"How ironic it is, that in 1776 a great "Declaration" is sought in search of "independence", while in 1932 a "Great Dictator" is sought in search of dependence?"

Notice the question mark at the end of that quote.

Mr. Rush, I would like for you to consider this story in relationship to what happened in 1968/69, your former attraction to the communitarianism, and the abovestated quote.

There is one aspect of the war on terror that is very 3T, how the enemies POW?s are being treated and the public?s reaction to the treatment of said POW?s by the government.

Compare the treatment of Taliban POW's and 911 suspects to that of the Nazi saboteurs who were captured in the USA in WW2.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/479pvzqo.asp

There is another aspect in the war on terror that seems quite 4T.

Namely the Bush administration?s plans to overthrow the Iraqi regime through a military attack and invasion if necessary. Either for political or other reasons (I would bet on the latter, Bush and his advisors see this as stage one of the) plans outlined in the Axis of Evil speech. The administration is very determined to finish off Saddam Hussein once and for all.

As I see it Bush and some of his advisors do seem very determined to commit a total war. Meaning this war coming up will be not limited objective like the Gulf War was, however the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

I do think the sort of confused signals on the war on terror in the Bush administration is a reflection of the conflict between the more cautious due process Silents and the Fire and Brimstone Boomers in the administration.

My prediction is that the attack will happen about November to January. The weather is most ideal in Iraq during these months. I do expect this war to be a very short one, 2 weeks maximum.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/481nyspe.asp

On 2002-07-19 21:41, Marc Lamb wrote:


"How ironic it is, that in 1776 a great "Declaration" is sought in search of "independence", while in 1932 a "Great Dictator" is sought in search of dependence?"

I guess you never studied the War of Independence Marc,

During that war like all other 4T's personal freedom was drastically curtailed. For example if you were a Tory or Neutral during that war and you would not co-operative with the Continental Forces.

You would have been beaten up, also if you were lucky tarred and feathered by the said militias. Not to mention other abuses of individual rights which happened during that 4T.

The Great Power Crisis at least in the United States was better for political dissent that the War of Independence

_________________
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-07-19 22:44 ]</font>

Marc:

"How ironic it is, that in 1776 a great "Declaration" is sought in search of "independence", while in 1932 a "Great Dictator" is sought in search of dependence?"

If you're referring to Mr. Hitler, the year was 1933, not 1932. If you're referring to Mr. Roosevelt, I deny either that he was a dictator or that people were in search of dependence. Actually, they were in search of independence -- independence from the tyranny of businessmen who could ruin their lives on a whim or on their own collective irresponsibility. In both of those Crises, freedom was sought from a ruling elite; the earlier episode from the British aristocracy, the later from the American mercantile elite. As Tristan pointed out, both involved a temporary sacrifice of liberty to meet the emergency, but both resulted in the long run in greater freedom.


In the case of Mr. Hitler, Germans, too, were motivated by the collapse of the economy, but also by anger at the terms imposed at the end of World War I and their nation's humiliation. This anger twisted and poisoned the enterprise, and that is why Germany elected to follow an apostle of hate and war, rather than take their reform unvenomed.

Mr. Rush, I would like for you to consider this story in relationship to what happened in 1968/69, your former attraction to the communitarianism, and the abovestated quote.

I'm not sure of your reference to '68-69. What happened then? I mean, I know lots of things happened then -- the King and R. Kennedy assassinations, the Tet offensive in Vietnam, the Chicago Democratic Convention police brutality, Apollo 11, Woodstock -- but I'm uncertain what you're referring to.


My core values haven't changed since the days when I was a Communist. I'm just cognizant of the need to choose appropriate methods. Chaos theory has been an informative concept. Socialism, in the sense of a centrally planned economy in which the state tries to replace all market mechanisms (as opposed to simply setting their paramaters and rules), doesn't work very well. It founders on the storms of indeterminacy that govern economies as they do all chaotic systems. I also agree with C. Wright Mills' observations of where Marx's predictions failed.


However, that does not mean that I am prepared to turn control of my fate or of my economic well-being to corporations whose interests often do not coincide with mine, indeed are intrinsically opposed. While the market must be allowed to function, and with its multiple decision-makers answer chaos with chaos, it must also be regulated, policed, and carefully circumscribed to ensure benignity. Current events in the economy surely demonstrate that -- again.


Alas that we are not immortal. Those older than we knew that already by prior experience. We, sadly, must learn afresh, through misery.

Marc: "How come liberals can so easily ditch the First Amendment, the very source of our vitality as a nation, the very epitome of everything Osama bin Laden--and the rest of the world, that hate us--are not, in order to get one over the rich guy? I do not understand this."
_________________________

Somehow the popular notion of liberalism got infused with big government and "the little guy"... I think it was the depression and FDR that did it. But if you go back to de Tocqueville, he says that AMerican democracy is built on two great pillars: Freedom and Equality.
From Freedom flows Individualism, Quality, the good of the self: the danger of Narcissism (what he called Egoism), the Free Market, the free world, the Republicans?
From Equality flows Justice for All, parity, the danger of "leveling" or the "vulgar", the good of the other: community, affirmative action, social security, the Democrats?
He believed that in reality you could not have true Freedom and have Equality, and you could not have true Equality and have Freedom. But, he said that somehow, these two "pillars" existed in some form of "dynamic opposition" in the US of A. I know it is fashionable to discount the political parties these days, but I think that the two party system is related to this dynamic opposition. Both are needed. It is no accident that the pledge goes: "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
Now deTocqueville was a Frenchman, he loved quality and was a little afraid of all that equality. But if you consider what the French have given the world, and what the USA has, it may give you some understanding of what is so interesting and revolutionary about US. The French have given the world haute cuisine ... we have given the world McDonalds. The French have give the world haute couture ... we have given the world blue jeans. The French have given the world fine wines ... we have given the world Coca Cola. The French have given the world great literature ... we have given the world great movies. The difference between great literature and great movies is that you have to be able to read and write to appreciate literature. This is what is so revolutionary about American Pop Culture. It glorifies the common. This is what is so destabilizing and threatening and revolutionary.
DeTocqueville believed that Americans could never choose between these two great pillars ... but if they absolutely had to, the would choose...


scroll down, you will be amazed...

Equality!

Well, it sounds good, but I think he only got that impression because he happened to come to American during an egalitarian period (the Jacksonian era). In fact, I think we desperately love both, and we go through history, back and forth between these two loves. I think the era from the 30's to the mid 70's was an Egalitarian era. I think the era from the mid 70's to now has been a Freedom era.
On the bright side, we, as a nation, have been blessed to have some sort of unconscious understanding that both are good and both are bad. (This is why I think "splitting" is dangerous) We were born under a lucky star. We had a good mom. Poor old Britain, for all it has been kicked around. We had a blessed environment, an Eden, which we have in some ways preserved (our national parks) and in some ways despoiled (let me count the ways). We had our oceans to protect us. We had the best that other nations had to offer... give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free... Freedom and Equality. It is EVERYWHERE in our national psyche.
I am a Democrat. It is such a struggle for me not to demonize the Republicans. Especially when I see them "out of control". But we had our "out of control" time too, in the late 60's -70's. What helps me is to keep reminding myself that we are both good and bad. And we are in this together. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Regarding your quote: it is your job to defend the rich guy... quality. And it is my job to defend the little guy... parity. And we are both right, and we are both wrong. And it is well past time for us to begin to treat each other respect.

On 2002-07-19 17:57, Brian Rush wrote:

Since the use of the alleged "right" that is allegedly violated by campaign finance reform is very expensive, it is, as a practical matter, not a general right but a privilege of the wealthy and powerful. I may in legal theory have the right, but it is one I cannot exert because I am not an obscenely wealthy person or the head of a corporation. Moreover, it is used to exert an undemocratic influence on government, skewing its policies to benefit the few against the many. Not only can I not use the right to bribe politicians with massive campaign contributions, but the existence of that right has the effect of undercutting other rights which I could exert, by causing elected officials to pay attention to money when they should be guided solely by votes.

Brian, do you see another way to approach this problem other than by regulating campaign finances? For example, can the Constitution be amended to forbid certain types of appropriations thereby eliminating the possibility of corporate quid pro quo?

DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln describes the sustained efforts of the Hamiltonians through the first saeculum to reimpose the original British mercantilism which of course was consonant with consolidating power in the hands of "the few" per your argument. The mantle was passed first from Hamilton, the "great centralizer," to John Quincy Adams (with honorable mention to Albert Gallatin in between), to Henry Clay, to Abraham Lincoln who stated that his career ambition was to become "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois," Clinton being the man credited with introducing the spoils system to America apart from building a famous publicly-funded canal of short-lived profitability due to almost immediate obsolescence. The Jeffersonians opposed this juggernaut all along, correctly perceiving it as a vehicle ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. DiLorenzo writes:

Senator John Taylor of Virginia described the British mercanitilist system as "undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions [that is, tariffs]...are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of the people, has ever been discovered."

This again relates right back to your argument of "the few" versus "the many." Structurally speaking, Americans face today precisely the same problem that Americans faced in 1860: "the few" versus "the many" in the context of mercantilist/corporatist consolidation of power.

DiLorenzo finally points to the Confederate Constitution where the Jeffersonian Southerners, having seceded, finally rid themselves of this baneful and corrupt mercantilist movement designed to consolidate power in the hands of "the few" (as it had been before the Revolution) which they had been fighting since Hamilton's day. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Confederate Constitution read as follows:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

Do you see any way to amend the Constitution today in similar fashion so as to remove corporate influence? If so how? I would really prefer not to regulate campaign financing at all so that the federal government will never have a record of such personal information of indiviudals. But surely there is another way to remove the ability of corporations to have any influence over governmental operations such that their "contributions" will be without effect and corporatist consolidation of power will immediately dissolve. Is there a modern adaptation of the relevant Constitutional clause used by the Jeffersonian Confederates which will have the same effect today?


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-20 06:00 ]</font>

Stonewall:

Brian, do you see another way to approach this problem other than by regulating campaign finances?

Yes; actually I would prefer a thorough system of public campaign financing, either with direct funds or with some kind of mandated air time. That in place, the kind of bribery and extortion that currently dominate our politics couldn't be done.

For example, can the Constitution be amended to forbid certain types of appropriations thereby eliminating the possibility of corporate quid pro quo?

Not in a way that would work in an advanced industrialized economy. The passage you quoted from the Confederate constitution represents nicely the core economic issue of the Civil War, namely whether to industrialize. The Confederate states preferred to remain agrarian (as did Jefferson, you may recall). "Public improvements to facilitate commerce" obviously work against that design, and so the Confederate constitution forbids them.


Yet they did not thereby embrace a philosophy of the many against the few. After all, the Confederate constitution also explicitly protected slavery. Agrarian societies also have a dominant few that oppress the many. It's only the means, and the chief source of wealth and power, that are different.

Structurally speaking, Americans face today precisely the same problem that Americans faced in 1860: "the few" versus "the many" in the context of mercantilist/corporatist consolidation of power

No, I don't agree. In 1860, the central question was this: Will America become an industrial power, with all that this entails, including a strong central government (abandoning all pretensions of being a free association of sovereign states), and a free and readily shiftable labor force (abandoning chattel slavery), and a dominant elite of commercial and industrial magnates? Or will it remain an agrarian nation, with a loose central government, a slower pace of life, and a dominant elite of slave-owning planters?


The Civil War, if you look at it one way, demonstrated why the industrial model had to win. It does a far better job of fighting wars. Southern gallantry did not stop northern industrial might from triumphing overwhelmingly. Similarly, American gallantry, had the southern model prevailed in politics, would not have stopped some foreign industrial power from overwhelming us.


In any case, the issue is now long since decided. We already have an industrial economy, and have since moved on to other issues that dominate such an economy, such as the rights of workers and the husbandry of natural resources, and these issues, not those of 1860, face us now. A provision outlawing public appropriations for improvements would be impossible today, not only politically but economically as well.

I also have to present a cautionary thought about your signature:

Anybody but Bush in '04!

I'm not prepared to say that. Replacing Bush with another DLC Democrat like Clinton would not be sufficient. Bush is a useful foil, a fulcrum for the lever that will bring about necessary reform. I want to see him replaced, but not with just anybody.

"Universal liberalism
All of that is why I am convinced that liberalism is a universal doctrine, the most basic premise of which is to oppose dogmatism in any form. Hence its advocacy of tolerance, openness and pluralism." --
Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Liberalism and Globalization

"I am a Democrat. It is such a struggle for me not to demonize the Republicans."

Herein lies the problem: Liberalism's "basic premise" of opposing "dogmatism in any form" in the name of "tolerance, openness and pluralism" actually requires and encourages you to "demonize" your opponents. It's disingenuous at best, to think that in order to achieve tolerance one must oppose dogmatism, and at worst it's a hideous lie that clearly suggest that anyone who believes differently than you do is somehow intolerant of everybody else. This notion of liberalism is more than just nonsense, it is exceedingly dangerous because it boasts of "pluralism" but encourages just the opposite.

"Regarding your quote: it is your job to defend the rich guy... quality. And it is my job to defend the little guy... parity. And we are both right, and we are both wrong."

Just as the Constitution (as of 1865) is color blind, it is class blind as well. It's not my job to "defend the rich," it's my job to defend the Constitution which protects the rights of both rich and poor.

"And it is well past time for us to begin to treat each other respect."

Well, I haven't noticed anyone being caned lately, have you? :smile:


p.s. Mr. Rush, I was referring to student unrest, "Hell no, we won't go!", Woodstock, draft dodging etc... etc... in 1968/69.

On 2002-07-20 07:26, Brian Rush wrote:

Yes; actually I would prefer a thorough system of public campaign financing, either with direct funds or with some kind of mandated air time. That in place, the kind of bribery and extortion that currently dominate our politics couldn't be done.

You are routing all funds through government which opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of corruption. I realize that you would favor such a system, but I really wanted to know whether you can see an alternate means of attacking the problem by restricting certain types of appropriations in the manner that the Confederate Constitution did. If there is an alternate means along these lines, then corporate influence can be removed with the additional support of a large portion of the Right.

Not in a way that would work in an advanced industrialized economy. The passage you quoted from the Confederate constitution represents nicely the core economic issue of the Civil War, namely whether to industrialize. The Confederate states preferred to remain agrarian (as did Jefferson, you may recall). "Public improvements to facilitate commerce" obviously work against that design, and so the Confederate constitution forbids them.

I think you are misrepresenting the Southern opposition. It is not as if Southerners were Luddites with some philosophical opposition to industrialization and technological advancement. Indeed there was industry in the South, just less of it. The point is that the Southern states, given climatic factors, derived a better standard of living from agriculture at the time than the North did from industry. At whatever point industry became more profitable in the South, then naturally Southerners would have industrialized much more rapidly, driven by profit, consistent with human nature.

That clause in the Confederate Constitution was in no way intended to discourage any industrial enterprise in the South. It was solely intended to eliminate the corruption which such marriage between government and corporations quite logically spawns as had been already experienced to a tremendous degree through the first saeculum thanks to the tireless efforts of the Hamiltonian faction which simply kept reinventing itself and would not go away. So long as there are humans, there will be devious as well as outright corrupt humans and they will invariably gravitate toward a Hamiltonian consolidation of power. Despite the moral imperfections of the Southern position vis-a-vis slavery, Southerners were considerably more dedicated to maintaining clean government. That is why that clause was included in the Confederate Constitution.

No, I don't agree. In 1860, the central question was this: Will America become an industrial power, with all that this entails, including a strong central government (abandoning all pretensions of being a free association of sovereign states), and a free and readily shiftable labor force (abandoning chattel slavery), and a dominant elite of commercial and industrial magnates? Or will it remain an agrarian nation, with a loose central government, a slower pace of life, and a dominant elite of slave-owning planters?

I do not see Jeffersonianism as incompatible with industrial economy. The question simply is whether industry will be subsidized by the taxpayers. My answer is no.

The Civil War, if you look at it one way, demonstrated why the industrial model had to win. It does a far better job of fighting wars. Southern gallantry did not stop northern industrial might from triumphing overwhelmingly. Similarly, American gallantry, had the southern model prevailed in politics, would not have stopped some foreign industrial power from overwhelming us.

Yes, obviously an industrial economy will overpower an agrarian economy in war since fighting a war requires industrial production. But it does not necessarily follow that a Hamiltonian government will overpower a Jeffersonian government. The fascist dictatorships of WWII were much more Hamiltonian in nature than the US government. Yet they were defeated.

A provision outlawing public appropriations for improvements would be impossible today, not only politically but economically as well.

That is the answer I was looking for. Why exactly would such a provision be impossible?

Stonewall:

You are routing all funds through government which opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of corruption.

We don't have to theorize about this. There are concrete examples. What I've described is the way things are done in western Europe, Canada, and Australia, where the levels of corruption are dramatically lower than here.

I think you are misrepresenting the Southern opposition. It is not as if Southerners were Luddites with some philosophical opposition to industrialization and technological advancement.

I suggest you go to a used bookstore or the public library and pick up Bruce Catton's The Coming Fury, the first volume of his three-volume history of the Civil War. It's an excellent read, and goes into great detail about the reasons why the southern states seceded. Opponents of industrial and technological advancement is exactly what they were. Or rather, opponents of the social changes that advancement was threatening to bring.


It is true that the climate of the southern states lent itself better to the growing of cotton and other cash crops than that of the northern states. It is not true that this climate made an emphasis on agriculture rather than industry more profitable. But it is true that the dominant elite of the south were men who owned large slave-worked plantations. They did not want a challenge from upstart bourgeois capitalists. And that, with slavery as the lynchpin issue defining the entire conflict, is the reason for secession.

Despite the moral imperfections of the Southern position vis-a-vis slavery, Southerners were considerably more dedicated to maintaining clean government.

You cannot tell that from the history of southern influence on the Constitution, or southern state governments, or the Confederacy. They had less in the way of corrupt influence by capitalists, it is true, but that is because they had less in the way of capitalism. They had plenty of corrupt influence by wealthy planters. Do you think the clause exempting a man who owned 20 slaves from conscription had popular support among the great majority of whites who did not own slaves?

I do not see Jeffersonianism as incompatible with industrial economy.

Then you disagree with Jefferson himself on this point. He and Hamilton articulated conflicting visions of where America should be headed, but it is oversimplifying to call Jefferson the proponent of freedom and Hamilton the converse. Rather, Jefferson's vision was one of a nation of smallhold farmers, each man independently owning his own plot of land, and so free from economic coercion by wealthy men. Hamilton's rather more complex vision involved creating an industrial powerhouse that would provide enough wealth to ensure the economic well-being, and hence the freedom, of everyone. Both visions suffered from a reality deficit, Jefferson's because he sidestepped the issue of slavery, Hamilton's because he did not foresee the problem of oppressive wage slavery, but Hamilton's was closer to being feasible in the coming centuries.


It was an integral part of Jefferson's plan to forestall industrialization, which he saw (correctly) as giving excessive power to the mercantile class.

The fascist dictatorships of WWII were much more Hamiltonian in nature than the US government. Yet they were defeated.

Actually, your first sentence became untrue once the U.S. entered the war. Government subsidy and regulation of business reached a height not seen in this country before or since; economically (though not politically), there was very little difference between the U.S. and Nazi Germany during the war years, except that the U.S. economy was much larger to begin with.


Under non-wartime conditions, such intense regulation becomes unnecessary and beyond the point of diminishing returns, but the potential needs to be retained.

Why exactly would such a provision be impossible?

For two reasons. First, an industrial economy is highly competitive. A nation that does not use the powers of government to facilitate industry will fail, all else being equal, to compete successfully with one that does.


Second, an industrial economy profoundly increases the potential for private oppression and for failure to husband natural resources. No government action is necessary to create either problem (though government can, to be sure, make matters worse), so a "hands-off" approach will not solve them. Either one will undermine the economy, private oppression by depressing consumer markets, and unwise use of resources by depleting the natural capital on which industry depends.


Hamilton was, I believe, absolutely right about the need for strong central government in an industrial nation. Jefferson even agreed with him here, and opposed industrialization precisely for that reason.

Marc:

Liberalism's "basic premise" of opposing "dogmatism in any form" in the name of "tolerance, openness and pluralism"

That is not liberalism's basic premise. Liberalism's basic premise is that the freedom and well-being of the average person is the paramount good, and that for this reason we must oppose the garnering of too much power by elites. Tolerance, in the face of those who would persecute others on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, becomes a means to that end.


Moreover, tolerance, like freedom, loses its meaning when expressed without predicates. Tolerance of what? Tolerance of intolerance itself obviously cannot be included.

On 2002-07-20 11:25, Brian Rush wrote:

I suggest you go to a used bookstore or the public library and pick up Bruce Catton's The Coming Fury, the first volume of his three-volume history of the Civil War. It's an excellent read, and goes into great detail about the reasons why the southern states seceded. Opponents of industrial and technological advancement is exactly what they were. Or rather, opponents of the social changes that advancement was threatening to bring.

I have read this book and many others. But I have never come away with the impression that Southerners were Luddites, nor do I believe that they were. As I recall, Mississippi and other Deep South states had the highest per capita incomes in this period. Why would Southerners industrialize when they boasted the highest standard of living in the nation at the time as a function of agriculture? On the other hand, why would they not industrialize whenever it became apparent that industry was more profitable? This is basic human nature with respect to the profit motive.

It is not true that this climate made an emphasis on agriculture rather than industry more profitable.

I believe per capita incomes by state tell a different story.

But it is true that the dominant elite of the south were men who owned large slave-worked plantations. They did not want a challenge from upstart bourgeois capitalists.

The plantation owners were capitalists. They did not want a challenge from upstart bourgeois mercantilists.

Then you disagree with Jefferson himself on this point. He and Hamilton articulated conflicting visions of where America should be headed, but it is oversimplifying to call Jefferson the proponent of freedom and Hamilton the converse. Rather, Jefferson's vision was one of a nation of smallhold farmers, each man independently owning his own plot of land, and so free from economic coercion by wealthy men. Hamilton's rather more complex vision involved creating an industrial powerhouse that would provide enough wealth to ensure the economic well-being, and hence the freedom, of everyone. Both visions suffered from a reality deficit, Jefferson's because he sidestepped the issue of slavery, Hamilton's because he did not foresee the problem of oppressive wage slavery, but Hamilton's was closer to being feasible in the coming centuries.

Yes, of course Jefferson's was an agrarian ideal. However industrialization was inevitable. It is not as if Jefferson would wake up one day and say, "OK, so industry it is to be. I hereby renounce all my lifelong beliefs and join the Hamiltonian centralizers in creating an unavoidably corrupt mercantilist regime." It was in no way necessary for the taxpayers to subsidize industry (per the "American System") and Jefferson never would have gone along with it at any point in industrialization.

Actually, your first sentence became untrue once the U.S. entered the war. Government subsidy and regulation of business reached a height not seen in this country before or since; economically (though not politically), there was very little difference between the U.S. and Nazi Germany during the war years, except that the U.S. economy was much larger to begin with.

Very good! I did not expect you to concede this so I did not push it. However it was still the superior industrial might of the US which won the war, not the form of government. How on earth could the axis powers possibly compete over the long term, irrespective of government?

For two reasons. First, an industrial economy is highly competitive. A nation that does not use the powers of government to facilitate industry will fail, all else being equal, to compete successfully with one that does.

Obviously, your statement does not hold true with the example of the Soviet Union. In fact it does not hold true with any government over the long term. Corporatist or fascistic direction of the economy may accelerate growth in the short term but such economies tend to founder or fail in the long term.

Second, an industrial economy profoundly increases the potential for private oppression and for failure to husband natural resources. No government action is necessary to create either problem (though government can, to be sure, make matters worse), so a "hands-off" approach will not solve them. Either one will undermine the economy, private oppression by depressing consumer markets, and unwise use of resources by depleting the natural capital on which industry depends.

You are back to Green-land here and I will leave you to it. Better to have things "hands off" and let the market decide despite any imperfections than to introduce the corrupting hand of government which will only compound those imperfections.

On 2002-07-20 14:06, R. Gregory '67 wrote:


On the other hand, if we wind up with a Bush-Gore rematch, I will once again cast a hopeless third party vote. If John McCain winds up in the race, I'll vote in whatever manner would be most likely to keep Herr McCain out of the White House, even if it means trying not to gag as I vote for Bush.

Likewise, I am sure.

On 2002-07-20 14:06, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

I agree 100% here. I'd like to see Bush gone, but some of the others touted as Presidential material scare me just as much: Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney would do just as much harm as Bush and his predecessors, Clinton and daddy Bush did.

You are correct. Al Gore, and I would assume Joe Lieberman as well, would only guarantee that the same corporate elite runs the show behind the fake facade of the differing party label. DLC/New Democrats are simply a contrived faction created by the same corporate elite with an eye to controlling both sides of the political aisle through deception. That is why it is so humorous to see Al Gore waiting in the wings protraying himself, and being protrayed as, some sort of alternative! Our politics have become such an unbelievable joke!

BTW, I'd look for Cheney to be replaced next year so that the new running mate is not so much of an issue at election time. Surely Cheney will not stick around given his heart. Or do you think otherwise?

And John McCain scares me far worse than any of the above.

Right on! I wish Brian saw it your way.

If it is true that we are in a 4T, a major political reshuffling within the next few years is in order, not unlike the rise of FDR's New Deal in 1932, or the formation of the Republican Party and their immediate rise to major party status in 1860.

Yeah, well I wish it would hurry up.

On the other hand, if we wind up with a Bush-Gore rematch, I will once again cast a hopeless third party vote. If John McCain winds up in the race, I'll vote in whatever manner would be most likely to keep Herr McCain out of the White House, even if it means trying not to gag as I vote for Bush.

I think Bush has to go at all costs. He is the ONLY way this corporate elite can continue consolidating power because he is the ONLY guy who keeps the Kool-Aid drinkers from rebelling, even though he is doing pretty much exactly what any of the other guys would be doing. With either Gore or McCain, we have possible civil war waged by the Kool-Aid drinkers if things go too far...and the corporate elite will not push it that far. With Bush, the Kool-Aid drinkers continue to hit their powdered mix (Makes 2 Quarts!) and sleep while their country slips away. And I don't quite see the Left making up the difference in terms of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs because he is the corporate elite's one and only ticket to success.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-20 14:57 ]</font>

On 2002-07-20 14:06, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

I agree 100% here. I'd like to see Bush gone, but some of the others touted as Presidential material scare me just as much: Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney would do just as much harm as Bush and his predecessors, Clinton and daddy Bush did. And John McCain scares me far worse than any of the above.

I have to agree here. Back in 2000 and 2001, I was interested in McCain as president, but his facade is now far too obvious. The Democrats are reluctantly rallying behind Al Gore. I never liked Lieberman, nor Dick Cheney.

If it is true that we are in a 4T, a major political reshuffling within the next few years is in order, not unlike the rise of FDR's New Deal in 1932, or the formation of the Republican Party and their immediate rise to major party status in 1860.

Here's something interesting in regards to it: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0718/p01s01-uspo.html

My first choice for President would have to be Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). The real trick is convincing him to run, and building enough support so he could actually have a shot at winning the Democratic nomination and the White House. If there's a time when he, or somebody like him, could win, it is during a 4T.

Very good idea. Go for the politician that DOESN'T choose leadership. That shall fix the mammon-worshippers.

On the other hand, if we wind up with a Bush-Gore rematch, I will once again cast a hopeless third party vote. If John McCain winds up in the race, I'll vote in whatever manner would be most likely to keep Herr McCain out of the White House, even if it means trying not to gag as I vote for Bush.

I agree. I'm starting to get fed up with this GOP vs. Dems game also.

Stonewall:

I have read this book [The Coming Fury by Catton] and many others. But I have never come away with the impression that Southerners were Luddites, nor do I believe that they were.

"Luddites" is probably not the best term to use; the Luddites were working-class blokes opposed to automation. The southern rebellion was something else, not working-class but elitist, and not anti-automation but anti-industrialization, or rather opposed to the social changes that industrialization was bringing.


Let me offer a quote from chapter two of the afforementioned that illustrates what I mean.

A profound change was taking place in the world. Because of such unconsidered factors as the invention of the steam engine, the growth of worldwide systems of cheap transportation and finance, and the opening of limitless markets that had never existed before, the existence of the industrial nation became possible. . . . To a certain extent what was happening in America now . .. was simply a reflection of this fact. . . .


The nations of the earth would no longer be entirely self-sustaining; in a backhanded and wholly misunderstood way, men all about the world would become members of one another, not because they wanted to, but because the world itself was changing. . . .


This had two immediate effects as far as American slavery was concerned; effects which went in precisely opposite directions.


Human slavery, obsolescent for generations, was now being made wholly obsolete, especially if it existed in a nation which itself was beginning to industrialize. America had a mroe prodigious industrial potential just then than any other nation. . . . The new industrial state was coming into being at an accelerating rate, and in such a state chattel slavery could not live. [Note: Catton does not explain this statement, but it is true. I can go into it if necessary.]


Most of this development was taking place in the Northern states. The South remained pastoral, producing raw materials for the outside world and relying on the outside world for an increasing portion of its finished goods. Yet the South was directly, inescapably involved in the wave of manufacture . . . The vast cotton fields of the Gulf states were the base for the great world textile industry. . . . The entire Southern area whose ways were being made more and more out of date by the economic revolution . . . was itself an integral factor in . . . that revolution.


This put the South in an extremely difficult position. It was contributing to the very process that was certain to transform its own society. . . . Each upward surge in the industrial advance made slavery more and more central to the Southern economy -- and, at the same time, increased the odds against slavery's continued existence. . . . [The South] was committed to industrial progress for other lands but not for itself. . . . What the rest of the nation wanted very much -- production for industry and for industry's markets, expansion of the free-farm system, internal improvements fostered by the central government, all the things that would speed up the incomprehensible developments that were under way -- these the South wanted not at all.

The Civil War was a conflict between two elites, a quasi-aristocratic slaveowning planter elite in the south and a rising bourgeois, capitalist elite in the north. It was also a conflict between two ways of life, one classical and the other new. Slavery was the lynchpin issue because it aroused such raw emotions, but it was part and parcel of the whole conflict between those who wanted the industrial revolution and those who, while economically dependent on it, loathed it.

The plantation owners were capitalists. They did not want a challenge from upstart bourgeois mercantilists.

A capitalist economy, properly so called, is an industrial economy. (So is a socialist economy. The pre-Civil War south was neither.) In a pre-industrial revolution society, capitalism exists only in the context of merchant shipping, and therefore is far less central to the economy than it is in an industrial society. Also, the southern planters did not have a capitalist mindset. They had a quasi-feudal, aristocratic mindset.


Mercantilism is not distinct from capitalism. It is one school of economic thought, particularly as regards foreign trade, within capitalism. All mercantilists are capitalists, although the reverse is not true.

It was in no way necessary for the taxpayers to subsidize industry

It may not have been one hundred percent necessary, but it certainly helped and accelerated the transition. We might be industrialized now without it, but we certainly would not have progressed as far as we have.

Very good! I did not expect you to concede this so I did not push it.

It's not a concession. As I've explained before, there is nothing objectionable about fascist economics; it's fascist politics that are bad news. The only things I would criticize in the Nazi economy were its excessive focus on war production and its asinine racist and anti-Semitic policies. (Some of the latter also existed in the U.S., of course.) I do have a problem, to be sure, with the dictatorial Nazi regime, its rigid censorship and endless propaganda, its cult of personality, and its unpleasant tendency to put dissenters into concentration camps (or graves). But those are political rather than economic policies.

However it was still the superior industrial might of the US which won the war, not the form of government.

Yes, that's true. But in order to bring that superior industrial might to bear against the Germans, it was necessary for the U.S. to adopt fascist economic policies. The U.S. economy had broken down. It required massive government efforts to get it moving again, but once that occurred, our industrial potential completely overwhelmed that of Germany.

Obviously, your statement does not hold true with the example of the Soviet Union. In fact it does not hold true with any government over the long term. Corporatist or fascistic direction of the economy may accelerate growth in the short term but such economies tend to founder or fail in the long term.

Regulation of the economy is not purely a matter of quantity. Quality also counts. The Soviet Union pursued a very unwise type of economic regulation, in that it attempted to completely replace market demand with central planning based on what the government thought the nation needed. You can do that with military purchases and anything economically analogous, but certainly not with consumer goods. The managers of most industries need to be answerable first and foremost to their customers, and only secondarily to the state; the USSR reversed this priority with disastrous consequences.


Your second and third sentences above are not in accord with history. It is not fascitic economies that founder or fail in the long term, but rather unregulated ones, and this failure is what prompts the creation of a regulated economy in the first place. The managed-market economies prevalent in the industrialized and non-Communist world since the end of World War II have far outperformed either the socialist economies which existed alongside them or the more nearly pure capitalist economies that preceded them.

Better to have things "hands off" and let the market decide despite any imperfections than to introduce the corrupting hand of government which will only compound those imperfections.

This statement has the flavor of a religious belief and I am wary of responding. But -- things did not work as well when the government engaged in a hands-off policy. I do not just mean that treatment of workers was worse or the environment suffered, though that is also true, but also that economic performance itself suffered. Market economies contain seeds of their own destruction; the market is not the perfect self-regulating mechanism that Adam Smith argued. And we are now getting, once again, a graphic illustration of this fact.

On 2002-07-20 16:01, Brian Rush wrote:
the market is not the perfect self-regulating mechanism that Adam Smith argued. And we are now getting, once again, a graphic illustration of this fact.

Brian,


Since Enron, Worldcom, et al are finished as companies -- their executives are going to have hard times ever plying their chosen trades again, too -- and have been since the market became aware of their wrongdoings, I'm not sure where you see the market failure? Or do you think that, properly governmented, bad things will never happen, and immoral people will never be in charge of anything? Is that how regulation will make things better? Look at the speed and accuracy of market response (via stock prices) versus that of the regulators. Which has really failed to do its job here?

Justin:


Bad things do not happen as often or on the same scale in a well-regulated economy. "Never" is too strong a word, of course. Still, although accounting fraud isn't one of them, there are some failures of a market economy that indeed never happen with proper regulation.


A market economy, through pressure of competition, tends over time to steadily increase disparity of wealth, keeping the working class on the edge of poverty while cutting workplace-safety costs at the expense of workers' lives and health. Not only is this morally vile, but it is also bad for the economy, since an impoverished working class is not a good market for the economy's products, and such an economy must subsist to a large measure on speculation and credit. This leads to periodic, steep panics such as occurred regularly from the end of the Civil War up to and including the Great Depression.


Also, a market economy, again through pressure of competition, tends to do a poor job of husbanding natural resources. A perfect example is the recent decline in worldwide fisheries, but there are plenty of others. Natural capital is part of the commons, and the market does not preserve the commons.


These are the reasons why our regulated economy has performed far better than it did when relatively unregulated (i.e. pre-Depression), and also why things have gotten worse in the wake of deregulation. That was a mistake and needs to be reversed.

On 2002-07-20 15:06, madscientist wrote:
I have to agree here. Back in 2000 and 2001, I was interested in McCain as president, but his facade is now far too obvious. The Democrats are reluctantly rallying behind Al Gore. I never liked Lieberman, nor Dick Cheney.

The sort of person who can win it big in the 2004 election is somebody who can devise a reasonable agenda to the pressing issues of the moment sort of like Lincoln and FDR did.

I suppose a Liberal Republican could do it, however it would be quite hard. I do think a Democrat will do it. Mind you the defentions of both parties will change drastically in the next few years.

In Australia I do think the ALP can have the chance to dominate the Millennial Generation if they can get their act together and elect a leader like Lindsay Tanner. He is a Boomer and judging from his ideas he seems to be more than anyother person on the right path to where the issues of the 4T will be.

I am seeing in your political environment if somebody like Lindsay Tanner exists. Right now it does not look promising; however Al Gore is probably the closest. This might change mind you. People are critical of Al Gore for being boring and unelectable, however people said the same thing about John Howard and he has won three elections so far.

On 2002-07-20 18:55, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

But is another civil war something we really want?

No, and I do not see it happening. The corporate elite will back off before any such revolt breaks out. My only point was that with Gore, McCain, or anybody else besides Bush, the prospect of civil war will force the corporate elite to back off. Bush is the corporate elite's one and only avenue to success because the erstwhile rebels (Kool-Aid drinkers) do nothing while he does precisely what any of the other guys would be doing. Bush must be voted out at all costs even if it means a Gore or McCain or whoever else presidency because Bush is the corporate elite's sole avenue to success.