent of the universal vote here came in demagoguery, political strife, extremely violent far-right and far-left parties and a period of turmoil that ended up in a military dictatorship which people welcomed only too gladly because it put an end to the instability. 

[eyeresist]

So anyway... the election?

"You don't vote for kings!"


Alright, alright. I'm off to bed. Enjoy whatever day it is over there today.


P.S. What is a "decentralized monarchy"? Is it possible to decentralise a single indivisible unit?


Okay, I'm really going now  0:)

[Todd]

With apologies for my previous post which was unnnecessarily ill-tempered, you seem to forgot one big difference

I forget nothing.  But it's interesting how serfdom and the antiquated political and economic system that was in place and caused wide-spread suffering is somehow acceptable.  It is not.  Again, I'm not sure a starving person takes much time to differentiate the motives of leaders; they are most likely scrounging for roots and rats to eat.  Let me switch the example, as it pertains to Russia.  The pogroms of the 19th Century were better than Stalin's post-war anti-Semitism how?  Or the tsarist conquest of Central Asia was better than the Bolshevik tightening of the grip in that region how?  Your view is narrowly Eurocentric, yet even then excludes the incessant warfare during the 500 year span you selected.  The Thirty Years' War is one of the most destructive in European history.  Tweren't no democracies back then.  The European imperialist expansion started under the auspices of Kings and Queens.  Religious wars raged on and off.  It could be a bit hard to worship one's chosen god if said chosen god wasn't the kingdom's or fiefdom's chosen god.  Free press and free speech were pretty thin on the ground, too.  But on the upside, there was no contentious political speech wantonly distributed in print or over the airwaves. 

And if you consider the wider world, one sees some rather unpleasant behavior by plenty of kings, emperors, caliphs, and other regents.

decentralized monarchy with a parliament whose power of legislating is strictly circumscribed is the most liberal regime of them all.

A decentralized monarchy is an oxymoron. 

What you describe strikes me as more of a constitutional monarchy, a form of government that has already been tried.  It failed.  How do I know?  It is gone.  (Okay, okay, some European governments keep the regent for show, and some other countries keep them for real, but are those the countries anyone wants to emulate?)  That's not to say it won't return in various parts of the world from where it has been removed, but it won't work.  It's also essential to consider not only internal rule, but also the impact of such systems in the international order.  There have been two protracted periods of European peace in the modern world, both since the emergence of, and steady growth of, democracy.  Reverting to an earlier, failed form of government, especially in Europe, doesn't bode well for peace.

I'm also not sure that democracy will fade in the inevitable manner you state.  Perhaps this view is the result of differing experience, but in the US, raucous debate, demagoguery, and so on is all part of the game.  Since the US has never succumbed to a true far right or far left government, despite what extreme partisans claim, this certainly leads to a different world view.  I look to other forms of government and see a very dismal record.  Now, if Europe can get its collective act together and solve the Euro and related economic problems effectively (it's no longer a crisis; it's more of a chronic problem), it will come at the price of greater integration across the continent.  Not quite a United States of Europe, but something more tightly bound, with less room for national policies.  In some ways, this meets your preferred ideal.  The European Constitution is one heck of a lengthy document with all sorts of restrictions, and the remoteness of the policy makers can give them a regentesque aura.  But it would still be democratic.  That would be good.  Undemocratic Europe is one of the most frightful things in history.

[Todd]

So anyway... the election?

Well, even with Ryan now in, it's just predictable right now.  Romney/Ryan is too extreme, will dismantle everything, etc.  Obama/Biden will not and cannot solve the dismal economic problems, etc.  Romney then whines - it's not fair.  Obama then says something scripted.

Sure, Biden's blurb about putting the chains back on could have been big - had it been said by someone other than Biden.  (I'm reminded of The Onion's joke about Biden's very public struggle against Asperger Syndrome.)

[Karl Henning]

I forget nothing.

You're a rare fellow. (And how do you bear non-forgettage?)

[Todd]

(And how do you bear non-forgettage?)

Whiskey.  Lots of whiskey.

[Ataraxia]

Whiskey.  Lots of whiskey.

Good thing you're not immortal.

Are you?

[Todd]

Are you?

Wouldn't you like to know?

[Brian]

Well, even with Ryan now in, it's just predictable right now.  Romney/Ryan is too extreme, will dismantle everything, etc.  Obama/Biden will not and cannot solve the dismal economic problems, etc.  Romney then whines - it's not fair.  Obama then says something scripted.

I think it's interesting that, now that Camp Romney realized they need to use the Rove tactic of "attack the enemy's greatest strength," they've chosen to paint Obama as a big mean bully. He's been pretty frequently described as cold, I'm not sure I've heard anyone argue that he's a horrible person before.

[Todd]

He's been pretty frequently described as cold, I'm not sure I've heard anyone argue that he's a horrible person before.

Yeah, he's cold, but he's also ruthless.  He can play dirty with the best of them.  Does that make him a horrible person?  Maybe, maybe not.  Who cares?  It's the economy stupid/are you better off than you were four years ago?  That should be the focus.

[Karl Henning]

It's the economy stupid/are you better off than you were four years ago?  That should be the focus.

Perhaps it should. Romney & Ryan are bringing the focus onto Can you trust these two to improve your lot over the next four years? If I made as much as Romney, of course my answer would be a resounding "yes!"

[Leon]

Perhaps it should. Romney & Ryan are bringing the focus onto Can you trust these two to improve your lot over the next four years? If I made as much as Romney, of course my answer would be a resounding "yes!"

Obama is a millionaire, too.

[Todd]

Can you trust these two to improve your lot over the next four years?

Personally, I trust neither Obama nor Romney to do that.    But my circumstances don't matter.

I would think Romney's campaign should focus on the continuing weak employment and GDP growth numbers.  Yes, I know the main political arguments (those mean Republicans are blocking him, etc), but weak numbers are weak numbers.  Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results, as any good mutual fund prospectus will say, but it's concrete and can be used for good sound bites, charts, graphs, etc.  If we didn't live in crazy world, Romney could also run on health care, and say: See, I did it first, it's successful, here's where ACA flounders, here's how to fix that, etc.  When Romney can spend his general election funds, things may get more interesting. 

In the meantime, there's always the Obama repeals work requirements for welfare and Romney kills steel workers' wives commercials.

Obama is a millionaire, too.

But he's only worth a few million, give or take.  Everyone knows that one's soullessness and corruption increases with each additional digit added to one's net worth.*


*  (Warren Buffett, bless his beneficent soul, is the righteous exception.  He wants to pay more.  We need to tax people like him more.  Never mind that he can write a check to the Treasury whenever he wants.  Never mind that the Buffett rule, if implemented, will make only a minor dent in long term revenue figures, and certainly never mind that he came out with that position when the Obama administration was making its decision on the Keystone pipeline.  No pipeline means railroads will rake in the dough.  Yes, Buffett is one of the largest railroad owners in the US, but he didn't take a political position to boost his and his company's fortune.)