Question: What does increased violence and ultimately more American soldiers killed get you?
Answer: Control of the House and (maybe) the Senate.
Al-Qaeda and Co. learned their lesson from their experience in Spain. They tried to scare Americans with another attack last August which was successfully foiled (fortunately).
Failing in their attempt to strike Americans directly, they simply hit the ones closest at hand--our brave soldiers in Iraq. And the American electorate obliged their efforts, effectively attempting to appease the terrorists in the mold of Chamberlain's Britain and France.
Fortunately we still have our Winston Churchill--President Bush, who also has elements of President Truman. When Harry Truman left office his approval rating was hovering around 20% (Bush has still got him beat by more than double). He was fighting an unpopular war and had an adversarial Congress.
Truman stood up to the threat of spreading communism and now, 50+ years later, historians and the public generally regard him as being among the top 10 Presidents in American history.
We can't see into the future and predict how history will judge President Bush. But we are going to go out on a limb and predict that it wont be as harshly as some of today's ignorant critics. They call President Bush the worst President in American history, but they can't see past Watergate (Richard Nixon) and Vietnam. If they could, they might see Harding or Buchanan.
Now, having said that, this election is not the complete repudiation of President Bush and the War on Terror that mainstream media pundits would lead you to believe. Most of the Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans were moderates. Many of them, like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, are actually pro-life.
And this is where this election gets interesting.
Americans elected moderate Democrats over Republicans. In so doing they put in power those Democrats who had been in Congress the longest. Who has been in Congress the longest? Democrats serving in districts that are overwhelmingly liberal. Thus, though America votes moderate, they get a leftwingnut liberal in control of chairmanships. See Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi. She's from an extremely liberal district in San Francisco. Think she's in touch with most Americans?
But there is a bright spot.
In Rhode Island, Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee lost to his Democratic challenger. Senator Chafee was notoriously anti-war. Meanwhile in Connecticut, our man, erstwhile Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman (note: pro war supporter of Bush) was re-elected over Ned Lamont. Remember Lamont? He was put forward as the new generation of Democratic candidate, the kind that would win the House and the Senate for the Democrats.
Fortunately for us and the country, that kind of Democrat didn't win on Tuesday. It was the moderate, pro-war Democrat Joseph Lieberman who beat back the anti-war crowd.
On a bad day for conservatives and Republicans, we can at least be grateful for that.
If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
5 comments:
Hey Morgan, I never responded to your last question, and I have been meaning to. I didn't know if you would ever check the archived post that initiated the conversation, so I am going to respond here.
First of all, I hope all is well and that life in Cali is bringing you plenty of enjoyment. With all that loot you're pulling, I would like to imagine you spending your weekends out on a yacht, sitting in your hottub smoking cubans and pouring champagne on high-priced strippers. I'm jealous.
Now to your question about re-distributing wealth:
If I had a good answer to your question, I probably would be given an international prize in economics. This is in fact the age old question of capitalism versus socialism and I tend to believe that the best solution lies somewhere between the two, although I would add that I think it lies closer to the capitalism side than the socialism side.
My reason for encouraging more distribution to the middle and lower classes is somewhat morally and religiously based, but probably more economic in nature. As a Christian (some would say a poor Christian) and a businessman (some would say a poor businessman), I have read the New Testament and pondered the words of Christ and His teachings seemed blatantly incongruent with the doctrines of capitalism. After all, he did say it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. He also sent the rich young rule away disappointed because he did not have what it took to follow Him- that is, in spite of his devout and moral life, he was unwilling to sacrifice his wealth and live a humble and meek existence. He condemned the money changers, the hypocrits, the proud leaders, and those who would oppress and use the underprivileged. And yet I understand how Adam Smith set self-interest free to pursue its own selfish desires, and at the same time serve the greater good. History has proven in my mind that free enterprise, entrepreneurship, competition and open trade expand the size of the pie and the quality of the ingredients. However, just because the pie is bigger, doesn't mean that we can't, as a nation, allocate the pie in a more fair way that doesn't detract from personal incentive. And if we don't make fair distributions, eventually the gap between the wealthy and the poor will create a political environment that would stifle business in a more negative way than what may be caused by passing some of the costs of social programs to the upper classes. I like low taxes, and low government interference, but history has also shown that unrestrained capitalism can create ineffeciencies and abuses of its own. Fair government can help guide this ship.
So I guess that is my answer, albeit a very vague and broad one- wealth should be distributed to the lower classes in a way that doesn't destroy innovation and incentive and doesn't choke competition or stifle corporate growth and investment. As a nation, we are facing a changing global economy that will alter our job markets drastically. We have seen that in manufacturing. We are also starting to see that in the outsourcing of technical jobs to better candidates in Asia. My belief is that our broad labor markets will need at the minimum two basic ingredients to remain competitive- good health and good education. Those seem like investments in our country that have minimal downsides and could have a sharp upside in the quality of life and eventual earning power of the average American.
What do you think?
Dan Shanoff made a similar observation on his blog today about the results of the election. His observation was framed around Heath Shuler instead of Bob Casey with regards to moderate democrats winning elections. The interesting observation he made was that the democrats "expanded the tent" to include moderates to win the election which ultimately gives party to the extremist leadership of the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to see how the "moderate votes" play out in congress.
Raisin-
Not to sound like a bourgoise pig, but I did in fact spend last Saturday sipping fruity drinks on a 54 foot yacht in the cruising the San Pedro harbor. Sadly, there were no strippers and no cubans.
As you can probably imagine, I favor capitalism over socialism as well. In my younger days I was a proponent of capitalism at all cost and wanted to do away with welfare completely. I was in favor of letting the market rule in all scenarios. As I have aged, I find myself relaxing my stance somewhat. I personally struggle to find the balance between two. I still support capitalism and don't want to do anything that would hinder innovation and the general genesis of "ideas." I think that is the United States competetive advantage and something we should specialize in (hence i support outsourcing manufacturing and tax return preparation etc).
I don't think people should be forced to live in poverty. Especially when our country is so financially successful. I don't know if I necessarily support redistributing the wealth via taxes though. I think I would rather see everybody have equal footing with regards to education. Maybe make more money available for scholarships that are available based on economic status as opposed to race. I am not really sure on how to make this work. How do you teach people who don't want to learn? Especially when popular culture seems to show education as not being necessary nor worthwile. It is a lame "cute saying" but I would rather teach somebody to fish as opposed to giving them a fish. I am not sure how to best go about that though. I am not sure it is completely the government's responsibililty either. I think churches might be able to play a larger role in this. I have no research this at all but I wonder how much of an effort souther baptist churches, catholic churches, etc. place on education. Do they make scholarships available to their parishoners? I also support the philanthropic efforts of people like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Cuban, etc. I am starting to ramble now but I think that is my general stance on redistribution of wealth. I support doing it through education.
As a side note, have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand? The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? I think she was a little extreme in her views but the idea of forcing the successful and motivated to support the "leeches" at the expense of innovation appealed to me.
Hey, your opening question is dead on! The threat and inevitability of increased violence and more American soldiers killed if we stayed on the Republican track did indeed win Dems control of the House and maybe the Senate! I didn't realize we agreed here.
Morgan, I think you and I probably see things pretty much the same way when it comes to assisting the economically disadvantaged through education. How do you feel about vouchers and applying free market principles to the educational system?
By the way, no I haven't read either of those books in their entirety, but I have read several excerpts from Atlas Shrugged and I am aware of the premise.
Raisin-
It sounds like Mr. Lybbert is going to put together a post regarding vouchers and the educational system using free market principles. I don't want to take words out of his mouth so I will defer my comments until a later date.
However, I will say that this is something I have thought alot about recently and that I am in favor of vouchers. I still have some questions though that I have been trying to puzzle through.
Post a Comment