Comments on: Four more years?

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:52:45 +0000

‘Power corrupted Bush? Uh. Yeah’ sorry about that, but I suppose I was unclear earlier, I don’t think power corrupted Bush as I consider him corrupt from the beginning, I think that Bush is an example of power having corrupted the U.S (this can be seen from the context of my earlier statement) He is the little man thrown up by the tide of history to wield America’s overwhelming power (thank god he’s not too competent at it), so when I look at the situation I see, hmm, about fifteen years ago America found itself at the position of being the world’s only superpower, now it’s got a doctrine of pre-emptive war and is brow-beating ‘allies’, read serf states, using its power.

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:44:25 +0000

my referent for the britain signing one sided treaties can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,999605,00.html my referents for danish matters are probably unline, but they would most probably be in danish, at any rate I did not read them online but in local newspapers so I’ll have to go with a reiteration that the current government seemed to consider staying on the U.S good side more important that the majority opinion on the war. I was a pro-war liberal, incorrectly as it turns out, but I didn’t especially like governmental bowing and scraping to american interests. I think it’s been a reasonably clear habit of the Bush administration to make threats to get agreement, most of those threats were pre-war against two nations strong enough to withstand the U.S, Germany and France, whether this withstanding was for their own geopolitical benefits I think we can remember a lot of crap pitched their way. Denmark didn’t get a lot of crap from the administration, but of course my thesis is that is because we went along with them, and I clearly remember the political debates leading up to war sometimes involving Denmark’s need, as a little country, to remain on the U.S’s good side.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:51:05 +0000

Are there any presidential elections you’re glad the democrats lost? Any involving William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908). Adlai Stevenson would have been a pretty crap President. Charming but weak, fickle and petulant; no “bottom”, as (some)Brits say. Basically a dumber and (even) less honest FDR. I’m skeptical of Walter Mondale’s ability to handle the sudden and surprising decline of the USSR 1985-9. Dukakis, OTOH, gets a bad rap. I think he’d have handled both Kuwait and the collapse of Communism just fine. His problem was that he was a pedant. (Not an intellectual—a pedant. Different thing.) The American electorate doesn’t much care for those… the few that have managed to get in have done it by disguising their pedantry behind a smokescreen of something, usually bonhomie. (See: Pat Moynihan) Doug M.

By: Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:43:59 +0000

Given that the poltroons in the White House are committed to destroying this country those who are anti-American should cheer any (remote) possibility of their re-election. In a different, but similar vein I would love to see the fascist-theocrats destroyed. However, I have to live here (Unless someone can aid me in emigrating to Australia, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, France, or some other civilized country). And that means getting the vile scum out of office.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:57:27 +0000

One more. Bryan said Bush is “seriously fucking with democracy in Europe”. Which “one-sided treaties” Britain is involved with, and how one-sided treaties by Britain are either non-democratic (treaties? democratic? what?) or Bush’s fault, I can’t say, lacking Bryan’s knowledge of his referents. However, that various countries align as they see fit doesn’t appear to be “fucking with democracy”, by any reasonable use of the term, unless Bush threatened boycotts or invasions of Euro countries that didn’t “toe the line” (he did not, that I can recall, nor has the US, to my knowledge, taken any action at all to chasten France, Germany, or any other non-cooperating European power… unless “not giving them shiny lucrative contracts in Iraq” is “fucking with democracy”, but I don’t think that’s defensible), I don’t see where “democracy” even enters into it. Please tell me exactly how European countries’ democracy is being “fucked with” by Bush? If the “majority” of Danish citizens were against Danish policies, I think the problem is not Bush, but the Danish government not listening to its people … of course, most European countries aren’t known for having strong Democratic impulses, at least by my horribly old-Liberal American use of the term. (Power corrupted Bush? Uh. Yeah. What excuses do Chirac and Schroeder and Chretien have for their disgusting behaviour – that Germans and Canadians are, by the way, increasingly actually disgusted by. (I don’t follow France that closely; perhaps the French are, too.) … My point here is mainly that it’s very easy to say “Power corrupts!”, but it’s much harder to show someone the corruption, when we remember that corruption is not the same as disagreement over policy.)

By: Leo Casey

Leo Casey — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:43 +0000

What an elegant elaboration of the “worse for the people] the better [for us]” theory of politics. I note that you managed to leave out how well it worked for the German Communists, circa the early 1930s.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:47:20 +0000

If spending more than it takes in and inflating services spending (of a sort that will continue only to increase over time, that is) is what puts the nation "on the path to national bankruptcy", didn't the US more or less take that fork half a century or more ago? Shall we start with WW2, or the New Deal? Earlier? Why is it that Bush "set the US on" that path, when it appears that all he's doing is keeping on the same well-trodden rut of spend, spend, spend s'more? I suppose it's not the fact that there's an "(R)" after his name and he's likely to get re-elected, no? (Let's not forget the analysis of the Democratic candidates' platforms, all of which want to spend more than Bush does, and make more nearly-unkillable social spending programs. But a Bush re-election would somehow do such huge long-term fiscal damage that it Must Be Avoided? Laffer curve, anyone? D'ya really think that raising spending "some" and taxes greatly will both remove the deficit and not tank the economy? Want to put some money on that? Seriosuly, guys. Parties aside, it's painfully obvious that the Federal government will simply spend every cent it can, and then spend more, regardless. Trying to pin this on Bush or Republicans specifically is laughable; you might rile the remaining "small government Republicans" (who are the only significant population in the big two parties who actually want lower spending), but they're never going to vote Democrat.)

By: Jon Meltzer

Jon Meltzer — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:06:40 +0000

>Are there any presidential elections you’re glad the democrats lost? 1904 – Theodore Roosevelt vs Alton Parker.

By: COK

COK — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:05:51 +0000

On Iraq 2 being about the Euro, I don’t know. However, there is certainly room for speculation over the precarious state of the Dollar – in June 2001 Ronald McKinnon published an article in the IMF’s Finance and Development journal (hardly a bastion of the left) on this subject. It’s here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/06/mckinnon.htm. The analysis makes for interesting reading, although McKinnon’s recommendations are hardly earth-shattering. On the Euro issue, it’s hard to imagine the single currency being recognised as a strong counter-weight to the Dollar, at least for the moment. Anyway, while they may want to see a certain re-balancing, and perhaps even a poke in the American eye, European governments would be crazy to wish for the US economy to be really weakened. That’s not to say that an American administration with any regard to long-term strategy might not seek to cut off this possible route for Europe before any Euro geopolitical strategy has even taken shape. It may be that America is being sailed into an iceberg, but we would all be sucked down. No matter who the captain is.

By: jdsm

jdsm — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:54:10 +0000

“There are quite a few foreigners who would root for Bush, just not too many in the crowd that flocks here. Check out places like Poland and other former-Soviet subjects.” You may be right but I’ve never seen any evidence of this and we get a fair few Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians in Helsinki. There’s a great deal of difference between feeling gratitude towards the US and supporting its current administration. The support for the war was a political decision based on gratitude, nothing more.

By: Mark Byron

Mark Byron — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:26:53 +0000

There are quite a few foreigners who would root for Bush, just not too many in the crowd that flocks here. Check out places like Poland and other former-Soviet subjects. As for the deficit, a combination of economic growth (which we’re getting, albeit without as much job growth as most recovery will have) corporate welfare cutting, some cutting of other programs and some modest tax increases (or an tax overhaul that will increase revenues) should do the job. The way things are going, revenue growth from a growing economy should cut the deficit significantly, making the ghastly cuts y’all are talking about not quite as bad.

By: Adam Rice

Adam Rice — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:33:05 +0000

This gets convoluted, but bear with me. Among some progressives in the USA, there is speculation that some factions of the GOP (think Grover Norquist) want to keep Bush in place with the knowledge (indeed, the intent) that the country will suffer a financial meltdown during the second administration of the second Bush. Why? Because that would force the government to adopt really radical changes, like the abolition of social security. I know, it sounds crazy. But this gang has proven they’re of the “destroy the village in order to save it” mentality. I thought the assertion that Iraq War 2 was really about the Euro was crazy until I read the same by a former intelligence officer.

By: Michael Froomkin

Michael Froomkin — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:24:01 +0000

The next President will appoint several members of the Supreme Court. That Court will decide just how broad and arbitrary the President’s powers are to detain foreigners at home and abroad; it may even reach the question of invasions and war powers. Beware of getting what you ask for.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:19:57 +0000

’ Or has it just never been the case, in your opinion, that hindsight shows the GOP president to have been the right man for the job? ’ hmm, probably Lincoln

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:15:04 +0000

‘On that note, is there any reason for a foreigner to want Bush to win the next election? ’ actually I have several, most european politicians seem to believe that Bush is a blip, an anomaly, I don’t. I think the republicans will throw up other bush types, and at least some of them will be elected. Currently Europe doesn’t want to make the hard choices it has to make to get out from underneath the U.S thumb, everyone’s hoping for Kerry to save them from having to make decisions, allowing them to live on in the illusion of a nice and pretty U.S until the next fool. So I’m hoping for Bush to force them to make decisions. Why don’t I want to wait until the next fool? It just seems to me that some things, imbalances in armed might etc. will grow worse as time goes on. The problem for me is not that Bush is screwing up the democratic process in the U.S, it’s that he’s seriously fucking with democracy in Europe. From the one sided treaties Great Britain is engaging in to the various little lands, like Denmark, striving to stay on his good side, American might has been very damaging. I’m pretty sure that Denmark is along in the coalition of the willing because of the current government’s need to kiss ass, and still we hear shit about how we’re not doing enough, when the majority of citizens were against it. Also, if Bush screws up the American Economy he lessens its ability to exert political influence. Sure, it will screw up the world economy, but I think that would be short term, economical engines have failed before, and the world has adjusted. The last adjustment shifted might to the U.S, it would be nice to get it shifted away. The thing that makes all this seem especially urgent to me is the consideration that the current situation we’re in, is less than two decades from the collapse of communism, and the U.S rise as the only ‘superpower’, when considered in that light one might stop thinking of Bush as an anomaly and rather think of him as an example of power having corrupted somewhat too quickly, and by doing so having given a timely warning. Note: I lived in the U.S for 22 years, leaving late in 98. Up until about a year ago I thought of myself as an american really, especially as everyone always tells me I am. Thanks to Bush I don’t think of myself as American anymore.