Charles Moore on the prospects of Trump in Foreign Policy

 From the Daily Telegraph:

One of Mr Trump’s clearest messages, amplified by his choice of J D Vance, is that he does not want to help Ukraine defeat Vladimir Putin’s invasion. His strategic “realism”, advanced by policy advisers such as Elbridge Colby, looks at these issues through the “lens of pragmatism” and decides that America cannot deal with the Russia and China problems at the same time. Since the US and China are “the two heavyweight boxers”, that is where all the action should be, they say.

If this were just a military division-of-labour argument, it would make some sense. Mr Trump has always been right that America cannot help defend Europe if Europe will not defend itself. But he goes much further than this.

He seems not to accept that China and Russia see very clearly the link between grabbing Taiwan and grabbing Ukraine and wish to use it to break Western, especially American, power. His faith in the capacity of “one telephone call”, made by him, to calm it all down is astonishing. Despite his pugnacious character, his role model seems to be Neville Chamberlain, not Winston Churchill.

Trumpian neo-isolationism thinks as if the Second World War had never happened. Even then – an era of much slower communications and far fewer human and commercial links than today – the Western allies recognised that it was impossible to see the war in Europe and the war in the Far East as separate entities, except in operational terms. The threat was global: victory had to be global, too.

Mr Trump’s failure to acknowledge the globalisation of war threatens not only the Ukraine he proposes to neglect but also the Taiwan he says that he wants to help. He criticises that tiny island, up against opponents about 1.5 billion strong, for not doing enough for its own defence. He also recently complained, “They did take about 100 per cent of our chip business” (semi-conductors, not fried potatoes).

Compare this transactional carelessness with China’s long-term, implacable intent, and you can predict the likely winner.

I come back to the God stuff with which I began. As a believer myself, I welcome the signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Western young. It is an awakening against nihilism, and against Islamist fanaticism.

But – more in the United States than in Britain – it contains a strand so disgusted with the degeneracy of Western liberalism that it falls for a charlatan like Putin when he says that he is doing the Lord’s work against our godless decadence.

It was much to the credit of the Leave campaign in Britain that – except for a few Faragiste/Ukip outliers – it never fell into this pit that Putin had tried to dig for it. But the Trump team has. Its effects could disable the free world.   

and no, Biden hasn't been stellar either, but if the US thinks it is expensive keeping a global order it used to care about, intact, like it has since 1945, wait till it sees the new multipolar, multi-nuclear weapons (and other WMD) states world isolationism would bring to it.

Particularly when it is patently clear Russia is largely full of bluster and could easily be defeated if the will was there.

Brett Kavanaugh: Both sides have lost the plot

To paraphrase Rod Liddle on BBC Question Time on 27 September 2018:

"If you are against Trump then Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist, no trial needed.  If you are for Trump then Christine Blasey Ford is a liar who has been manipulated by the Democrats."

An issue that should be a matter for cool heads, considering evidence on its merits, both questioning those making allegations, but also not dismissing them outright as obvious lies, has been completely dominated by the toxic binary tribal polarity that has become the trend.

Yes, you have to wonder with Kavanaugh having had a high profile career for some years why these allegations have emerged when Trump nominates him for the Supreme Court?  If he had been a Hilary Clinton nominee, and so had different views, would he have been similarly challenged?

Likewise, being nominated for the Supreme Court is the highest profile judicial appointment in the US.   Some women who have been sexually abused do not report it straight away, or even over some years, due to shame, fear of disbelief and the obvious difficulties of presenting evidence to police or to a court, and being cross examined.  The nature of sexual abuse is that shame, self-blame and self-doubt all come into play.   The one useful element of the #metoo movement is that it did reduce the stigma of sexual abuse victims speaking out as they should (what went wrong with it the idea that anyone speaking out automatically means that anyone accused is guilty until proven innocent).

So Kavanaugh has become on the one hand, a challenge to the fundamental maxim of our civilisation that anyone accused is innocent until proven guilty.   However, some of those defending this are also challenging the notion that someone who raises an allegation of a sexual crime should be listened to and given emotional support in making a complaint.   It is not contradictory to both accept that victims of a sex crime (which almost always happens in private, so is a matter of she's says/he says or vice versa)  need to have channels to speak out, and should be listened to by the Police and complaints taken seriously as with any other crime, BUT also treat anyone accused of any crime as innocent until proven guilty.

Few say that women who claim to be victims of sex crimes should shut up or not report the offences.  It has been more a case that police have been reluctant to take on such cases, not least because of the difficulty and complexity of gathering evidence and proof, which is inherent in the very nature of those crimes.  However, it is important that complainants be treated with due respect.  The sooner a rape or sexual assault is reported, the more likely that action can be taken on it, and the more likely that evidence will be believed.  

However, there are plenty of challenges to the presumption of innocence.  In California a law has been passed requiring college campuses to have an "affirmative consent" provision in evaluating sexual conduct in alleged sexual abuse cases.  

Inside HigherEd reports that:

Specifically, the bill would require "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity." Getting consent is "the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity." The consent has to be "ongoing" throughout any encounter.

What this means is that in a sexual encounter, acquiescence wont be deemed to be consent, which depending on what presumption you place on such encounters, can mean two things.

If you assume that, in most cases, most people act with mutual respect and the interactions they have with people in such circumstances (who they consent to be with, and be close with) are based on that, it means that no one can just kiss, or reach out and touch another person intimately without it being effectively a crime.  Even if you are in a sexual relationship with someone,  it literally means actively consenting to every step in an encounter.  "May I kiss you? yes.  May I touch your thigh above your knee? Yes. " etc etc.  

BUT WAIT (the outrage builds)

What if you assume that in these circumstances there is a relationship of power (identity politics states it is a misogynist culture, dominated by men with rules by men for men,  or even a rape culture)?  Then yes you (men only really) SHOULD have explicit consent for touching a woman, for touching her genitals, for every step in the process, otherwise YOU are the problem, because you're basically a potential rapist.

Pardon me if I think that if someone believes they have been sexually assaulted, in any institution, their first recourse should be the police and the criminal justice system, not some sort of kangaroo justice system.  

However, that is another issue, and a serious one that not only libertarians, but most people across the political spectrum who believe in the fundamentals of common law and the criminal justice system should be concerned about.

Trump or Clinton or damn them all?

I've thought a good deal about the US election today.   It is difficult to think of two people who were both about the worst candidates either major party has put forward in recent history.  Oh yes there have been some lousy ones, but both lousy and so incredibly awful in their own ways? No.

So in some ways I'll treat the election as a reason to gloat about whoever is defeated, whilst ignoring the gloating of the victor.  

Hillary Clinton oozes entitlement, is a shape shifter on issues time and time again (remember when she was against gay marriage until it became popular?).  Her ambition for power should be a sure sign of someone who should be kept as far away from power as possible.  The vast fortune the Clintons have amassed from speeches and running their Foundation, travelling first class, staying at five star hotels "for the people who need our help", indicates the usual concern of powerful socialists for those in need.   If she is elected, she'll demonstrate not that she has broken the "glass ceiling", but that First Ladies have a chance at becoming President.  She is not an example to other women, except those women whose ambitions at the jobs their husbands have had.   It's clear her tolerance for Bill's extra-curriculur activities (which are frankly neither here nor there to me) resemble more the wife of Francis Underwood/Urquhart in House of Cards, for the trappings of power and money matter more than anything else.   Hillary has been pro more-trade (never "free trade", she's never want to let go of influence by removing controls) and anti-trade, she is a traditional populist.  However, little goes past what is obvious, that when she says she has been "fighting for families" all her life, the family she fights the most for is her own, and it has benefited royally from it.

The only bright side to Hillary is that she may partially reverse Obama's isolationism, which has seen Russia fill the gap left by Obama's (empty) moral posturing.  Few would have thought after the end of the Cold War that a government could use chemical weapons against its own population again, with impunity.  Yet it has and Obama's words that it would cross a "red line" were proven as vacuous as his "hope" and "change" electioneering slogans.

Trump has had so much said about him that I needn't say much.  He and Hillary both lie as frequently as they use cutlery.  His stance on trade is economic lunacy,  his spending promises are loose and careless.  His utterances about Mexico (and almost all foreign policy) are ludicrous and about the only thing good thing is his interest in cutting taxes.   He's a rank populist who is a classic cardboard cutout celebrity politician.  Some may say he would take advice if he were President, and much of what he says is attention seeking. 

Both Trump and Clinton are the epitome of the airhead age of politics, where identity politics is fanned as much as it ever was.  Hillary Clinton, who has expressed her utter contempt for the 30% core support for Trump, and Donald Trump, who has talked generally about Mexican migrants being rapists.  Hillary knows her place in history is assured if she becomes the first female President of the United States.  About the only reason to celebrate a Trump victory is knowing how angry she would be if she lost,  but then what?  A Trump-Putin pact to divide the world into spheres of influence?  The utter destruction of the international trading environment?

Of course most media coverage is fairly one-sided.  Trump is irredeemable and all major media outlets share and express the same contempt for him, with much less contempt for Clinton.   The left-wing liberal bias is palpable, yet Clinton is such a heavily flawed candidate they both deserve contempt.

Yet the likelihood is that, unless the Democrats sweep through both Houses of Congress, Hillary will find her big empty expensive promises difficult to fulfill,  but even if the Republicans hung onto the Senate, it is much less clear that Trump could rely on a Republican Congress to facilitate his agenda unimpeded.  However, on foreign policy, the President has much more autonomy and power.  On that front, Trump seems a little unsettling, given his penchance for threatening US allies to pay up or lose support from the US. 

Sadly, the hope that Gary Johnson could break through and be a more significant third party candidate seems forlorn. 

I expect, given the polling, Hillary will win and there will be a nauseating display of faux humility and sloganeering, as she sinks her claws into the prize she long sought.   Yet the United States was not founded on nepotism or some sort of familial succession (and yes the Bush family started that, but this was rejected the third time round).  If Trump wins, watch the panic and doom and gloom emerging, but this too will be hysterical posturing, although he is obviously the less certain quantity.

The USA is going to get an utter arsehole as President, but I'll be cheering for the other arsehole losing.  What's utterly astonishing is that millions are willing to give moral endorsement to one of these vile entities.

Yes, it's been a while.  For the want of a better term, 2016 is "annus horribilis" for my family, with an uncle diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in February and dead in May, then my mother passing away unexpectedly in September, weeks before her birthday after months of a nuisance, but not anything like a life-threatening condition.  Let's just say some things matter more than a rant about politics. 

Forgotten Posts from the Past: Obama anti-free speech

When Barack Obama campaigned for the Presidency, one of his policies was to interfere with the media.   Fortunately both the Congress and the Constitution limit that, but take this snippet which shows a different side to the smiling "change you can believe in" mantras. 

"An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve". How?? Will he force radio and TV stations to carry local news more often? How will he punish those broadcasters who fail to serve their communities? Don't communities punish by not watching or listening, making it harder to attract advertisers?

Of course, this hasn't happened, but it shows the philosophical reach he and his campaign had in thinking the Federal Government should get involved in the content of the media.  Be grateful for Congressional gridlock that the President who doesn't appear to think his powers should be limited can't implement his long list of interventionist desires.

10 suggestions for the Republicans

The Republicans will now have a fourway - debate that is between four factions:

True religious conservatives - The cross carrying wing of the Tea Party, who will all claim that they needed to be closer to God, be louder on abortion,  Christian values, shrinking the government (except when it is about enforcing the latter) and that Romney was too moderate.  They are in denial that their views on personal freedom are a significant, but shrinking minority.   They are the backbone of activism in many states, but have scared away others elsewhere.

Moderates (RINO some may say) - Who will all claim the Tea Party wrecked the election, and that a moderate, who doesn't want tax cuts for the wealthy, who doesn't want to privatise bankrupt social programmes, who doesn't talk either social or economic conservativism, would have won.  Of course, one wonders what, if anything, would have been on offer that was profoundly different.

Libertarians - The small government wing of the Tea Party, who will all claim that the religious right wrecked the election, and that there needed to be courage about cutting spending, slashing regulation and that Ron Paul could have won over many Democrat supporters.  I doubt it.

Pragmatists - Who will point at Romney flip-flopping, who will point at gaffes by some Republicans, who will point at the fear the Obama camp coughed up about Medicare and social security, and that a campaign of mutual scaremongering and flinging of dirt is unlikely to be as productive as a positive optimistic one with a simple plan.  They will choose whoever can win and do whatever it takes, apparently.

However, I have some views.   Things the Republicans need to think about.  For four years are ahead for them to still control the House (for at least two years), and have a strong voice in the Senate, and for Obama's stuttering recovery to plod slowly forward, until... eventually... the QE fueled bubble inflates and bursts again.

It is that the political map in the US is made up of people who want more involvement of government in the economy, and people who want less - you've kind of positioned yourself as the latter.   However, it is also made up of people who want more involvement of government in people's private lives, and those who want less.  You are a party with people who represent both.  The Democrats are a party that appears to be the latter (but offers nothing on topics from the environment, to drugs, to victimless crimes, to state surveillance).

There is a gap in the political market for a party that accepts social liberalism (true liberalism, as in less government, not interventionist social engineering) as well as an economic free market.

Like the Democrats in 1972, you might face one election with a breakaway socially conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-free trade Pat Buchanan type 3rd party candidate which costs you an election - but like the Democrats in 1972, you will have embraced a new constituency of urban, educated, middle class people who are suspicious of government, but don't pay much attention to religious conservatives preaching to them.  Ronald Reagan was somewhat closer to that than you'll care to remember.  That's a reason why he won virtually every state in the union, and your rejection of this is why you never win the Pacific and half of the Atlantic coast.

Here are some suggestions.

- Medievalism: The likes of Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin just need to be purged.  Todd Akin's comments that women can "shut down" fertility in the event of "legitimate" rape and Richard Mourdock's statement that implied that children of rape are part of God's will caused enormous harm.  Such views are immoral, medieval and scientifically bankrupt, and fundamentally corrosive.  It's not enough to repudiate and condemn them when they get expressed.  No mainstream political party should tolerate even selecting people  with such attitudes.   Get a Presidential or Vice Presidential female candidate that is competent and not a theocrat, and this will make the most profound difference.

- Religion: Most Americans are Christians, and a fair proportion regard church as important.  However, they don't want you preaching to them about it.  Make it clear that you explicitly believe in separation of church and state.  Make it clear that one of the reasons America was formed was by people fleeing religious sectarianism in Europe, and that America is a country where people may have whatever faith they wish, including none.  The ranks of the 20% or so who would welcome a Christian theocracy are decreasing.  You may gain your values from your religion, you may regard it and your church to be important parts of your community.   However, religion is a private matter and to have ever growing numbers of people turn off of your party because they think it excludes them on this point is suicide.  

- Immigration:  The USA was built by immigrants.  Embrace them.  You scared away conservative, hard-working Hispanic and Asian voters. This constituency is only growing. Make your policy open, with the three simple provisos that anyone is welcome as long as they swear allegiance to the Constitution and the values of the Republic, they are not convicted of offences against people or their property and will be prohibited from claiming taxpayer funded welfare, healthcare, social security or education.   In fact, offer all new immigrants that deal.   Come, be free, live your life, leave peaceful people alone, and get the first $30,000 of your income free from Federal Income Tax (and tax deductions as well).  Give all illegal migrants an amnesty period, where if they spend five years without committing a felony and without claiming social security, Medicaid or Medicare, they gain residency.  Get a candidate who is the son or daughter of immigrants.

- Corporatism:  The big stick Obama hit you with was links with big business, giving business tax breaks, Romney paying a low rate of tax and giving a picture of corruption and advantaging big business at the cost of small business at individuals.  Of course, he's just as guilty, so you need to change the terms of the debate.  Advance scrapping all subsidies to business, including agriculture.  Advance a simple low tax plan, with a high income tax free threshold, include scrapping as many rebates as you can as you lower rates.  Make it clear that no businesses should ever be bailed out by the Federal Government ever again.  Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remove the government guarantee for them.   In other words, offer the American people a grand deal that is about eliminating taxpayer funded pork.  Make it the same in regulation, so that statutory monopolies are abolished, both private and public (e.g. USPS).  Abolish eminent domain for the private sector (you wont do the public sector, but you can heavily constrain it for the public sector).   The Democrats are propped up by enormous networks of interests with subsidies, specific tax breaks and regulations, so do a clean sweep.  Make it clear you want Americans rich and poor, businesses big and small to have a level regulatory and tax playing field.  Indeed, right now this should be your number one argument with the President on avoiding the fiscal cliff.

- Tax, deficit and debt:  This point resonates and has been partially successful, but your rhetoric and policies were easily criticised. Until the US is in budgetary surplus, it will be difficult for you to do much in taxes beyond oppose increases and advocate reforms that simplify them and mean in exchange for vast rebates and deductions, lower rates overall.. Your response to Romney's low tax rate should have been to advocate it for all tax.  Why should capital gains tax be lower?  On the deficit your blind spot is defence.  The big hole here is that US defence procurement remains extraordinarily wasteful, and there is considerable scope for efficiency and consolidation.   The US can still retain global dominance in nuclear deterrence, it can retain military superiority in its presence in Asia and the Middle East (for good reasons of trade and energy security), but without the heavy presence in Iraq and Afghanistan there is scope to contain spending in real terms.  Do that, end corporate welfare and you can start arguing for a long term privatised option to social security and Medicare, with specific tax opt outs for those who select it.  Meanwhile, you must continue with no new taxes on the fiscal cliff, but push hard for abolishing corporate welfare, raising entitlement thresholds for social security and Medicare, and be vocal against anyone seeking to grow public spending of any kind.  

- Abortion:  I could say just shut up, but you wont.  What you can do is simply say you will end Federal funding for it, because people who believe it is murder should not be forced to pay for it.   You can say it is up to the states how they deal with the issue, given Supreme Court precedence, and you respect the rule of law and precedent.  Yes, there is a big rump of Republicans for whom this is the top issue, but the only way this will go further is if you can convince people that you are right.  The majority of people have a view that is neither abortion on demand, nor life begins at conception.   If you're serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, then change the terms of the debate.  The current strategy is a dead end, and it loses you the White House.

- Personal freedom:  You're happy talking about the right to bear arms, you're happy talking about lower taxes and small government, but you clam up when it comes to what people do with their private lives.  How about questioning the war on drugs?  How about saying you'll leave the legal status of marijuana to the states? That will put a bomb under the Democrats.  It will also suddenly wake up Californians, again.  Do the same about the status of marriage.  You gain nothing by advancing a Constitutional amendment about marriage, leave it to the states.  A growing proportion of Americans do not care if people are gay, and a growing proportion are turned off of political candidates who do care. If you want to preach that it's wrong, go ahead, do so.  However, don't do so implying the government should pass laws against it.

- Economic nationalism:  You target this because whenever the Democrats are in power, they fail to meet the expectations of xenophobic unions who preach the "foreigners stole our jobs" or "our jobs are being exported" line.  Let it go.  Make it clear the biggest threat to the US economy is being in hock to foreign creditors.  Simple as that.  I'd like to think you could push for global trade liberalisation, but you'll fear handing Obama the plate of economic nationalism.

- Education freedom:  More than a few states are doing this, you can push this further.  One of the great success stories for those advancing freedom is the advent of vouchers and other systems to allow taxpayer funding of compulsory education to follow students to those who set up independent schools.  Make this a priority, sell how this helps the poor, sell how it allows parents to choose the education for their children.  The teaching unions and Democrats in hock to them hate this. However, for you it is a chance for long term cultural change, and to simply advance parents over vested interests.

and last, probably least to you, but it's worth it...

- Ayn Rand:  You've discovered her, now read some more, specifically Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal  and Philosophy: Who Needs it.  I know you know she advocated minimalist government, but she was also an atheist.  An atheist who believed genuine human benevolence and kindness was superior to a welfare state.  Embrace that, as it actually core to how most Americans are and realise that those without your beliefs can be good people too.  She rejected the corporatism all too many of you support.  Most of all she embraced the view that the number one value for all people is the pursuit of happiness in their own life.  It's an antidote to the nihilistic muddle-headed whim worshipping that is prevalent in popular culture.  It is an antidote to the entitlement culture Obama has continue to nurture, but which has roots from FDR.  Oh and no, you didn't advance anything that was more than a hint of the shadow of her views in the election.  I don't expect you to be an objectivist party or even libertarian, but the values of self-esteem, of personal achievement, of benevolence over dependence and violent demands and of letting peaceful people get on with their lives can be sold. The clearer you understand that, the clearer it is the other side only has the offer of making some people pay for others, of telling people they aren't responsible for their own circumstances and claiming they can make it all better.

Quantitative easing should upset the left - it's highly regressive

Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation explains why money printing quantitative easing ought to get the socialist Occupy movement out in the streets. 

Which of course wont happen, since their pinup economist - Paul Krugman - is a fond believer in printing more money and spending more money the state doesn't have, to boost the economy.

No doubt some Democrats will think this is a cunning move to give the US economy a boost before the election, as some Republicans think this also, and are criticising it on that cynical basis.  That isn't a reason to criticise it, because it is unlikely to make enough difference to enough people to have an electoral impact.

So why is it bad?

You see you have to ask the question as to who benefits from the creation of new money and who loses.  Bearing in mind Bernanke has said he will create US$40 billion out thin air, every month, until the economy recovers, this matters.  It's also why the price of gold took a big hike overnight.

The beneficiaries are those whose securities the Federal Reserve is now going to buy with its new money.  Those will include the securities holding debt to the Federal Government or mortgages.  So the immediate winners are investors in those securities who now have a willing buyer.  With such purchases, the recipients are the financial institutions who now have money to reinvest.  So it is the shareholders of those institutions who immediately gain from money printing.  The next beneficiaries are those owners of securities, stocks and bonds that gain such investments, as they suddenly find there is more money available to invest.  Prices for stocks and bonds will rise, so existing holders of them benefit.

Those who own such stocks and bonds are going to be primarily other institutions or wealthy individuals. People who are also aware of the counter-risk of money printing - inflation - and so are able to take steps to protect themselves from what inevitably becomes a new round of malinvestment.  Why malinvestment?  Because the flow of "free money" will see choices made that are dependent on what securities the Federal Reserve buys.  The Federal Reserve will want to sweep up government debt and mortgage securities because they are seen as low value investments, so that there is a preference for stocks and shares.  However, with investors having low confidence in the economy, many also sweep into commodities, because they see any scope for rising demand being seen in rising prices for commodities.

So a speculative bubble emerges, with those who joined at the start - those who gained from state purchases of their securities, gaining the most.  Whether it be energy, food or minerals, another round of malinvestment will create a bubble.

That's where we find the losers.  For the consumers of such commodities, be it in purchasing food, heating their homes or even building materials to fix or extend their homes, they face inflation, and as that grows it means their purchasing power declines.

With virtually zero interest rates, it means savers lose out as with growing inflation, they find they are fighting a losing battle.  They can choose to hop onto various speculative bandwagons, but know it is high risk.  So they mix between commodities, stocks and shares, property and various other equities.  Those who already had property theoretically benefit, but few are likely to realise this gain unless they sell at the right time and convert their depreciating currency into another investment.   Of course for those who largely live on receiving an income, they face inflationary pressure with little hope of relief unless their field of employment can afford to raise their wages.   Those who are saving to buy property or indeed anything, are on a losing streak.

In short, what is called quantitative easing, which is a euphemism for printing money, benefits those who the Federal Reserve buys securities from the most, and actively harms those who are poor, who don't own property or whose savings are primarily in bank deposits.  

Will it work?  Well Randazzo believes that private debt levels remain so high that most people are simply concentrating on reducing their levels of debt, rather than seeking to invest.  So whatever trickles down is likely to be used on that.  

Black and for school choice? You must be racist

So says the Louisiana Federation of Teachers.

The American Federation for Children (a lobby group promoting educational voucher programmes and tax credits to enable parents' taxes to follow the school they want their children to attend) reports that the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, an avowed opponent of school choice (presumably because it breaks their dominance of the profession and the single shop approach to negotiating pay) has tweeted that the Black Alliance for Education Options (BAEO), a group of African Americans who also support education vouchers/tax credits for private schools supports teaching that the KKK is good.

Yes.  A pro-Democrat, leftwing union claimed a black educational advocacy organisation endorsed the teaching of racism.

How did it come to this conclusion?  Who knows.  It simply tweeted this...

BAEO has responded and clarified...

Because some private schools enrolled in the program reportedly use texts that may attempt to downplay the awful history of the Ku Klux Klan, LFT (via twitter) called BAEO a "black organization that supports KKK vouchers." This is not only the most ludicrous description of our organization but it is also one of the most unintelligent. 

We unapologetically stand for parental choice. That doesn't mean that we believe every private school is great or that private schools are better than public schools. It simply means that while serious people go about the difficult and long-term work of trying to reform low-performing traditional public schools, we must also give parents real options that allow their children to get a quality education today. We trust that parents, when given the option to choose and when armed with accurate information, will make increasingly better choices for their children.

What I see is an interest group adopting any technique it can to smear those presenting options that threaten their position of privilege and lack of accountability.

The idea that a state monopoly on education and restrictions on access to schools only in a local area is good for children or what parents want is ludicrous, and it is little short of disgusting that teachers' unions - whose primary interest is to increase the pay, reduce the workload and reduce the accountability of teachers - continue to prey upon the vulnerable, weak and poor to demand that they maintain this monopoly on teaching their kids.  They fear new schools, dynamic ones, ones that pay teachers on performance, that hire teachers that aren't unionised into their collective gang, and that parents like them.  They fear not being able to lobby politicians to decide what those schools teach or what they should be paid.  They fear that, when given their own money back or given a way to transfer their taxes from public schools to other options, that they wont choose the options the teachers want monopolised.

They'll find every example they can of non-public schools not delivering the best performance, whilst ignoring the same of their monopoly schools, they will constantly claim that it's all about the children, that this is all they care about, all the time implying that they and the state knows best, not parents.  

Nothing is more important in pushing freedom and changing the culture of modern liberal democracies today than taking schools out of the hands of these peddlers of protectionism, hatred and statism.  That's why they, and their friends in politics (e.g. the Green Party in NZ), are so keen to oppose them.

For they argue private schools should remain for the rich, for the poor kids shouldn't get to go to a school which declares that individual achievement and excellence are the primary goal that should be strived for.

After all, what could be worse that kids from backgrounds that can't afford to pay taxes and private school fees, stand up and proudly live lives that aren't about dependence.

The Olympic honeymoon period is over

I've spent the last month or so basking in what truly was a magnificent time to be in London.  It was, on two occasions, a centre not of banal cultural emptiness, not of history shrines and hoards of tourists eager to look backwards, not of a sub-culture of misogynistic violent no-hopers eager to pillage and destroy in anger at their own uselessness, not a centre for Islamist horror, but of individuals as elite athletes, whether Olympic or Paralympic, striving and winning, and in a culture that truly glorified and celebrated them.  Whilst Team GB got by far the greatest attention, there was never an ounce of resentment or denial of the wondrous successes of those from other countries, the remaining malignant nationalism that comes with the Olympics (and which China still pushes), was not apparent. 

It was truly a celebration of the achievements and efforts of thousands of individuals, it saw a mood of benevolence and patience, as both the cost and the draconian approach to branding were largely ignored, and people celebrated.  Yes, I wish it hadn't happened because it was destructive of wealth (proven also by July seeing a drop of around 200,000 overseas visitors and drop of spending by visitors of around £120 million compared to the previous year) and a travesty of a waste of money, but it did come with that beautiful element of human beings striving, succeeding, proud of success in any form (whether it be medals or personal bests), and others genuinely celebrating in their success. 

The bubble of that culture has been well and truly popped.  One minor event was at the Trade Union Congress, where t-shirts were being sold that said that when Thatcher dies a generation of trade unionists will be dancing on her grave.  It was being sold by the Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, which itself is part funded by three local authorities. All of the nastiness of Marxism epitomised in one product, and whilst the TUC condemned it, Labour leader Ed Miliband chose to remain silent.

However, that minor piece of disgusting behaviour is nothing compared to the true travesty of justice over Hillsborough.  David Cameron has apologised for the vile behaviour of the South Yorkshire Police and the emergency services, not just for their grotesque negligence that apparently allowed as many as 42 of the 96 who died in that tragedy to die unnecessarily, but their lies, manufacturing of evidence and perverting the course of justice to cover up their own ineptness.  This conspiracy by agents of the state to cover up their own failings is not just disgusting, but criminal.  There should be people charged for acts which, if they were private citizens, would see them in prison for many years.   Altering statements and editing evidence to conceal failings is palpably inexcusable.  

Many in police forces wonder why people don't trust them, why they are antagonistic or obstructive, it is because of this sort of activity.  The willingness to flagrantly act without good faith.

Finally, it looks like a badly made film lampooning Islam and making it out to be a religion of violent bigots, has incited lots of groups of Muslims to act as violent bigots.   Those who think that the act of private citizens in a country is the act of a state, those who believe that the appropriate response to being offended is violence.

Meanwhile, the US is led by an Administration which has as its first response is to sympathise with those offended, whose Secretary of State condemns the film as disgusting and reprehensible (as well as condemning the violent reaction to it).   

Yet there is hope.  Mitt Romney, who is easy to criticise for so many reasons, gets it right by saying:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

When was the last time you heard a major party US Presidential candidate standing explicitly behind free speech and freedom of religion? When was the last time that you heard one talk about those principles being a source of freedom for individuals around the world?  Where is the stereotypical theocratic authoritarian that is the caricature that Democrats want to paint him to be? 

What exactly could anyone of a classically liberal (not socialist liberal) bent oppose of that statement?

Why is the left scared of the Tea Party?

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne, is a Liberal Democrat Minister. He has presided over policies that inflate electricity prices (by forcing power companies to spend money on highly expensive "sustainable" power stations and charging consumers for it) and constrain the British economy so that China, India and the Arab oil sheikhdoms can increase CO2 emissions as much as they want. A month after the general election last year, when he campaigned with leaflets showing him with his wife and family, he was found to be having an affair. His estranged wife has claimed he pressured people to take penalty points for driving "for him", this matter is still with the Police. So he's quite a character.

Now he has attacked the "Tea Party tendency" in the Conservative Party, and so is calling up the demons painted by many others on the left, assisted by the left-leaning media (The Guardian, The Independent, BBC, ITN), that the Tea Party is a group of racist, theocratic, gun-toting nutters.  What he says he means is opposing those who want to renegotiate the UK relationship with the EU.  Yes, astonishing stuff - especially given the Labour Party in the early 1980s wanted the UK to withdraw completely.  That's called the Tea Party to the Liberal Democrats!

There are many Tea Parties, but their common theme is not racism against Barack Obama, it is not religious fundamentalism, it is not ultra-conservative views about sex, sexuality or religion. It is a belief in small government, fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.

Daniel Hannan, rightly identifying himself as the most like "Tea Party" oriented elected Conservative, says:

The Tea Party, perhaps more than any other contemporary movement, brings out the 'Yeah, but what they're really saying…' tendency...Many Lefties pretend – or perhaps have genuinely convinced themselves – that the Tea Party is clandestinely protesting against immigration or abortion or the fact of having a mixed race president; anything, in fact, other than what it actually says it's against, viz big government. The existence of a popular and spontaneous anti-tax movement has unsettled the Establishment. They'd much rather deal with a stupid and authoritarian Right than with a libertarian one. Hence the almost desperate insistence that the Tea Partiers have some secret agenda

You see to argue against smaller government and lower taxes would require some thinking, and justification as to why government is better at doing some things than the private sector, and why politicians and bureaucrats are better placed to spend your money than you are. That requires arguing on a point of principle. Far easier to just engage in scatological rhetoric, just make things up, or to claim it is some sort of corporate conspiracy that has fooled the stupid (or rather the poor bedraggled working classes the left love - when the vote correctly).

A solid argument between more and less government, more or less taxes would be healthy, and would involve challenging status quo politics.  It hasn't been had in the US, as Ronald Reagan was severely limited about what he could do, as he had a Democrat House of Representatives, and both Bushes have been decidedly uninterested about shrinking government. 

So the left should embrace that debate.  Give up its cheap empty and childish shots of racism and jingoistic smears and their own form of bigotry against ordinary people (many with limited education) who actually want to be left alone by the government.   Their patronising disdain, and unconcealed hatred for those trying to change the terms of political debate (the Vice President called them "terrorists" for wanting to constrain government spending), shows fear about engaging with the fundamental point.   It should be the core issue about politics in any liberal democracy.  It isn't minutiae about education or environmental or health or transport policies.

It is - what should be the role of the state?

From that, come the question about whether there is too much or too little involvement in specific areas.  However, that is the debate that is the nexus dividing politics in the US today.

It is about time that it became the very issue that politics elsewhere was based upon as well.

The organised thieves

Whilst most UK media attention has been paid to the underclass and not so underclass of amoral parasites who turned on their fellow citizens, the most organised thieves of all - governments, have been trying to evade reality in Europe some more.

The sovereign debt crisis of Ireland was purely due to the foolish 100% guarantee of Irish banks given by the previous Irish government (trying to outdo the £85,000 limit in the UK) - it eliminated risk for banks, transferring it onto taxpayers.  It had a property bubble fueled by easy low interest credit in Euros, driven by the buoyant German economy, which bust.  Now Irish taxpayers are paying for bank guarantees made by politicians on their behalf.  Irish politicians promised to steal from taxpayers to support the profligacy of banks.

The sovereign debt crisis of Greece is pure state socialist profligacy.  A generation and a half of continuous budget deficits, fiddled accounts and lies about the national budgets, mass tax evasion, a welfare state that rewarded people for non-jobs and to retire in their 50s.  It was only extended when Greece joined the Euro, as budget deficits were "cheap" with low interest credit.  In addition, Greece was propped up by years of subsidies from the EU to its poorest members, of which Greece no longer largely qualifies since the accession of the former Soviet satellite states. Now Greek residents are learning to pay tax and learning that the socialist state has run out of cash.  Greek politicians promised to steal from future taxpayers to pay for the "jobs" and benefits of many of the current ones.

The sovereign debt crisis of Portugal is similar to Greece, without the fiddled accounts, with a bit less debt, but a smaller GDP to bear it.   Again a long period of cheap credit and Portugal enjoyed much EU largesse before the EU turned to funding infrastructure in the former communist bloc countries.  Portuguese politicians promised to steal from future taxpayers to pay for the lthe "jobs" and benefits of many of the current ones.

Spain's sovereign debt crisis has some parallels with Portugal, but was also exacerbated by a property bubble ala Ireland, where the economy was propped up by massive private borrowing for property, which went into construction.  Now Spain has a crisis of lower tax revenue and an overly generous state sector and welfare state.  Spanish politicians were hoping to keep stealing from future taxpayers and current property speculators and construction companies to pay for the the "jobs" and benefits of many of the current ones.

Italy's sovereign debt crisis is government led, as Italians have tended to be wary of credit, but Italian governments been profligate about buying votes with government jobs and social services.  Decades of short coalition governments that have favoured special interests now see Italy with sovereign debt of over 118% of GDP.  Italian governments have long promised to steal from future taxpayers to pay for the the "jobs" and benefits of many of the current ones.

Cyprus's sovereign debt crisis is less about government spending and more about fear of bailing out banks that loaned to the Greek government, and the slow in GDP due to losing half of its electricity generation capacity due to an explosion.  Cyprus's government has promised to steal from current and future taxpayers to pay for the profligacy of banks who loaned to another profligate government.

Belgium is small, but it too has sovereign debt of around 100% of GDP.   It too has had a generous welfare state, but has run more sedate budget deficits, although it saved itself from a crisis a decade ago by running surpluses for eight years, getting public debt below 100% of GDP.  It is now facing a similar crisis, but its overspending has been trimmed.  Still it too promised to steal from future taxpayers to pay for the job and benefits of current ones.

Now there is France.  It has public debt of over 80% of GDP, but has run budget deficits consistently for decades.  The trick has been to run deficits smaller than growth of GDP in some years, which has simply meant that the debt burden has been pushed out again and again.  Now it faces risks around its banks, which the French government is fully expected to bail out (large businesses in France often never really go bankrupt) banks that loaned to the profligate countries named above.

So the ban on short selling, is France's way of trying to stop the reality of the risk of French debt being devalued.  France can continue to borrow from the children and grandchildren of future taxpayers only if France's economy grows faster than the rate of borrowing.

You see governments throughout the Western world have been engaging in theft, on a grand scale, from future taxpayers.

Now as a libertarian I see all taxation as theft, because if private individuals or governments acted as government did, they would be treated as criminals.

However, even if you accept the absurd democratic-socialist model of government, that people vote for governments that institute taxes, and so somehow consent to it (essentially the majority impose their will on all), then this fails to apply to governments running budget deficits for current spending.

For when governments borrow, they are borrowing from future taxpayers.  Whilst many are current taxpayers, in 10-15-20 years time, some of those will be dead, and most current children will be taxpayers, and some as yet unborn ones will be.   None of them voted to pay the taxes to pay the debts of people who wanted unfunded pensions, who wanted subsidised businesses, who wanted unfunded healthcare.

It is intergenerational theft, and it can most easily be seen in the PAYGO pensions and health care systems in place in the USA, UK and yes, New Zealand.  Ponzi schemes that pay people on current pensions and health users (most of whom are elderly) out of the taxes of currently trading businesses and individuals.  By no stretch of the imagine are the benefits these people are getting paid for by them, for their taxes paid for the last lot, and there aren't enough new taxpayers to pay for this insecure intergenerational mandatory deal that statist politicians bribed people with.

So whilst there is righteous anger and disgust at the actions of looters, vandals and others who have demonstrated they are little more than parasites and destructive to humanity and life, there also should be anger at the political classes, who have continued to peddle their borrow and hope mentality, with their regular advance auction of stolen goods, so they get power.

It is true whether the party concerned is called Republican, Democrat, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, National, Greens or Maori Party.   All are guilty, all gain power and seek to borrow from people who don't have a vote, who have no choice but to pay for what current politicians want to spend money on.

The Tea Party in the US has, in part, represented resistance to this profligacy, and whilst it has attracted a colourful range of characters, it has also attracted approbium and abuse for wanting to end this mortgaging of childrens' futures.  In the UK, only think tanks and lobby groups represent that attitude, and in New Zealand perhaps only now ACT, and of course Libertarianz.

Don't believe me?  Simply ask your next politician why your children and grandchildren should be forced to pay back debts so that people who currently live off the state, get benefits from the state or get their businesses supported by the state, don't have to pay for it themselves?

What spending cuts? (UPDATED)

Given some of the news coverage you might think the US houses of Congress have reached agreement to cut spending in the US Federal Government.

The Daily Telegraph says there are US$1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.

The Washington Post called them "severe cuts".

Spendaholic Paul Krugman in the New York Times says it is "slashing government spending" and even says it calls the whole system of government into question!

The New York Times editorial calls it "nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists"

You'd think I'd support it, but really it isn't what it seems.  Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute points this out in the following graph.   The US$917 billion "cut" over 10 years is not a cut in real or nominal terms, but a cut from a baseline of even faster increases.

So what does it actually mean? Well Edwards says:

"The federal government will still run a deficit of $1 trillion next year. This deal will “cut” the 2012 budget of $3.6 trillion by just $22 billion, or less than 1 percent."

That's what is provoking a hysterical reaction among the left in the Democrat Party.  Spending isn't being cut in real terms, spending is being cut by part of the amount they wanted it to grow.

As I've mentioned before, a relatively unambitious plan from the Cato Institute would cut spending by US$1 trillion annually through to 2021, it would balance the budget by that year.  It would cut government spending as a proportion of GDP from a projected 24% to 18% (the same it was in 2000).  It would look like the graph below.   You can figure out the current plan is closer to Obama's plan than to the Cato plan.

However, because it plays with so much pork (everything from agricultural subsidies to Amtrak to public broadcasting to the Department of Education (don't worry the states do most of that anyway) to Medicaid, it would be difficult for many Republicans (who are frankly half responsible for the current mess) and virtually all Democrats to accept.

Yet it should be the bare minimum to get the USA back on track to growth, by pulling back from the crowding out of the private sector, by keeping taxes at their current level and eliminating vast amounts of distorting and damaging subsidies and government programmes.

Oh, by the way, Obama once opposed raising the debt ceiling as well:


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

That is Senator Obama, 20 March 2006.

Thanks to Allister Heath at City AM for tweeting this and National Review for publishing it.

Just another politician isn't he?

The "radical" plan Obama is rejecting

The Cato Institute has reviewed the latest Republican plan to stop the US overspending slow down the growth in US government spending, it isn't impressed:

The plan is to cap discretionary spending over 10 years to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings; have (another) bipartisan group of policymakers come up with $1.8 trillion in “deficit reductions” over ten years; and get a vote on a balanced budget amendment. In exchange, the president would get to increase the deficit by $900 billion this year and by another $1.6 trillion next year.

That means:

• Under the Congressional Budget Office’s optimistic spending baseline, the federal government will spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. Obviously, reducing spending by $1.2 trillion oven ten years is relatively small.

• The same dysfunctional congress that treats entitlement programs like lit sticks of dynamite is supposed to come up with $1.6 trillion in “deficit reduction.” Note that we’re not even talking specifically about spending cuts here, so that figure would likely include tax increases assuming they’re able to even come up with something.

• Under the Boehner plan, spending and debt will continue to rise. At the most, the plan would produce an average of $300 billion a year in cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion over the next two years.

• Boehner’s bill includes language that tightens up the definition of what constitutes “emergency” spending. Congress regularly slaps the “emergency” designation on all sort of non-emergency spending bills.

• Where are the immediate spending cuts? Once again, we have the promise of cuts but no specifics. Even if the discretionary caps hold the line on that portion of spending, total federal spending (and debt) will continue its unsustainable upward climb. Entitlement spending is the biggest driver of our long-term budgetary problems but entitlement spending isn’t capped under the Boehner plan.

Obama is rejecting this, because he wants more taxes and wants the issue resolved so it looks like he managed to chaperone a compromise that will outlast his Presidential term.  Of course, some Democrats want tax increases to be a major component of the deficit reduction strategy, because they want to entrench the growth in government that has been the legacy of Obama and Bush before him.   Tea Party aligned Republicans want deficit reduction to be entirely about spending cuts, and I agree.

Even the Cato Institute's own rather meek plan, by Chris Edwards, to cut spending would be a vast improvement, because a balanced budget would still be a decade away, but so much wasteful spending would be addressed.  It would cut the Federal budget to 18% of GDP, down from Obama's projected 24%.

It is about competing visions for the USA.  Some Democrats (and likely Obama himself) want the US to be more like Europe, and to have an activist state involved in health, education, welfare and economic development more than now.  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a sizeable gap between the European size of the state and the US, and want to balance the books by getting spending down, and then address the debt bubble.   However, I suspect most congressmen and women from both parties just want to get elected, be loved and popular, and to convince people that they are just the right ones to solve their problems.  The deficit being something most have spent little time thinking about.

For now, it is a game of chicken.  Obama does not want a deal that needs to be replicated next year during the election season, he wants to look like the honest broker who saved the country from bankruptcy (or at least convinces his core voters that he is in charge and competent).  The recently elected Republicans don't want a deal that includes any tax rises, because they campaigned against that, and they want a balanced budget constitutional amendment so that there is a legal requirement to eliminate the deficit over time (and avoid the risk of this ever happening again).   Both Obama and the Republicans fear being blamed for a default.  Obama bears the bigger risk, because he is President and more people think he is in charge than Congress.  All the Republicans can say is they reject any tax increases, and want to cut waste.  Yet, they also don't want to be seen as being incapable of compromise.

Two visions of the USA - will one win, or will a lily livered half arsed middle ground be found that does barely enough to get past this hurdle.

Oh the cuts!!

The big news in the US is how the Republicans leading the House of Representatives are refusing to accept a budget that doesn't cut spending sufficiently, whereas Obama and the Democrats are portraying it as some great social mission to hit abortion and the like.

The truth is that the Republicans are doing what they were elected to do - to cut the deficit.

The proposed cuts are less than 4% of the budget deficit (2% of the total budget) according to Reason Magazine.

4%!

Consider that the UK government is seeking to abolish its structural deficit (deficit not attributed to reduced tax revenue and higher welfare spending because of recession) within five years.  4% needs to be closer to 20% to make a difference, and Obama and the Democrats wont even accept 4%.

The Cato Institute has a more ambitious plan that should be the least that is adopted, as this would abolish the budget deficit and set a path to start rolling back the US national debt, as well as lowering taxes.

The question I wonder is why anyone on the left thinks they can evade reality by building debt mountains for future generations to confront - or more importantly, why they think this is moral?  Do they think "if only we could confiscate the wealth of the rich" or are they so stupid to think they can have their heads in the sand?  If they "don't know any better" or are "just guessing" then it isn't good enough.  If they DO want to confiscate wealth, then just admit it, and show themselves up to be the violent crooks they want to be.  The same crooks that didn't want banks to collapse, didn't want motor manufacturers to collapse, didn't want ANY businesses to collapse, so used other people's money to pay for it.

Only we can stir up bigotry and hatred

Once walking down a Wellington alleyway I saw a piece of graffiti which depicted Nandor Tanczos saying "everything you do is political".  A similar philosophy has seemed to have gripped some on the political left in a manner that is both inexplicably vile and hypocritical at the same time.  Even the Secretary of State claims that the murder was by "an extremist".  I'll leave aside thay apparently only the shooting of the Congresswoman is significant here, and that the shooting of a child and several others are hard to connect to any political motive at all - but then it would be inconvenient to even consider that.  Malcolm Harbrow doesn't even mention those killed in his own unhinged diatribe of bigotry.

The killer in question is clearly rather disturbed, with possible psychoses.  What about his politics?  Well as much as can be gleaned from evidence seen so far, it would appear they are as deranged and incoherent as his behaviour.  Some on the left have grabbed his hatred of the government, concern for the constitution and embrace of a gold standard as evidence he is a Tea Partier, yet conveniently ignoring his appreciation of The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  Him being an ardent atheist wouldn't exactly align him with most Republicans either.  Then there is a report that he believed he could fly.  There were signs he was interested in the occult, but he also loved animals.  Time to point fingers at similar people?

Yet this transcript of his Youtube posting shows even less coherency, with random obsessions with the currency (he wants a new "third" currency), literacy and that the government engages in mind control and brainwashing.  He burned an American flag on Youtube, an act frequently seen committed by leftwing protestors (and one they defend as free speech, yet decry burning the Koran).

How could anyone say this nonsense has any credible link with the Tea Party, Republican party, Libertarian Party or whatever?   He hated the government, but then those on the far left, religious extremists of Christian and Muslim hues and white supremacists all share this.  He liked the Communist Manifesto too apparently.

To make such an accusation is itself an act of hatred and bigotry, to tar a whole political group with the brush of blame for inciting the murders of a disturbed young man. 

The Tea Party itself has three core values:

- Fiscal responsibility;

- Constitutionally limited government; and

- Free markets.

Quite how that can be blamed for inciting murder is a stretch.  So the philosophical and political agenda of the Tea Party can hardly be said to be responsible.

However, those on the left cite the map with crosshairs as incitement to murder.  It isn't the politics, but the dialogue and the way it is expressed.

There are two problems with this leap of "logic". 

First, it applies the very same logic that the conservative right (and the feminist left) uses to justify censorship, on the basis that it incites people to commit crimes.  Media should be devoid of violence and sexual imagery, because it might "raise the passions to a height at which a weak willed man could not resist".  It has been used to claim that nudity incites rape, that young women wearing short skirts and revealing tops incite rape.  It carries the implication that criminals are not responsible for their acts, but rather "society" is to blame for creating an environment that incites them.  Some on the left claim that "society" is to blame for why someone might torture an infant after all.  This disconnect between actual events and actions of an individual and any sort of choice or responsibility is a dangerous form of determinism, and one that has long justified the actions of totalitarians who believe all must be controlled to ensure people act "responsibly".

If it were true there would be justification for controls on speech to limit language, given the danger that could arise from that.  Of course, the US has constitutionally protected free speech that has only few limits, which are around defamation and production of recordings of actual violent and sexual offences.  So any call to "tone things down" wont be about legal limits, it will be about "being polite".  Yet should political discourse be limited just because someone unstable could misinterpret it?

The second problem with this approach is the failure to look in the mirror.  You see the left doesn't mind using violent rhetoric itself, especially when George W. Bush was President. For years it used the same inflammatory rhetoric, in depicting George W. Bush as a terrorist, akin to Hitler and that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy between the Administration, Israel and the military-industrial complex.  This even includes a frequently quoted mainstream journalist.  The Guardian's TV critic Charlie Brooker wrote a review calling for the assassination of Bush ("John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?") , culminating it the text being removed from the website.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe outlined multiple examples of those on the left using extreme inflammatory language, such as an NPR leftwing journalist saying it would be "retributive justice" if the then Senator Jesse Helms or his grandchildren got AIDS.  More recently, plenty on the left put up placards that call for violence against bankers, or jokingly then seriously suggest it online. 

So the idea that rhetoric that could be interpreted as violent is a "Tea Party" "right wing" trend is sheer nonsense, when the left uses the same language, pure and simple.  Pot-kettle.

Indeed, if you want to stir up hatred and bigotry, then what do you call smearing a political movement with blame for a multiple murder?  What does that do to lift standards of discussion and debate?  In fact by pointing the finger so ridiculously at the Tea Party for the actions of an unstable young man, it is doing precisely what the left is accusing the Tea Party of - engaging in bigotry, hatred and viciousness.

The strengh of rhetoric from some libertarians (not the "right" as the Republicans in the US have been part of the problem) is because many are fed up with politicians borrowing and spending money that is not theirs, they are fed up with their own peaceful activities being taxed to pay to boost business, social or other interests that get listened to in government.  They are fed up with property rights being eroded and new laws being developed for the latest problem.

To end it, Jeff Perren's excellent post at Not PC has two very useful points.

Firstly, to reinforce the point that the reason some express political anger is because they want change to less government.  Not something many on the left (and some on the right) understand.   As long as there are politicians who want to spend more, tax more, borrow more and regulate more, there will be those standing up to say no, again and again.

Secondly, he links to the excellent Michelle Malkin piece showing explicitly violent rhetoric used by the left against the right in the US.  Then again, it's hardly surprising that the left has long excused violence used in its name to justify political action (e.g. threats and intimidation of so-called "scabs" at pickets), given it so warmly embraces state violence to accomplish its goals.

You see, when someone commits murder, with no clear motive, then the appropriate political response is, in fact, exactly what President Obama has done so far.  It was a crime, there was some courage shown by those who confronted the gunman, and the bigger concern is for those who have lost a loved one.

Let those who want to occupy the fetid sewers of hatred, bigotry, blame and hypocrisy wallow, and be shown up for the shallow opportunists they are.

The US votes for something different

The Democrats are about to get their nose bloodied, Obama will no longer be able to defer to Congress to write his legislation for him.   He wont be able to increase spending again.  He wont be able to increase taxes.   In other words, he wont be able to spend his way out of trouble.

Yet they wont get it.   

"Though it has been typically misrepresented by the liberal media as a rattlers’ nest of gun-toting fruitcakes who want to ban masturbation and abortion, it is, of course, nothing of the kind. It is – whatever the increasingly redundant Moonbat may claim – a genuine grass roots movement inspired by the one great political cause truly worth fighting and dying for: the cause of liberty. " says James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph.

The Tea Party is a libertarian inspired movement, which has the backing of more than a few conservatives.   Yes there are some wingnuts, but the Democrats are not without their share of the same. 

Toby Harnden in the Daily Telegraph has written what he thinks will be the top 10 excuses for losing.

1.   Opponents (or enemies) don't believe in science or facts.  They are stupid.

2.   Democrats have been gutless and haven't defended their "amazing achievements" well enough.

3.   Democrats did the right thing, even though it is unpopular (oh yes, really hard decisions to spend more money they didn't have).

4.   It's history, you always lose somewhat after 2 years.  Nothing new.

5.   Democrats were too moderate, not enough change.   Not enough government.

6.   Democrats have communicated badly.  It's about marketing.

7.   Evil big business and foreign (remember these are people who name others as racist) money is feeding the enemy.  They aren't real Americans looking after real Americans.

8.   Racism.  Why else would you oppose a Black President? 

9.   The media is to blame, especially evil Fox News.   It does a lousy job.  It didn't give Obama an easy run at all did it?

10. It's Bush again.  Yes all that small government rhetoric, so common wasn't it?

Obama is desperate to increase turnout by his core of youth, Latino and Black voters, but he isn't inspiring.   Instead of preaching hope, he is preaching fear, based on at best misunderstanding, at worst lies.   Harnden says of Obama "at its core, his message is one of promoting what Margaret Thatcher called the "nanny state" at home and Wilsonian internationalism abroad.  The problem last time was that Obama DID express hope and seemed to embody something different, but what wasn't clear to many was what it meant - it didn't mean an end to pork barreling, it meant more spending, more taxes and no limits on what government was prepared to do.   This has scared people, they fear the world's biggest economy is being hamstrung by being the world's biggest debtor nation, and that free enterprise and free markets aren't important anymore.

The Tea Party is saying to hell with you all, but has managed to inspire enough Republicans to its cause.  

What will happen?  Well Congress wont be quite the same again.  It wont be a matter of Republican majorities back to their old ways, but it also wont be a Congress ready to compromise.   

Indeed, objectivist Harry Binswanger reckons that Republicans should be favoured across the board because the Tea Party has already taken over the political initiative in the party.   In other words, the Republicans will not be in a position to resist the energy and determination of the Tea Party.

It will mean gridlock, as a leftwing President faces a libertarian/conservative House, and a hung Senate.  

It has inspired much comment, as James Delingpole's article shows with over 1000 comments, many from disgruntled British Marxists who want to treat Americans as either stupid or having been duped. 

He describes elegantly the problem:

"in the last 80 or more years – and not just in the US but throughout the Western world – government has forgotten its purpose. It has now grown so arrogant and swollen as to believe its job is to shape and improve and generally interfere with our lives. And it’s not. Government’s job is to act as our humble servant."

He even mentions New Zealand as among one of the countries maintaining this philosophy:

"Wherever you go, even if it’s somewhere run by a notionally “conservative” administration, the malaise you will encounter is much the same: a system of governance predicated on the notion that the state’s function is not merely to uphold property rights, maintain equality before the law and defend borders, but perpetually to meddle with its citizens’ lives in order supposedly to make their existence more fair, more safe, more eco-friendly, more healthy. And always the result is the same: more taxation, more regulation, less freedom. Less “fairness” too, of course."

Exactly! You can see it in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK, the National-ACT-Maori-Dunne coalition in NZ, and you could see it in the former Howard administration in Australia.  Meet your new boss, same as the old boss, bossing you about, just with a different bitter taste.

Government has been growing barely checked, but as he says:

"With Hitler and Stalin it was easy: the enemy was plain in view. Today’s encroaching tyranny is an of altogether more subtle, slippery variety. It takes the form of the steady “engrenage” – ratcheting – of EU legislation; of the stealthy removal of property rights and personal liberty under the UN’s Agenda 21; of the eco-legislation created by democratically unaccountable bodies like America’s Environmental Protection Agency".

The future starts tomorrow, in the USA.  For Obama will have been stopped in his tracks, and the next step is to carefully find the right Presidential candidate (it is not Palin by any stretch), and for the Tea Party to push on.   For all the next two years will mean is stasis, not progress, so the Tea Party needs to maintain momentum at the local, state and federal levels.

It angers and distresses the left, they will pull out all the stops to portray it as a war against the poor, or driven by rich who are painted like how Stalin described the Kulaks, or the left's old fashioned xenophobia will come out.   They will seek to scare minorities that it is racist or sexist, frighten the poor and the elderly, claim environmental armageddon, and want to not offend anyone (except those who disagree).   Because when you give people back their own money, take away the laws that tell them what to do, give them back their property rights, and make free choice and persuasion the tools protected by government - not regulation, tax and spending - then those who don't like people's choices and do like other people's money will get upset.

Because the future wont be about the initiation of force, but about the power of argument, of convincing individuals to act differently, to spend their money differently.  

Now that is an audacity of hope.