Am I crazy to wish that there could be leftist, rightist, and centrist politicians--all three--in the mainstream, with real chances to win elections?

If you want the kind of instability that has visited certain European governments over the past few decades, why not? And broadening it to 4 parties will not change things, either.

One of the great things about America is its stability. And the fact that our two major political parties in fact agree so much on what is fundamental about the Country, is part of that reason.

bunyon... lefties that hate RR also think Clinton slipped way too far to the right.

Raises hand...

But it is true that Reagan was boosted in a big way by the intellectual right, who supported his (IMO bad) ideas about trickle-down economics and commie-baiting. He was their great hope in the 1976 election.

Stability can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing; it depends on the situation that's being stably maintained. A lot of governments seem to be doing just fine with multiparty systems, or at least with more multiplicity than the United States has.

Even in multiparty systems, coalitions form, a situation that may or may not be inevitable. Now, it could be argued that our two party system is really a coalition system in disguise, and that, at various times, different elements, which in a coalition system would be separate parties, control each party at different times. But I think that if the different factions actually were separate parties, fewer citizens would give up on the process, and we might see different factions control the parties as a result. For example, the religious wingnuts might not have gained so much influence in the Republican party.

You say stability, I say stagnation...

Or, "One of the great things about Italy is that it's proof you can have a reasonably stable society without any real government (since Mussolini)"

Am I crazy to wish that there could be leftist, rightist, and centrist politicians--all three--in the mainstream, with real chances to win elections?

If you want the kind of instability that has visited certain European governments over the past few decades, why not? And broadening it to 4 parties will not change things, either.

Yeah, Canada has been an absolute political hellhole with our five distinct parties, each polling at 10% or greater. It's been nothing but mayhem and chaos.

Seriously, a greater-than-two party system can and has worked quite well in all sorts of nations around the world.

Communism was a failed idea that was doomed to collapse, but I believe Reagan's policies helped to speed that collapse. If you consider that he only helped bring about the end even one or two years earlier, but multiply that by the hundreds of millions of people who experienced that freedom -- that is quite something.

But his anti-environmental policies were terrible, Iran-Contra was a stain on the nation, he quadrupled the national debt, made the US look totally feckless by deploying to and then running from Beirut, and failed to respond to the growing AID epidemic.

He got the biggest issue of his Presidency right, in confronting the Soviets. That is what, on balance, makes his Presidency a success.

Yeah, Canada has been an absolute political hellhole with our five distinct parties, each polling at 10% or greater. It's been nothing but mayhem and chaos.

Well, at least since 1865, we've never had to deal with separatist movements, or various other parts of the country seriously considering whether they should split off.

But the fact of the matter is, what does it really matter who runs Canada?
The fact is, it could very well be a political hell hole. Who would know? Who's paying attention? We're talking about 30 million people who have to spend half the year indoors just to avoid frostbite, and spend the rest of the time arguing about hockey?

But as long as you keep coming down here to spend your now strong tourist canadian dollars, we promise to let you keep coming.

Children always decry "stability" and argue for change.

Then they grow up, and realize how good they have had it.

Well, at least since 1865, we've never had to deal with separatist movements, or various other parts of the country seriously considering whether they should split off.

Not, at least, until and if Palin's vice presidency reinvigorates the Alaska Independence movement.

Or, "One of the great things about Italy is that it's proof you can have a reasonably stable society without any real government (since Mussolini)"

Is Zenbitz aware Italy has a negative birth rate? I guess he regards "downsizing" as stability.

Well, at least since 1865, we've never had to deal with separatist movements, or various other parts of the country seriously considering whether they should split off.

So that means, in the respective histories of our nations, we're tied 1:1, unless you want to count the whole AIP thing.

We're talking about 30 million people who have to spend half the year indoors just to avoid frostbite, and spend the rest of the time arguing about hockey?

Actually, it's only about a third of the year, and some of us like to argue about baseball.

But as long as you keep coming down here to spend your now strong tourist canadian dollars, we promise to let you keep coming.

The Canadian dollar is down to $0.87 US. Is it okay as long as we keep coming down there to spend our medium tourist Canadian dollars?

That Quebec separatist movement sure resulted in a lot of carnage, didn't it?

Again, I am not saying N parties (where N > 2) is better ... just that it doesn't result in national collapse, dogs and cats living together, etc.

And don't think a negative birth rate is a bad thing (in the medium run), but nor do I think the stability of the Italian government has beans to do with it.

And for Srul - I knewed I was all growed up when I was happy to see police cars roaming my neighbor hood... Are you arguing that the political turmoil in Europe in the early 20th C (culiminating in WWII) is an effect of >2 party democratic systems? Or some other recent "instabiliites"

Children always decry "stability" and argue for change.

Then they grow up, and realize how good they have had it.

Some don't. Grow up, I mean.

Well, at least since 1865, we've never had to deal with separatist movements,

Wow. The ultimate selective endpoint.

Wow. The ultimate selective endpoint.

I think it was also around the last time that a third party came into existence and succeeded. They called themselves the Republicans or some such thing.

It has been a very long time since a third party meant anything in the US, other than as a spoiler.

I think we were better served when both the Dems and Reps each represented coalitions of various thoughts, coming together to forge compromises that the country accepted.

The parties today are just jokes. And the Dow just dropped another almost 700 points, closing below 8,600.

Wow. The ultimate selective endpoint.

Well done, sir.

I think it was also around the last time that a third party came into existence and succeeded.

I know, I know. I just thought it was funny the way you said "1865" instead of saying, "since the Civil War." It almost looked like you were trying to sneak it by a careless reader. I know that it wasn't your intention but the parallel with "since May he's hit .285" or any other such worthless comment was too good.

Wow. The ultimate selective endpoint.

It reminds me of all those Republicans who think it's a great achievement that Bush has kept us safe from a catastrophic terrorist attack ever since 9/12/01.

Well, since it was before the founding of the National League, it is in fact the only non-selective endpoint we regularly deal with.

It reminds me of all those Republicans who think it's a great achievement that Bush has kept us safe from a catastrophic terrorist attack ever since 9/12/01.

And even that isn't true because they conveniently ignore the anthrax mailings.

Absolutely, I like Brooks and read him regularly, he's very intelligent and he's very conservative in his views of what government should do. The Republican party is not appealing to either of those qualities right now and he's started to voice his frustration. Further down in that article, you see how he respects Obama's intelligence. For Brooks, it must be incredibly saddening to see the party that is supposed to be on his side consistently attack intelligence and education, and now doing so while skirting the issues.

Brooks is not "very conservative." He's a neoconservative, which means that he's a big government type. I'm not saying he's wrong in his specific point here, but you should keep in mind that his views are colored by that bias. See, e.g., the tantrum he threw about the failure of bailout plan, basically complaining that many conservatives actually believe in small government. Nobody who writes these paragraphs can be described as "very conservative":

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.

As Radley Balko wrote in response, "Me, I think Brooks’ column—and every Brooks column—can be summed up with this line, from his column today: What we need in this situation is authority. This is neoconservativism in a nutshell: An authority fetish coupled with general contempt for markets, masses, and choice. Just put a few (Brooks-approved) folks in charge, and give them unfettered power.

Others pointed out additional bizarre claims in this column: that standing up for principle is "nihilism," that failing to engage in massive government intervention is like Smoot-Hawley, that right now is a good time to write a paean to the expertise of the treasury and fed, that a guy whose party has followed his advice for the past eight years and is heading towards a debacle as a result is a guy to listen to.

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed.

That's high comedy. I believe I have a thimble around here somewhere big enough to hold Treasury's collected expertise. One of the conditions of the bailout should have been that Hank Paulson not be allowed anywhere near it. If he couldn't figure any of this out in the months leading up to the crisis, why would anyone think he's remotely qualified to lead now?

As for another theme in this thread, I'm not inclined to condemn Obama for things he hasn't done yet.

from today's slate.com

Indeed, there are a couple of aspects of Paulson's involvement in the bailout that should not be lost in the welter of crisis headlines. On Sept. 28, the Times published a front-page story that shows our guy Hank inviting a Goldman crony—one with a huge unacknowledged $20 billion stake in AIG's survival—into a key meeting about whether to ensure said survival. And Goldman's $20 billion.

The Times' Gretchen Morgenson reported that "[o]ne of the Wall Street chief executives participating in the meeting was Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson's former firm." Even worse, as the Times delicately put it, "Mr. Blankfein had particular reason for concern. Although it was not widely known ... a collapse of the insurer threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman's side ..." (italics mine). Can anyone say "obscene conflict of interest"? Corrupt cronyism on a disgraceful scandalous scale?

Gee, I wonder what advice Lloyd gave his old pal Hank. And I guess it was just coincidental that Hank suddenly reversed course and, after previously declaring that there would be no more bailouts and letting Goldman competitor Lehman Bros. go bankrupt, decided that a bailout of AIG was essential. Price to taxpayers: $85 billion. Hey, what are friends for in the billionaire buddies club?

(And then five days later we learned, also from the Times, that the key reason banks were able to "pile up new debt and risk" and ultimately precipitate the current crisis was a 2004 SEC rule change that was vigorously lobbied for by the head of Goldman Sachs, who was, at the time—guess who?—our millionaire buddy Hank Paulson. Still later we learned that, to top it all off, Paulson has named a former Goldman exec to oversee his bailout plan.)

What are the realistic alternatives to this, given the political facts on the ground? Should an "authentic" black president seize the factory farms of the Black Belt and distribute them to poor black farmers, a la Robert Mugabe? Should he beef up the affirmative action laws to reflect the demands of the Black Panther Party, circa 1968? Should he fulfill the apparent expectations of Sarah Palin and appoint Rev. Wright to his kitchen cabinet?

I was thinking that Dave Chapelle skit where Black people get slave reparation payments.

How about he just appoints David Chappelle Secretary of State?

How about he just gets Dave Chappelle some air time? I think all of America can get behind that one.

As Radley Balko wrote in response, "Me, I think Brooks’ column—and every Brooks column—can be summed up with this line, from his column today: What we need in this situation is authority. This is neoconservativism in a nutshell: An authority fetish coupled with general contempt for markets, masses, and choice. Just put a few (Brooks-approved) folks in charge, and give them unfettered power.

The's the modern GOP in a nutshell. You can call it neoconservatism or whatever you like, but Brooks' view of authority and the role of government is shared by most on the "right" at this point in time.

Also, Brooks is right that the GOP reps who voted against the bailout "did the momentarily popular thing." I seriously doubt that many of them were taking a stand against government and in favor of the free market. Whether their opposition was correct -- regardless of motive -- is another matter. I'm still on fence about that.

Sadly, I don't think the Democrats will be any better.

I'm not sure they will be, but I am looking forward to not knowing they won't be better and allowing my optimism to peek through.

I certainly never expected this insight from this source. My apologies, CP. You have chastised my cynicism in the noblest way possible.

Thank you. I'm trying to raise the level of my contribution to the site.

See, e.g., the tantrum he threw about the failure of bailout plan, basically complaining that many conservatives actually believe in small government. Nobody who writes these paragraphs can be described as "very conservative":

I may have overstated his conservativeness, but as Radko points out, he's not really big government. He believes in creating an authority of a relative few elite. I know that's big on some people's scales, but I think he is still in favor of relatively small government.

For anyone interested, Brooks added to his thoughts from the article Andy posted on the last page this morning in the Times.

I am personally very concerned about the renewed vigor of class warfare myself, so maybe that's why I enjoy him so much, but I don't think much good will come of this conscious effort to drive a greater wedge between the rural and urban (or coastal and middle if that's more accurate) areas of this country.

I am certainly concerned about conflicts of interest in this whole bailout situation, but the Slate article sort of represents the knee-jerk approach. The relevant criticism seems to me that the interests of investment bankers may not be the same as the interests of the country; it's entirely conceivable that letting banks fail may put investment bankers out of jobs but be the right choice.

But criticizing them because "one of" the Wall Street executives was from Goldman Sachs? This is the same mindless attack as noting that Cheney used to work at Halliburton and then chanting Halliburton Halliburton a bunch of times, as if merely repeating the name proved an argument. So what if one of the people there was from Goldman Sachs? Indeed, the very phrase "one of" implies that multiple firms were represented.

And if multiple Wall Street firms were represented -- which is reasonable; their input should certainly be sought, if not automatically adhered to -- then why the hell wouldn't Goldman Sachs be one of them? It's frivolous to suggest that one would consult all the banks _except_ Goldman merely because Paulson used to work at Goldman. What possible relevance could that have? Because he still has friends at Goldman? But I'm sure he has friends at lots of banks. The only relevant criticism here would be if Paulson personally still had a specific financial interest in Goldman, and nobody is making that claim.

I am personally very concerned about the renewed vigor of class warfare myself, so maybe that's why I enjoy him so much, but I don't think much good will come of this conscious effort to drive a greater wedge between the rural and urban (or coastal and middle if that's more accurate) areas of this country.

It's happening anyway, CP. I saw an astonishing map the other day, actually two maps, that showed the distrubution of college grads versus the population as a hwole.

In the 50's the two maps look roughly the same, though there is a slight concentration of more educated people in the urban areas. In the last 50 years, however, there has been a mass exodus of talent away from the rural areas and into the attractive cities and coastal areas. In other words, people with means are abandoning their roots and congregating around people like themselves.

This is unfortunate for two reasons: 1) it leaves the people left behind to fend for themselves without the trained personnel to do the job and 2) becauee of the peculiarities of our electoral system, which give each state 2 senators regardless of population, rural states have much more clout than they should have, based on pure democratic principles. This partly explains why we have been electing presidents who are not all that smart or who have to have that "down-home, folksy" thing down or they don't get elected. 50 years ago, W gets nowhere near the Republican nomination. the republican party has been hijacked by intolerant religious zealots of mediocre abilities and intelligence who have no respect at all for the American constitution.

We haven't really faced a problem like this head on since the antebellum south used their geographic advantage to stifle any discussion of expansion of civil rights to all Americans and who sought to use the power of the presidency to expand slavery.

As Radley Balko wrote in response, "Me, I think Brooks’ column—and every Brooks column—can be summed up with this line, from his column today: What we need in this situation is authority. This is neoconservativism in a nutshell: An authority fetish coupled with general contempt for markets, masses, and choice. Just put a few (Brooks-approved) folks in charge, and give them unfettered power.

The's the modern GOP in a nutshell. You can call it neoconservatism or whatever you like, but Brooks' view of authority and the role of government is shared by most on the "right" at this point in time.

That's a bit oversimplified. For one thing, though Brooks may be a neocon in the original 1970's sense of the word, there's an enormous gap between his brand of neoconservatism, which underneath the rhetoric is skeptical not just about government but about magic bullet solutions of all kinds; and the neoconism of someone like Krauthammer, who's still obsessing even today about Bill Ayers. One can only wonder what planet Krauthammer is inhabiting when in the midst of a worldwide economic meltdown he's still fretting about something as bizarrely irrelvant as this.

IMO Brooks far better represents a true conservative's approach to life---recognizing change, but always applying empirical tests that take new facts into account--- than either Krauthammer or the lunatics who run the current GOP, with their ideological fixations and their mode of constant anger and scapegoating. It's a war that people like Brooks have been waging against the phony conservatives for several years now, and his frustration at their rigidity and sheer stupidity is showing.

Well Canada just jumped on the Communist Bailout Bandwagon and bought $25 billion in good mortgages that were already insured by the CMHC (Crown corp. that regulates the industry). That $25 billion is probably close to the $700 billion as a percentage of the to countries GDP.

I know I will be mocked in the short-term, but all of this is leading to a downfall of the US government as we know it, which will be replaced by a North American Union sometime in 2010. I will refrain from saying "I told you so" if the internet is still a "free speech zone" by then.

kevin, I can only speak for myself, but I live where I live because that is where the jobs are. Left to myself, I'd live in the middle.

And we're not supposed to have pure democratic principles at play. We're supposed to be a republic. I agree with you that the increasing urbanization and sequestering of certain types in certain areas is bad for the country. I'm not real sure what to do about it.

Communism was a failed idea that was doomed to collapse, but I believe Reagan's policies helped to speed that collapse. If you consider that he only helped bring about the end even one or two years earlier, but multiply that by the hundreds of millions of people who experienced that freedom -- that is quite something.

I know this is going back a ways, but I wanted to respond to this. I hear this all the time, but giving any credit to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist governments elsewhere is Europe is simply inaccurate. Soviet communism collapsed because it was it was rotten to the core - it likely would have collapsed in the 1970s had not the global oil crisis filled the Party's coffers and propped up Brezhnev's regime.

But furthermore, it should be said that although Reagan could be credited for staunch anti-Sovietism, he did nothing that every president since Truman hadn't already done. Talking tough about the "Evil Empire" and Star Wars and all that is great, but how is it any different from what Kennedy or Johnson did? And building up the military - hadn't we been doing that almost non-stop since the 1940s? (By the way, people tend to forget this, but the early-80s military buildup actually started with Carter in response to the invasion of Afghanistan; it wasn't all Reagan's child)

Well Canada just jumped on the Communist Bailout Bandwagon and bought $25 billion in good mortgages that were already insured by the CMHC (Crown corp. that regulates the industry). That $25 billion is probably close to the $700 billion as a percentage of the to countries GDP.

US GDP ~ $14T in 2007
Canada GDP ~ $1.4T in 2007

It's actually a much smaller percentage than that invested by the US.

Anyway, we're already taunted for being "socialists" by the American standard, so we're allowed to do "socialist" things. Also, there's a big difference between the Canadian government buying into things which are good investments and "high quality assets", and the US Goverment deciding to buy the dregs.

I may have overstated his conservativeness, but as Radko points out, he's not really big government. He believes in creating an authority of a relative few elite. I know that's big on some people's scales, but I think he is still in favor of relatively small government.

The "authority of a relative few elite" doesn't preclude a big government; one can have a few elite and a lot of government employees carrying out that authority.

Moreover, in libertarian parlance, the modifier "big" in the phrase "big government" refers to the scope of government, not the number of employees.

But furthermore, it should be said that although Reagan could be credited for staunch anti-Sovietism, he did nothing that every president since Truman hadn't already done.

Wholeheartedly agree. Containment was conceived by the Truman administration.

Additionally, a study done looking at the Chernobyl disaster and its effect on the Soviet economy indicates that was a major factor in imploding the Evil Empire when it did. So, umless Reagan had slipped operatives in there to overheat the reactor core, I'd say Reagan was a by-stander just like the rest of us.

I find this tossing of bombs back and forth across our northern border rather unbecoming.

a study done looking at the Chernobyl disaster and its effect on the Soviet economy indicates that was a major factor in imploding the Evil Empire when it did

Chernobyl was also a strong force politically - in true Party form, there was a big cover-up attempt that absolutely failed. Considering this was already several years into Glastnost and Perestroika, it really hurt Gorbechev and emboldened the naiscent full anti-Party factions.

Canada is the new main front in the war on terror.

But furthermore, it should be said that although Reagan could be credited for staunch anti-Sovietism, he did nothing that every president since Truman hadn't already done. Talking tough about the "Evil Empire" and Star Wars and all that is great, but how is it any different from what Kennedy or Johnson did? And building up the military - hadn't we been doing that almost non-stop since the 1940s? (By the way, people tend to forget this, but the early-80s military buildup actually started with Carter in response to the invasion of Afghanistan; it wasn't all Reagan's child)

True about Carter, but it was rather belated on his part. Not true that Reagan's policy was the same as "every president since Truman." Truman's policy, as per Kennan, was containment. By the late 60s, many western leaders, including American ones, were saying that the Soviet Union was a permanent fact of life, that we should accept it, and that the main goal of our foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union ought to be to reduce tensions; at most, the notion was that this approach could help moderate their government in the long term. Reagan proposed a much more aggressive approach than either containment or detente; he proffered rollback. It wasn't merely that we ought to try to keep countries from going communist, but that we ought to try to overthrow communist governments where we could (through proxies, generally speaking).

As to the claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of economics, I give you Cuba, still going (not-so-) strong 20 years later. The fact that communism doesn't work as an economic system doesn't mean the country can't keep going; it just means the populace won't be well off.

So, umless Reagan had slipped operatives in there to overheat the reactor core

You're right to not rule it out. Anyone remember the SNL sketch where he looked clueless when the Girl Scouts were in the room, then turned into a mastermind when they left?

As to the claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of economics, I give you Cuba, still going (not-so-) strong 20 years later. The fact that communism doesn't work as an economic system doesn't mean the country can't keep going; it just means the populace won't be well off.

Cuba and the Soviet Union is not a good comparison. The Soviet Union was brought down by a massively unsustainable military and heavy-industry economy that depended on exports to developing nations (such as Cuba). When those markets dried up in the 1970s and the Party was too stagnant to open up the economy, the whole thing was bound to collapse. As I said, the only reason it didn't fall apart under Brezhnev was the oil crisis.

I live where I live because that is where the jobs are.

Yep. I have no love for the BoWash corridor, with its lousy weather and hostile, neurotic populace.

By the late 60s, many western leaders, including American ones, were saying that the Soviet Union was a permanent fact of life, that we should accept it, and that the main goal of our foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union ought to be to reduce tensions; at most, the notion was that this approach could help moderate their government in the long term. Reagan proposed a much more aggressive approach than either containment or detente; he proffered rollback. It wasn't merely that we ought to try to keep countries from going communist, but that we ought to try to overthrow communist governments where we could (through proxies, generally speaking).

Yes. I remember those days... Reagan was portrayed as a lunatic, a radical, a loose cannon for advocating rollback. He was hardly a guy who was just "staying the course" set by previous presidents. But he was right, and his leadership led to pretty much the best possible outcome to the Cold War. It's easy to act like it's no big deal now, 20 years later, but I have relatives who grew up behind the Iron Curtain. It WAS an evil empire, and Reagan's role in bringing it down brought enormous good to hundreds of millions of enslaved people.

Yes. I remember those days... Reagan was portrayed as a lunatic, a radical, a loose cannon for advocating rollback. He was hardly a guy who was just "staying the course" set by previous presidents. But he was right, and his leadership led to pretty much the best possible outcome to the Cold War. It's easy to act like it's no big deal now, 20 years later, but I have relatives who grew up behind the Iron Curtain. It WAS an evil empire, and Reagan's role in bringing it down brought enormous good to hundreds of millions of enslaved people.

Tie a ribbon around that post of yours and frame it, Good Face. Either than or erase it.

Why? Because I agree with it. [Pause in order to get the smelling salts.]

Not that Communism's internal contradictions (and Chernobyl) didn't also play a big part in its collapse, and not that I think that SDI was anything much more than a Star Wars fantasy**, but nevertheless you have to give Reagan credit for convincing the Soviets that it was better to bargain seriously than it was to keep escalating a conflict that nobody could really win.

And once Gorbachev saw the light, Reagan was more than willing both to talk and to share the credit. I don't see how anyone can deny that, no matter what we might think of anything else he did. He was far from the simpleminded cipher that so many people on the left portray him as.

**But the Soviets didn't necessarily know that, which is a crucial point

I find this tossing of bombs back and forth across our northern border rather unbecoming.

Are you referring to the respective states of our major stock indexes? Because both are in the process of bombing, so we can't really toss them back and forth - Dow and TSX are both down about 20% in the last month, although we have the added bonus of having our dollar pummeled by the drop in commodity prices.

At the rate things are going, it's only a matter of weeks before the Canadian Peso jokes start again.

I know I will be mocked in the short-term, but all of this is leading to a downfall of the US government as we know it, which will be replaced by a North American Union sometime in 2010. I will refrain from saying "I told you so" if the internet is still a "free speech zone" by then.

I have long thought that a North American Union was an inevitability in my lifetime. Now, I think we're both going to become subjects of the Chinese.

As to Brooks if he is a neo-conservative well then so am I.

You're right to not rule it out. Anyone remember the SNL sketch where he looked clueless when the Girl Scouts were in the room, then turned into a mastermind when they left?

One of my alltime favorite skits.

w/r/t Reagan -- the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. He probably deserves more credit for the fall of the USSR than the left usually gives him -- his rhetoric and policies might have sped up the collapse by a couple years, which, as Srul mentioned, is no small thing. But he also probably deserves less credit than the right usually gives him. The collapse of the USSR was *mostly* driven by historical trends and incidents beyond his control.

It is a precious few, a VERY precious few people who can singularly exhort the amount of influence over multiple governments that will actually cause change, and I do not believe that Reagan was one of those people. I believe the world led Reagan, but that's probably a debate that won't quickly be proven, not by me anyhow while working 2 jobs.

Also, this ohhhhhh yes it will certainty over the North American Union and/or Chinese control strikes as me little... overwrought. Not unfounded, but not entirely realistic.

At the rate things are going, it's only a matter of weeks before the Canadian Peso jokes start again.

If you want people to take your money seriously, you shouldn't put ducks on it. Conjures up images of "My First Currency!" by Hasbro.

Are you referring to the respective states of our major stock indexes?

No, I'm referring to the tone of the didactic in this very thread.

If you want people to take your money seriously, you shouldn't put ducks on it

It's not a duck, it's a loon, silly boy.

I think you can probably credit Reagan for the soviet collapse about as much as Carter for Stagflation, or W for the current financial "what's it" (to avoid fipping DMN's crisis button)

To think of it another way - If Reagan's pressure hastened the collapse of the USSR, did it put the world at risk for WWIII? I mean, how lucky are we that that the last Commie didn't start something no one could finish?

This currency is pretty cool, though:

(*warning: not work appropriate, halfway down page)

The Old Geezer

Kevin, I mean absolutely nothing personal by this, but I have to do it because you gave me such a perfect setup. In fact, I'll even apologize in advance - I'm so very sorry.

It's not a duck, it's a loon, silly boy.

And if there's one thing Kevin knows about, it's loons.

(I'm so very sorry)

I think you can probably credit Reagan for the soviet collapse about as much as Carter for Stagflation, or W for the current financial "what's it" (to avoid fipping DMN's crisis button)

Disagree. Those other two issues were domestic. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an epic international event that was building to a climax over decades.

(I'm so very sorry)

And so very Canadian...

I thought I was the loon expert around here.

Also, this ohhhhhh yes it will certainty over the North American Union and/or Chinese control strikes as me little... overwrought.

If this isn't compelling evidence to the contrary I don't know what is.....

http://infopatriots.blogspot.com/2007/12/minted-amero-coins.html

I want to go back to Kevin's post #831, about migration within the U.S. It's something I've thought about.

Some personal perspective: I grew up in Oklahoma in the 1960's. My community was Republican even when the state was Dixiecrat, and it was also a community that placed a reasonably high cultural value on education. The school system was academically respectable, with a handful of strong teachers, and a great many of my classmates got college educations. And many of them don't live in Oklahoma any more. The most common current locations are Dallas, Houston, and Denver. (I live in California myself.) You know what Oklahoma has become. If you checked my high school classmates, they might (or might not) poll out as slightly more R than the country as a whole, but for sure they wouldn't look like what Oklahoma currently looks like politically. And one of them ran for city council in a Northern California city on a Green Party ticket.

Vaguely related historical speculation: in the aftermath of the failed 1848 revolutions, a whole lot of Germans, including a lot of German liberals (and a few radicals) left Germany and came to the United States. They were joined a generation or two later by those who wanted to escape the Prussian draft. In the U.S., they were forces behind such things as establishing and strengthening public education, and organizing labor unions. The Germany they left behind?

I know I will be mocked in the short-term, but all of this is leading to a downfall of the US government as we know it, which will be replaced by a North American Union sometime in 2010.

I would be perfectly happy if Canada (sans Quebec- they can be independant), joined the United States, and all States with a Baptist Plurality (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia) split off to form their own Country.

Gilead* (or whatever the hell the Baptists would rename their little country) would fade away to be an obscure theocratic sinkhole, and the rest of the continent could once again resume the march of progress.


*Over/under on how many posts before someone identifies this reference?

If this isn't compelling evidence to the contrary I don't know what is.....
http://infopatriots.blogspot.com/2007/12/minted-amero-coins.html

Really? A guy on the corner talking to a potted plant strikes me as as good a source of evidence as this guy's blog:

I found it somewhere on an internet search that was trying to debunk its significance, and then another site that talked about how it was leaked. I should have linked those sites! sorry.

Then again, maybe his source was this commentor:

Anonymous said...
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

the word of the day is: proven

not conspiracy

Lastly, the post is about a year old.





Wait. My sarcasm detector was broken, right?

The "authority of a relative few elite" doesn't preclude a big government; one can have a few elite and a lot of government employees carrying out that authority.

Moreover, in libertarian parlance, the modifier "big" in the phrase "big government" refers to the scope of government, not the number of employees.

Sure, but Brooks is not for regulation either, he thinks it's impractical, he is for updating economic believes and thought. He doesn't believe the current liberal ideology or the current conservative ideology in this country is prepared for the new economic system that globalization has created.

The Germany they left behind?

To go along with what Kevin mentioned and what you're saying here, and what Brooks and Kathleen Parker have been concerned about recently, if the far right is allowed to stagnate and devalue the worth of education and higher learning it will grow further and further from the center of the country. If one day, 20 or 40 years down the road, the far right wakes up and realizes it's on an island politically, the results could be disastrous. Encouraging one somewhat large extreme to view those on the other side as the enemy, as people who aren't patriotic, or support terrorism or hate America is a horribly shortsighted way to mobilize a base. And if the left were doing it, I would be concerned as well, but they're not at this moment, and I think someone or some group in the Republican party needs to take leadership of that extreme right and calm down it's anger and present the left as misguided, not sinister. Letting the far right's anger simmer, occasionally stirring it up for political gain like Palin is doing these days or Bush did a few years ago is irresponsible. The extreme anger at some of these rallies is already being noticed. How much further do they let it go before they reign it in?

Lastly, the post is about a year old.

That's not much of a standard. The Patriot Act was drafted and ready to go years before it was ever introduced to Congress.

That's not much of a standard. The Patriot Act was drafted and ready to go years before it was ever introduced to Congress.

Well, at least you picked the easiest part of my post to debunk. ;-)

The extreme anger at some of these rallies is already being noticed. How much further do they let it go before the reign it in?

On the one hand, the extreme anger is bound to turn off the rest of the country- leading to political defeat- the extreme dislike many on the left showed towards Bush from day one (what conservative pundits referred to as Bush Derangement Syndrome) was off putting to many moderates- but what we are seeing from many Repub rally attendees and supporters now tops anything we've seen from the far left recently- anyway, the grownups (so to speak) in the conservative moment will seek to reign in the wackos- when it becomes apparent that they are destroying any chance teh party/movement has.

On the other hand- it's quite possible that the extreme right will control the Repub party- it's the moderates who tend to lose elections when the far right scares off the moderates/independents - the party may then drift rightward and into "permanent minority" status (nothing is permanent- but you know what I mean)- this almost happened to the Dems after the Gingrich Revolution - moderate demos either lost seats to Repubs or switched parties- in the immediate aftermath of the Repub takeover of congress- remaining congressional Demos were on average more liberal than before- it took years of conscious effort by the DNC to reverse that- deliberately recruiting more moderate politicians- I see no evidence that the current RNC would try to do that, and furthermore if it were- I think the radical right would put a stop to it.

That's not much of a standard. The Patriot Act was drafted and ready to go years before it was ever introduced to Congress.

True, and the Illuminati think on a much longer time scale than the rest of us mere mortals.

I think a third party will emerge before the far, far right takes over the Rs. No, that doesn't happen often, but once the Whigs went nuts, a new party formed. It just takes a large enough group of the R party to figure out that their party has been hijacked and they'll break off, probably taking a number of moderate Ds with them. I don't think the US will collapse but massive, once a century type change is about due.

OCF - I forget, where from in OK? You're story sounds fairly similar to mine, but 20 years earlier.

If you want people to take your money seriously, you shouldn't put ducks on it. Conjures up images of "My First Currency!" by Hasbro.

That's a good line.

You know what Oklahoma has become.

The state where McCain has his largest lead (~30-40 points)?

*Over/under on how many posts before someone identifies this reference?

The Handmaid's Tale.

On the one hand, the extreme anger is bound to turn off the rest of the country- leading to political defeat- the extreme dislike many on the left showed towards Bush from day one (what conservative pundits referred to as Bush Derangement Syndrome) was off putting to many moderates-

That might be true, but maybe those moderates should have been more open-minded about the criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand as the rantings of dirty f***ing hippies.

The Handmaid's Tale.

This is one of those books which actually gets better, the more times you read it. I absolutely hated it the first time, but now it's one of my favorites.

Just don't ever watch the movie.

and all States with a Baptist Plurality (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia) split off to form their own Country.

But they have the best food. I want to keep them.

Not that Communism's internal contradictions (and Chernobyl) didn't also play a big part in its collapse, and not that I think that SDI was anything much more than a Star Wars fantasy**, but nevertheless you have to give Reagan credit for convincing the Soviets that it was better to bargain seriously than it was to keep escalating a conflict that nobody could really win.

this is fudging the timeline, however. Gorbechev had known since the Brezhnev years how royally ###### the Soviet Union was but had to wait for the last apparatchiks to croak before he could do anything to save it (and saving it was his goal. Gorbechev was probably the last person in the world to think Soviet-style communism could work). The idea that Reagan somehow stared him down is a fantasy--Gorbachev announcing his intent to de-esculate was a shock to every Kremlinologist in Washington.

my point about Reagan not being any different from other Cold War presidents is that all he did was talk tough and continue the military esculations he had inherited from Carter (oh, and continue backing the mujahadeen in Afghanistan; that turned out great, didn't it?). Unless you think the invasion of Granada and the Contra War really sent a chill down the Soviet spine, Reagan was not nearly the towering force people make him out to be.

What really boggles my mind is that I'm sure an overwhelming majority of Americans consider Washington, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, etc. heroes for having the fortitude, courage and tenacity to first question their oppressive government, then overthrow it when there were no other options, and finally replace it with one that would become a model for the world. The equivalent figures in today's America, mainly because of media influence, are treated like kooks, conspirators and criminals. There is a reason the founding fathers stated "enemies, foreign and domestic" in the pledge of allegiance. They weren't referring to protesters carrying placards.

*Over/under on how many posts before someone identifies this reference?

It's a drug company.

bunyon - "Republican back when the rest of the state was Dixiecrat" not specific enough for you? It should at least have gotten you looking close the Kansas border. OK, Bartlesville.

On social conservatism and the oil industry ... let's just say that there's an uneasy relationship between creationism and geology. I remember my school teaching geology.

On the one hand, the extreme anger is bound to turn off the rest of the country- leading to political defeat- the extreme dislike many on the left showed towards Bush from day one (what conservative pundits referred to as Bush Derangement Syndrome) was off putting to many moderates- but what we are seeing from many Repub rally attendees and supporters now tops anything we've seen from the far left recently- anyway, the grownups (so to speak) in the conservative moment will seek to reign in the wackos- when it becomes apparent that they are destroying any chance teh party/movement has.

This would be the rational response, but not only is rationality a foreign concept within the hardcore Republican base, it may be hard for more and more otherwise normal people to maintain their rational thoughts in case of an economic freefall.

As in the ending to Reefer Madness, this flight from rationality could even happen to you--or you--or YOU. Let's just pray that we never get tested in this respect. But it's no accident that the 1930's saw the simultaneous flourishings of both Communist and neo-fascist movements within the United States.

But to return to the present, even if relative economic calm is restored, there's no guarantee that the Republican moderates will be able to cool off the sort of people you're seeing at the last few McCain/Palin rallies. In 1992 Pat Buchanan's angry call to a cultural war was largely credited with turning independent voter away from the Republicans, but two years later we had Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for political debate. So things don't always work out as expected.

And one slightly more pertinent point: Who are these Republican "moderate" conservatives, anyway? And if they speak out, won't they be labeled as "RINO"s and eliminated one by one in the 2010 primaries? Assuming that the economy doesn't wind up making all current labels obsolete, what the GOP is going through now is strikingly reminiscent to what the Democrats went through in 1972, when the hardcore faction of the party set the tone for the election. Only in this case the Republicans are starting from a much lower baseline than those early 70's Democrats, who still had a lock on Congress.

Which is why it's entirely possible that JPWF13's much grimmer "OTOH" scenario might be the one that unfolds.

bunyon - "Republican back when the rest of the state was Dixiecrat" not specific enough for you? It should at least have gotten you looking close the Kansas border. OK, Bartlesville.

I figured northeast. Your point about a really good school should have got me to Bartlesville. My college roommate was from Bartlesville. Except I'd categorize him as a far left liberal.

Anyway, full disclosure, I'm from Hydro. So your story is similar except for important details like size, politics and cultural makeup of the populace.

The equivalent figures in today's America, mainly because of media influence, are treated like kooks, conspirators and criminals.

And Richard I would probably be considered a war criminal today. 1776 is not the same as 2008.

On social conservatism and the oil industry ... let's just say that there's an uneasy relationship between creationism and geology. I remember my school teaching geology.

Oh, Andy loves geology. I guess it appeals to his meticulous nature.

Not that Communism's internal contradictions (and Chernobyl) didn't also play a big part in its collapse, and not that I think that SDI was anything much more than a Star Wars fantasy**, but nevertheless you have to give Reagan credit for convincing the Soviets that it was better to bargain seriously than it was to keep escalating a conflict that nobody could really win.

this is fudging the timeline, however. Gorbechev had known since the Brezhnev years how royally ###### the Soviet Union was but had to wait for the last apparatchiks to croak before he could do anything to save it (and saving it was his goal. Gorbechev was probably the last person in the world to think Soviet-style communism could work). The idea that Reagan somehow stared him down is a fantasy--Gorbachev announcing his intent to de-esculate was a shock to every Kremlinologist in Washington.

aleskel, my point wasn't that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by some stroke of genius. It was that in spite of his hard line rhetoric and his SDI fantasies, underneath it all he was far from the caricature that the Democrats had drawn of him during the 1980 campaign and afterwards. Let's just say that both Reagan and Gorbachev were rational actors in their dealings with one another.

And if you look at Reagan from that perspective, then rhetoric aside, he didn't act all that differently in light of events than most every other postwar president would likely have done in his place. Just as today, I still think that WRT Iraq the differences between Obama and McCain are far more rhetorical than substantive, and that both will be guided more by events (including the financial situation) than they will by anything they've promised during the campaign. Which is not necessarily something to be condemned in either case.

*Over/under on how many posts before someone identifies this reference?

The Handmaid's Tale.

That didn't take long

On social conservatism and the oil industry ... let's just say that there's an uneasy relationship between creationism and geology. I remember my school teaching geology.

Oh, Andy loves geology. I guess it appeals to his meticulous nature.

That must be my Peiping cousin you're thinking about, Kevin. I can barely tell a stalagmite from a stalagtite, or these days even a cave from the White House.

The equivalent figures in today's America, mainly because of media influence, are treated like kooks, conspirators and criminals.

Ok, I'll bite, who do you see as equivalent figures today?

The equivalent figures in today's America, mainly because of media influence, are treated like kooks, conspirators and criminals.

Royster beat me to the "not the same" but also note Washington, Jefferon, and Adams weren't trying to create a new country in the middle of the old one. There were a few logistical circumstances. Please, Prosiman.

Canada is the new main front in the war on terror.

So's your mom.

WRT Reagan, I have no idea how much his policies/rhetoric hastened the fall of the Soviets, other than to say that the left probably doesn't give him enough credit, and the right likely gives him too much.

But one thing I have noticed over the last few weeks is that in the same way the Democrats are perpetually trying to recapture the atmosphere of the Kennedy years, at least as they remember/mythologize it it, the American right is now doing the same thing with Ronald Reagan. I hear about him all the time here, all the time from Republicans I know, and all the time in the media.

As far as "anger", I saw a clip of a McCain/Palin rally that was running on the local FOX news channel--a "Straight Talk Town Hall." A big fat white guy, about 55 years old, checked button down shirt, stood up and bellowed, "I mean, ya got Obama, Pelosi, all those other hooligans--you guys (he pointed at McCain and Palin, about 50 feet away) need to represent US, and WE'RE MAD! GO GET 'EM!"

This was the clip FOX chose to run, as they cut to a grinning McCain, and then to another story, which I thought was interesting.

Not to be glib but the conservative faction in Germany during the Weimar Republic used the anger of the far right mob to great effect thinking they could control it. Until they couldn't ...

To borrow a phrase, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.


And robinred's mom.

No a movie buff, eh, Andy?

But one thing I have noticed over the last few weeks is that in the same way the Democrats are perpetually trying to recapture the atmosphere of the Kennedy years, at least as they remember/mythologize it it, the American right is now doing the same thing with Ronald Reagan.

I think Reagan is trying to be made an icon more like FDR. FDR "got us out" of the depression, much like Reagan "defeated" the Soviet Union. Reagan had something to do with it, certainly hastened the end, but it was a long process that had many champions (Truman, Eisenhower thru Bush I).

FDR was too concerned about the budget at first, and almost killed the economy when it was coming out of the worst of the depression. It wasn't until WWII, that the economy recovered.

And if you look at Reagan from that perspective, then rhetoric aside, he didn't act all that differently in light of events than most every other postwar president would likely have done in his place.

this is exactly right, sorry if I misread what you said before.

WRT Reagan, I have no idea how much his policies/rhetoric hastened the fall of the Soviets, other than to say that the left probably doesn't give him enough credit, and the right likely gives him too much.

the left has always had the misconception that Reagan was just a suit that napped all the time and let everyone behind the scenes run the show - if you saw Charlie Wilson's War you can see how it persists to this day (a lone Texas congressman ran one of the biggest foreign policy actions of the day? really?). In that sense, yes, they don't give him enough credit.

the left has always had the misconception that Reagan was just a suit that napped all the time and let everyone behind the scenes run the show -

actually that was probably true the last 2 years or so of his presidency... before that, no it was not an accurate impression

mmm ... LEH CDS defaults settled at .8625

now we see who's got dookey in their diapers

No a movie buff, eh, Andy?

Not a geology movie buff, no. What movie were you referring to?

I think I'll wait and see who answers that question first, Andy.

3,2,1...

Not a geology movie buff, no.

What movies are about geology? The only one I can think of is The Core. One episode of From the Earth to the Moon was about geology.

I think I'll wait and see who answers that question first, Andy

The Shawshank Redemption.

A damn good movie.

Shawshank Redemption

That's all it takes, really. Pressure, and time.

What movies are about geology? The only one I can think of is The Core.

The Core was about geology in the same way that this thread is about baseball.

That's all it takes, really. Pressure, and time. for the Mets to collapse.