A trillion dollar rescue package will do that to you.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948.
And that's exactly what's happening. People are socialist without knowing or fully comprehending how much of their personal liberty they've abdicated. Socialism has become so "ethereal" the actual cost to maintain its ideals are overlooked without much scrutiny. Government involvement and intervention is the norm now.
Just like it's impossible to be a capitalist democrat, it's misleading to claim to be a socialist democrat. Democracy is just a shell - like an RRSP. What you fill it with will determine how free and just you will be. I don't believe socialism is a natural complement to democracy or the ideals of American liberalism.
Socialism on its own can't raise enough funds generated from the free will and generosity of citizens because the force of its ideas have limits on citizens. Instead, it relies on notions of subsidies and coerced taxes to keep its dream alive.
Socialism aims for a just and egalitarian society. Here's the rub, if the people designing and implementing public policy (and running public companies) aren't angels - or close to them - all you're going to get is a set of seriously flawed ideas that lead to an unjust and unequal society. It will accomplish exactly the opposite of its stated intentions.
The story of socialism is too much of a sweet one for people, particularly liberals, to turn down. President Obama, by the way, is not a classic liberal nor will he restore liberalisms great heritage. He's a bunch of confused things.
Talk about prescient words by Mr. Thomas.
President Obama, by the way, is not a classic liberal nor will he restore liberalisms great heritage. He's a bunch of confused things.
ReplyDeleteFacing, as he is, one of the biggest crises ever, I frankly don't think Obama should be judged by his consistently adhering to this or that political & economical theory. I think it is time (for him, for us) to think a bit outside such schemes. History being not repetition, should ideas be repetitive?
MOR, you know I love you, man.
ReplyDeleteBut, not buying that. The reason is simple, if Obama's policies fail he'll (and his supporters) will always have an excuse: notably blaming all on Bush's policies.
Besides, I would submit that 9/11 was a far more complex and difficult period for ANY leader and Bush made his choices and was subsequently grilled for them. Bush going in wasn't a "neocon" but post 9/1 he was.
I get the distinct feeling Obama is "winging" things here. But does he need to? It's not like economic downturns are new to us. Sure, people say this one is deeper and more different but by how much? Obama has some examples to draw from. Bush had no such advantage after 9/11.
He's not thinking outside anything. I can't see how his idea to shock the system with a trillion dollars is "ground breaking."
He's basically gambling like a junkie. Bush, with his direction, gambled too by the way.
The only reason why I bring this up is because everyone is jacked on him and talk about "change."
Me? Plus ca change...
I love you too man, and I like the fact that everybody is crazy about the Obama wonder boy and you are not. But let me give you some replies, for the sake of discussion.
ReplyDeleteif Obama's policies fail he'll (and his supporters) will always have an excuse: notably blaming all on Bush's policies.
This happens with all administrations in the world
It's not like economic downturns are new to us.
Yeah, it seems a comparable one occurred only in 1929: pretty far in time, isn't it (plus this ‘could’ be worse, although I agree, it is to be seen)
I would submit that 9/11 was a far more complex and difficult period for ANY leader
In my view this crisis is much worse. America's insularity makes you probably forget that ALL over the world there have been terrorists attacks ALL the time, maybe not that spectacular, but that's only psychology, after all. So lots of lessons to learn from anywhere. Obama's problem seems to me much more complex. One thing is terror and terrorists, another mastering the entire world's economy, everything being intertwined.
Who knows, maybe Bush could have been not bad as a president before 9/11. After 9/11 he (or those around him, or both) totally screwed all up, I believe.
He's basically gambling like a junkie.
As you said, both are/were gambling. We'll just wait and see which of the two goddess Fortune will choose. Was Bush chosen? Probably not, this being though only my opinion.
Thanks for engaging, sir.
ReplyDeleteFurther thanks for not misinterpreting my criticisms of Obama for defense of Bush as a lesser mind would do. I don't get excited over leaders. I'll know when I see one that makes me quiver in hope but for now...
If Obama supporters and Bush bashers were good at dishing out then they'll have to take it too.
Onwards to your precious comments.
About blaming administrations. This much is true, but this one will be special. It will be fun and interesting to see how things unfold.
About downturns. Actually, there were a few meltdowns and tough times ranging in various degrees of difficulties: The 70s, 1982, 1987 and 2001. And being a man of history, you know there have been several in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
About 9/11, yes, many nations have witnessed it but we must keep it in the context of American politics. It was their first and a shock to the nation. That it happened elsewhere really is irrelevant.
I like this statement:
"Who knows, maybe Bush could have been not bad as a president before 9/11. After 9/11 he (or those around him, or both) totally screwed all up, I believe."
The "what ifs" of history. I think the jury is still out on the Bush doctrine. Added features to it will come from Obama. If Obama does continue the Bush doctrine is it because he has no choice or he feels it's necessary and the correct course? Then again, he has choice. He can pull out but he won't because of the complexities of the issue.
Yes, they both gambled but for all the rhetoric of "fixing" what Bush "broke," Obama sure is proving to be the rule rather than the exception.
His trillion dollar package will probably outspend Bush! It's a race to the bottom by both if you ask me. That's why I'm not enamored by Obama and the "chance" for "change." He HAS to buck the trend.
Will he?
Up here in Canada is la stessa merda with the added feature of having gutless douches running our country. They don't know how to lead; they know how to play petty politics and right now Premier Jean Charest of my home province of Quebec is really getting on my nerves for his unwillingness to take principled stands.
What makes me even more annoyed is they get decorated with medals for their "services." All bull shit if you ask me.
And I'm not so sure I ever bought into the "insular" American. I find them to be no more dumber or smarter than Europeans in my travels.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I've heard many frivolous comments from Europeans that pointed at a complete misunderstanding of American culture, society and politics.
Worse, I found them, in some cases, to be unwilling to debate the issue they were so sure of their perceptions.
The bottom line is you don't build a great nation like that on a deck of empty and weak cards. There's substance behind the people in my view.
"There's substance behind the people in my view", writes Man of Roma. Yes there is, however those same people have a miserable choice as far as leaders are concerned. In the US, Obama is probably the lesser of many evils. In Canada, we have no real leaders to chose from wherever we may live. We have a total leadership vacuum. There could be one faint hope: Danny Williams of New Foundland and Labrador...but he is so parochial that I guess he does not have much appeal outside his Rock.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Bill Shatner for Canadian Prime Minister? Could Captain Kirk do better>
ReplyDeleteNow that's funny.
ReplyDeleteHe can't be any worse than what we have.
At least he has experience leading and making hard decisions.
I just hope he doesn't go wacky and join the NDP.
Easy with the insularity thing, Commentator.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is substance behind: a great nation like America (and all North America) can’t be made of mozzarella soft cheese. The incredible economical and military power, the number of Nobel prizes, the exuberance, creativity – the list could go on and on.
Insularity doesn’t mean Americans are dumb compared to Europeans, Asians etc. It is just geography, which makes you surrounded by oceans, plus there is your huge size, which makes you self-sufficient in some way. Isn’t traditional American isolationism sort of deriving from this as well?
You yourself just said: “That it [terrorist attacks] happened elsewhere really is irrelevant.” That is the point. Here instead when they hit Cairo, Jerusalem, Iraq or Iran, it is not so irrelevant.
I've heard many frivolous comments from Europeans … a complete misunderstanding of American culture … they were so sure of their perceptions
That is the thing of international confrontation. Do you think it is easier to go abroad being Italian (or Indian, or Arabic, or German etc.)? Stereotypes, mistrust, scorn, undervaluation, you name it. It is part of the game of being a bit cosmopolitan, a bit citizen of the world. It is though tremendously worth it, oh yes it is. I used to suffer many years ago but now I’ve learnt: when they criticize me because I’m Italian, I eat them up, in one gulp ;-)
PS
By the way, you are Canadian, ok, but the Bush era probably made it a bit harder to be American abroad, not so easy to deny.
PPS
Paul:
Lack of good leaders? And our Berlusconi? And our Veltroni? And our Rutelli? I’ll stop, since the bitter Roman smile is even worse that the crass Roman laugh.
You can call me, Com.
ReplyDeleteWhen was it tough being Italian?
I really eat them up in one gulp, I'm not kidding, especially the Northern Europeans who think they’re more civilised than we guys from the south. I mean, one advantage of age is that one has experience, has arguments, one has fought battles to survive, the skin being a bit harder, the awareness of what you are a bit clearer. And most of all, you’ve basically developed love and compassion for everybody. Yes, at the end it is love, it is the acceptance that we are all humans with limits, that there can even be bias and that it is in people’s right to prefer this folk to that folk, like a man can prefer this woman to that woman. This is the game of living internationally. I pity the people who are afraid to go international (it one can say that), and don’t accept the risk of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like economic downturns are new to us.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about this one. First this one is happening in the context of an acute conscience of the finite nature of the planet's resources which comes in direct contradiction to capitalism's premise of constant and unlimited growth. Maybe becoming more conscious about the limitations of natural resources makes us somewhat more skeptical about the soundness of the capitalist system.
About downturns. Actually, there were a few meltdowns and tough times ranging in various degrees of difficulties: The 70s, 1982, 1987 and 2001. And being a man of history, you know there have been several in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Not to mention the one in the 30s. I agree, but first of all this one seems much deeper that the other ones you mentioned and also globalization has brought with it both a more immediately global impact of any new policy and an increased awareness of that same fact.
About 9/11, yes, many nations have witnessed it but we must keep it in the context of American politics. It was their first and a shock to the nation. That it happened elsewhere really is irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Americans are a unique species not governed by the same laws and principles as other humans elsewhere on the planet? Actually I think the exact opposite of you, the financial crisis is unique and 9/11 was very similar to other events in Europe and elsewhere, the only difference being perhaps the spectacular nature of World Trade collapsing.
Thanks for an explanation, MOR.
ReplyDeleteHello Francois and welcome. Thank you for your contribution.
Yes, this downturn is as you eloquently put it; that is the added complexity of natural resources.
But please allow me Francois. I don't know if that's the "accepted" context. It has a lot to do with the shifting of the West's entire economic system as a whole - notably will we be a rapacious consumerist society moving forward? It has less to do with environmental consciousness (I think) and more with the realization materialism isn't what it's cracked up to be. So, as a result, we slow down.
The problem is that the U.S. (can't speak for Europe. Canada is harder to read) lived beyond its means. It borrowed and spent into oblivion. It engaged in dubious financial practices. So to me the environmental dimension just came as an added "bonus" if you will.
I could be wrong because I haven't really thought this one out.
The global impact of the present scenario is greater but the seriousness was worse in the 80s prior to Reagan from what I've understood from some economists and market experts.
You know what they say, opposites attract! Irrelevant may have been a strong word, but my argument is that we can only go with the pace of America regarding 9/11. That it happened elsewhere didn't matter because it never happened on their soil. They had to experience it first. Now that it did happen, your reasoning applies better now - especially if it happens again.
I hope I explained myself better here.
"I really eat them up in one gulp"
ReplyDeleteIt was a bit silly of me to say that. But I do not totally disown it.