Posted on 11/28/2012 3:09:54 PM PST by DanMiller
Things are getting worse and we have to do something. But what, how and when?
We can continue to lick our wounds, gripe as the situation deteriorates or try to ignore the problems. Alternatively, we may be able to do something useful. The situation is deteriorating.
David Solway asked at PJ Media Is America Broken? He concluded that she is.
The America we have taken for granted and insouciantly abused is no longer. The two-term Obama presidency, with its roots in the seditious neo-Marxist doctrines of Antonio Gramsci, Cloward-Piven and Saul Alinsky, signals what resembles the end of the great republican experiment. The American dream seems to have become just that — a dream — or what amounts to the same thing, the American nightmare. What its enemies could not do, a demoralized America has accomplished for itself. “And a man’s foes,” we read in Matthew 10:36, “shall be they of his own household.”The only issue that remains is whether recovery and restitution, something akin to a reborning, is still possible. Recently, on a whim, I visited a so-called Metaphysical Emporium and purchased a crystal ball to add to my collection of exotica. But I must confess that, even when washed in salt water and set against a dark backdrop as recommended, it has been entirely unforthcoming on this question.
First and current politician
Going on the offensive, long term
I suggested paths we might follow here, here, here and here. The Republican Party seems increasingly moribund as a conservative organization and we need to displace it -- gradually -- by forming another party or parties that can create initially transitory coalitions as suit mutual interests. Perhaps cynically, I have come to think that the principal focus of both parties is to reelect incumbents who have demonstrated their willingness to follow party leaders.
Jim Gourdie at Conservatives on Fire suggested that we need to think long term and I agree. He observed,
About 100 years ago, some serious thinker who truly believed in the teachings of Karl Marx arrived at the conclusion in groups and by individuals that their dream of a workers paradise, their dream of defeating capitalism was not going to be achieved by the use of force. These people concluded that they would have to take the long-term view of gradually defeating capitalism from within.. . . .
What I am asking you, dear friends, is isn’t it time to face reality and accept that we are not going to get our America back in the short-term. Short of a miracle, that is not in the cards, is it? So, isn’t it time for conservatives to start converting our ideas into short, mid, and long-term plans?
Jim offers Andrew Klavan's ideas as expressed in The Long Game. It's well worth reading. Among Mr. Klavan's suggestions is to capture segments of the entertainment industry.
Conservatives think when they have won an argument in the newspapers, the fight is over. Leftists know their Hippocrates. They know they can rewrite history in novels, on TV, and in the movies, and a generation later, their false versions will be accepted as truth. As former ambassador Joseph Wilson said, when his questionable actions were rendered heroic in the dishonest movie Fair Game: “For people who have short memories or don’t read, this is the only way they will remember the period.” It’s not that conservative ideas don’t make their way into popular entertainment; it’s that they always come in disguise. Even leftists love deeply conservative films like the Lord of the Rings and Dark Knight trilogies, because they recognize good values when they’re not forced to apply them to real life. But conservatives themselves quail when conservatives speak their values plainly in the arts. Too preachy, they cry, too much propaganda, too much . . . too much . . . conservatism! We don’t need more conservative artists. We need an infrastructure to support them: more funding, more distribution, sympathetic review venues, grants and awards for arts that speak the truth out loud.
The motion picture sector seems likely to have more impact on the large and growing "I want my free stuff" crowd if they don't have to pay much of their own money to enjoy films. Could some of those who contribute financially to conservative causes subsidize the production, promotion and presentation of films without necessarily obvious conservative messages but which could still resonate usefully with the "free stuff" crowd?
In this article, Nebraskaenergyobserver quotes Mark Steyn as saying,
“We just wasted a billion dollars trying to drag a guy with an (R) next to his name over the finish line. Maybe we should have spent that money making five, $200-billion, Avatar-sized movies that framed the conservative message with great, big, blockbuster storytelling. We need a strategy for getting back in the game on all other fronts.”. . . .
“You cannot raise a couple of generations in liberal air from kindergarten to university — with motion pictures, with television, with newspapers, with mainline churches — in a default liberal setting, and then turn it around with elections. You can’t save the country with a guy in the voting booth punching the tab of the fella with the (R) after his name every other November.”
He is very likely correct.
I suggested here that music can also move our spirits. It can do so for good or for evil. It is a very important part of the entertainment industry because it can greatly affect human emotions, perhaps more than can any other. Even those who don't remember the words can "hum along" and the words -- as well as the message -- can sink in along with the tune. Music did well in the past and can do so again. In recent years music, and some horrid stuff that has come to pass as music, have lured many to the left politically. That can change if music can be enjoyed by larger audiences than those already conservative. For that to happen, it will have to be presented through broader based media than country and western and religious music currently are. That will require both funding and the promotion it can buy. A strong "get out the vote" push will also be needed to take advantage of musical successes, and that will not work unless we start well before the next election.
I have never listened to rap "music," know little about it and whatever I think I know is probably wrong. However, if this article is accurate, we should not adopt Marco Rubio's positions concerning it.
How about the gaming sector of the entertainment industry? Nebraskaenergyobserver makes some possibly good points about that sector here; it is a sector about which I know nothing.
Going on the defensive, short term
It has been suggested that Republican and conservative "obstructionists" should give President Obama, "The Won," what he wants economically.
He never owned the economy. He didn’t take the hit he should have taken. He was able to blame Republicans. “If only they’d gone along with my plans, we’d be in much better shape.”That could be a "tough love" prescription but seems instead to be the direction in which Republican "leaders" are heading with no warnings and no tough love components.Let’s let him own it, lock, stock, and barrel. Tax the living shit out of the top 2% of earners. Screw it. We’ve been saying that the result will be a loss of jobs, a lack of investment, and that it will actually reduce revenues. We have history backing us up with a lot of data. But people don’t listen. France just gave the Obama plan a shot and its having predictable results there (capital fleeing the country). People don’t pay attention. They need to see it again. They need to have it affect their lives.
Conservatives should say, “We’re giving him what he wants. Here’s what the result will be… But the man won the election and claims a mandate for his plan. We’re going to let him have it. We are clearly on the record: It won’t do what he thinks it’ll do. It will cause this country harm. It will result in stagnation of the economy at best, or a new recession at worst. Remember what we’re saying. President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party own the economic results of these policies, because the policies are theirs.”
Republicans used to believe in free enterprise, the private sector, and low taxes. They believed in getting government the heck out of the way. They still talk like that, but they don’t seem to actually be operating like that. Senate and House Republicans seem to be in a bidding war to increase revenue in Washington. What’s worse, they are mendacious enough to call it “increasing revenue” instead of “tax increases,” when it amounts to the same thing. The Republican Party of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have taken a party that once believed in starving the beast and transforming it into a party that believes in feeding the leviathan lest the leviathan consume them. They operate out of fear — fear of losing their remaining power, fear of blame, and fear of the unknown.
Brent Bozell argued here that once Republicans yield sufficiently on taxes any Democrat suggestions that they will rein in spending will be ignored because they were specious from the beginning.
So if the dealmakers can't come to an agreement, and the country goes over a "fiscal cliff," journalists are determined to blame conservatives. Ironically, once taxes are raised, then conservatives are the ones who won't have any skin in the game.
However, neither giving -- nor refusing to give -- President Obama what he wants seems likely to benefit Republicans over the next several years. Assume that the Democrats get substantial tax increases on the "filthy rich," continuation of taxes as they are for the middle, no significant revisions to the Internal Revenue Code and the ability to continue spending and borrowing with a raised debt ceiling. No budget? No problem, mumble the Democrats; for their purposes, they are probably right. Mendacity of that sort won't precipitate an immediate economic disaster and things will most likely continue to drift along, helping Democrats to improve their numbers in the Congress in 2014 and then to win another presidential election in 2016. If, instead, Republicans refuse to yield on tax increases on the "filthy rich" and reject excessive Government spending and borrowing, a recession seems likely before the 2014 elections and that will easily be blamed on the Republicans. Either may well be just fine with President Obama and his party. Bryan Peterson at PJ Tatler notes,
President Obama essentially campaigned for another four years in office on the promise that he would tell us what he wants to do once he has won. He didn’t run on getting any specific things done, other than one thing . . . . He explicitly said that he would view winning re-election as a mandate to raise taxes on the rich. Four years prior, he explicitly said that he wanted to raise taxes on the rich “for the purpose of fairness,” not because hiking those taxes would lead to more government revenue or stronger economic growth. He doesn’t care about those latter two things as much as he cares about hiking taxes on the rich. He rightly believes that much of his own base puts taxing the rich above economic growth and sound fiscal policy. They all know that hiking taxes on the rich does nothing to fix our fiscal problems. But they don’t care.. . . . While a recession would be terrible for the country, it may not be terrible for the Obama presidency. Obama knows that he has the media standing by to blame Republicans for any failure to reach a deal, and he knows that there are enough low-information voters out there to believe whatever the media says. The media covered for him both on Benghazi and the fiscal cliff during the elections; it’s likely to keep covering for him. He also knows, based on his own re-election victory, that a terrible economy leads to more dependency on government, which leads to more people seeing him and his party as the guarantors of their government benefits. This dynamic is a very effective way to kill arguments favoring smaller government. Who needs abstractions and Milton Friedman when there’s no food on the table? (Emphasis added.)
I wish there were magic pills that we could take and handy windmills with which to tilt and thereby solve the nation's long term and terribly real economic problems. Unfortunately, the short term seems to be all that matters when times are measured in biennial election cycles. For that reason, our economic disasters can and will be put off for a while longer and it's probably best to focus now on what to do when they can no longer can be delayed and how best to avoid or to recover from that likely disaster. In the meantime, it seems that the economic windmills are winning.
I do not know when the United States will eventually become Greece or worse with no other nation to bail her out of her misery (it's best to read the linked article while ingesting a large and strong adult beverage). It may happen in a few years or it may happen later and there is nothing Democrats, Republicans or idiot savants from academia can do or say to prevent it. It will happen unless we change the parameters starting now. The only ways to do that are long term efforts to cause the nation's citizens to think rather than emote on cue. A few ways are suggested in the first part of this article and those are expanded upon at the links. However, more and better ideas, along with ways to implement them, are needed. If the economy dies and cannot be resuscitated, it won't be simply that the economy died. It will have happened because the Spirit of America died. And that's why we need to devote our own time, energy and other resources to reviving the napping, but not yet dead, Spirit of America.
Conclusions
In quotation at the beginning of this article, David Solway opined that
The American dream seems to have become just that — a dream — or what amounts to the same thing, the American nightmare. What its enemies could not do, a demoralized America has accomplished for itself. “And a man’s foes,” we read in Matthew 10:36, “shall be they of his own household.”However, the end of that dream will not come immediately and need not come at all unless we let it. Remember this song? It's about our dreams.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB64vAgIvig?feature=player_detailpage]
As I wrote here shortly after the November 6th debacle,
The Mad Jewess posted this 1968 YouTube video. She wrote, “It is the song of the once great America, a nation that is now gone with the wind.” I felt much the same way and at times still feel that such is our future; but it will not necessarily happen that way unless we allow it to.
It seems to be a sad song only because it is now possible that "those were the days" and that they have gone, forever. I still can't get the song out of my head and don't want to. Please listen to it several times; every time I listen more meaning comes from it, less and less of it sad. We and our dreams are not over and we can again "live the life we choose." Only if we surrender to those who consider our dreams to be from an unfortunate past and no longer worthwhile will we forget them and relegate them to that past. If those dreams are to survive, we must instead keep them in our hearts and minds as achievable goals for which to strive and for which we shall conquer. Those dreams must remain part of our future until they become the reality of our present. That can happen only if we hold them as crucial components of our plans and demands for that future.
Respect for the Constitution will never be-instituted at the ballot box. There just aren’t enough of us. The Marxist takeover is nearly complete if Yuri Bezmanov is to be believed...and I do. Keep your powder dry and try to adjust your sleeping habits so that you’re alert at 3:00 am.
That is correct. It’s over. I knew it the morning after.
The only antidote is economic implosion, or civil war over a very long term.
The post-mortem is twofold: benefits/tribal voters, and the hopeless division in the republican party amongst the country clubbers, the libertarians and the evangelicals. We’ve suspected for a long time that the three factions had no use for each other; now we know it.
I think that we should begin preparing for the 2014 elections. Those who want to quit the USA should emigrate to a place they like better - maybe join the Confederados in Brazil.
But, those of us who will remain Americans need to get past the last election and figure out how we might do better in the next one.
FREE HOME FOR ANYONE WHO WILL TAKE IT!
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had more than enough.
I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.
“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Use reason.
The die is cast, I agree, let them have their way, watch it all come tumbling down and try to pick up the pieces. Enough of playing the libs own game, let them own the results.
The trick is can we pick up the pieces after the collapse and will freedom be the chosen path. Neither of these are a given.
schu
That is awesome, Huskrrr!
Use attack ads; they work. If a candidate does not realize we are in a civil war, he should not be nominated. We must do all we can to neutralize the media. If I were a hacker I would be laying “time bombs” in their computers now to explode in the summer and fall of 2014.
And then those kids voted conservatively in the next election....
/s
Would love to know what they said among themselves after you left.
I’m not sure of the author. I should have said that at the beginning. This showed up on my Facebook page. A good blueprint for future discussions with our lib friends!
I know what this conservative did. I retired just before the election which caused a major drop in my income.
As things get worse I’ll be in contact with a bankruptcy lawyer to get rid of debt.
And finally after my dust has settled, I’m moving out of California even if I have to walk away from my house!
I’m tired and don’t want to play this game anymore.
Know it's in his hands and it's his will. Pray and remain steadfast.
There’s nothing like being perpetually stuck on stupid. But I guess that is what insanity does, practicing the same stupid thing, over and over, hoping for different results.
If you understood history and what happens under Marxist regimes, elections are nothing but show pieces to create an illusion of choice for the masses the State needs to placate.
We saw our last free national election in 2008.
The ballot box is corrupted. Period.
That, and the Taker population has overrun the Producers.
Simple math. Game Over the way it has been played the last 65 years.
That was cool!
We used to have three branches of government
Both the Congress and Supreme court have abdicated all but symbolic vestiges of their responsibilites; all they actually do is serve as highly paid rubber stamps for the Executive branch and completely uncontrolled feral bureaucracy. Some of our elected misrepresentatives still go through the motions of listening to us; only a very few of those, however, actually try to represent us. By the same token, a few Supreme Court justices still try to rule in accordance with the Constitution; even they, however, are stuck with nearly a century's worth of non- or overtly unconstitutional precedent. Partly by default, partly by skulduggery, and entirely by design, all but empty vestiges of political power has ended up in the Executive branch, and political power has been extended and expanded to cover virtually all aspects of each American's personal and economic life.
Who's in charge?
Good question. Too bad we don't have definite answers. We can speculate; we can approximately tell who's on the rise, who's keeping a chair warm, who's on the way out, but that doesn't tell us who actually makes the highest level decisions, still less how, still less why. National policy? All we can say with certainty, I believe, is Congress abandoned all thought of that a long time ago. Carefully selected members of Congress may be informed of decisions from time to time; how much say they have in them is altogether another matter. It's all on a need to know basis, and we, the people don't.
The good news—admittedly a stretch and a half
"Progressives" are a destructive force. During the past century and longer, they've done a determined, patient, effective job of destroying our original constitutional republic from within. To the extent they're Marxists and/or collectivists and/or socialists, they're so far out of touch with reality, it'd be funny if they hadn't helped themselves to such a raw quantity of power. You have to be not merely blind, but deliberately and systematically blind to reality to believe any part of the utopian gibberish leftist extremists spew while trying to drum up popular support. Serious collectivists—not the self-styled "thinkers," but the people who end up in positions of highest power in collectivist regimes, are totalitarians first, last, and all parts between. They use ideology as a means to power. If Lenin had happened upon a new religion, for example, or thought one up, he'd have abandoned Marxism in half a seventeenth of a skosh, placed himself high in the new religion, and seized power in the failed Romanov empire. Totalitarians are power-mad psychopaths or sociopaths driven by hatred, revenge, bitterness, and the like: all destructive forces.
If you buy some land with an old farm house and a barn and some sheds and your goal is to build the house of your dreams, you have to get ride of what's there before you can put up the new. You might want to keep the original well, but that barn isn't even worthy fire wood, and the house... Well, the less said, the better. "Progressives" are good at demolishing the old. They're not architects. They're not builders. They're not finish carpenters. They're not decorators. They're not furniture builders. They're not painters or sculptors or weavers or landscapers anything but demolishers.
Totalitarians sincerely believe they're creators, but they're not. They sincerely believe they can build a new America, but even a quick peek at history shows the absurdity of such notions. Without a single exception, collectivism in all its myriad forms has been at best a dismal failure, and more often a monstrous failure. In the twentieth century, communist and/or socialist and/or national socialist governments murdered in excess of 100 million of their own citizens, over half by starvation, and of those, over half were children. That's a record of destruction, not construction—period.
The "progressives" who've destroyed our constitutional republic are going to fail. How soon? How badly? How much ancillar damage will be done? Heaven may know, but here's all I can tell you with certainty: they'll fail.
Oh, by the way...
...governments always believe they are countries. They're monopolies with varying degress of control over countries, but governments come and go, whereas countries tend to keep being themselves. Assorted Russian governments have arrived and departed, but Russia is still Russia, and so are all its satellite states still satellite states. The "progressives" in Washington, D.C. sincerely believe they are America, but they're rock-solid wrong about that, too. America consists fundamentally of the land and the people. We were the first nation that deliberately created and crafted our own government. We didn't raise it above the nation, but made it our nation's public servant. Our founding fathers would at least have laughed at the very idea that some people might believe the government is America. We were America when we were still English colonies; we're still America today, and we'll remain America even after the "progressives" have finished the last of their dirty work.
A nickel's worth of perspective
Tyranny was a stable form of government for centuries. European feudalism, for example, lasted a millennium and longer, as did Chinese feudalism, as did any number of European and Asian empires, some rooted in feudalism, some in more recent alliances and schemes. Kingship and imperialism went into their death throes during World War I, and are now largely things of the past. To be sure, Russia's communists reasserted the Romanov empire, and Putin seems determined to preside over something like a Russian empire, though he's apparently intent upon making most of the same mistakes the Romanovs made. China is sort of a communist country first, sort of Asia's leading empire first, and China first. Germany and Italy attempted to reassert themselves as empires, and utterly lost World War II. Japan attempted to assert itself as Asia's foremost empire, and likewise lost World War II. Empires haven't fared well. Dictatorship hasn't fared very well. China is the world's most successful overt tyranny today; if you look at all closely, however, you'll notice it's diluted power at the top of the pyramid rather than leave it in a single pair of hands, gradually brought in elements of open market capitalism and large quantities of closed market or crony or state capitalism, and is "evolving," you might say, away from communism, which has been a more gradual disaster there than in Russia, though a disaster none the less.
Another quick peek at history reveals a curious fact: the combination of representative government, civil rights for all, and open market capitalism invariably enables the greatest number of people to create, widely distribute, and enjoy the greatest material wealth.
Most tyrants are power-mad, not wealth-mad, and they're vengeance seekers, anyway, not builders. Do you suppose the people at the apex of Chinese power care whether the workers and peasants to to bed with empty or full bellies? They prefer full bellies because people with empty bellies could easily seize power, put an end to communism, and scatter their ashes in some desert.
Representative government hasn't done remarkably well on the whole. In general, most of the colonies of the failed British empire are self-governing, stable, and prosperous; most European countries, by contrast, seem to be deeply involved in reinventing the idea of empire. The European Union is a nominally self-governing creation of bankers and industrialists of great wealth and power. Like Italian fascism and German national socialism, it controls rather than tries to own enterprise as communists did in both Russia and China, and the control it practices is noticeably more humane than control in Cuba, say, or Venezuela. No thugs in comic opera uniforms. No cult of personality. No torchlit parades. No wars of conquest. The E.U. is an outwardly happy marriage of very big business and very big government. It was formed to compete more successfully with America than a hodgepodge of individual nations that competed among themselves. Like a corporation, it sought and often found economies of scale. Like a corporation, some of its acquistions are worthier than others, and some, (I'm thinking of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain,) should never have been made, and look likely to do great damage to the parent company—except it's sort of an empire, except it's sort of a supra-national entity that really ought to be called an oligarchy, except it's sort of like a cartel of similar and related companies, except...
Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and a few other Asian countries are happily and stably self-governing, markedly more capitalist than collectivist, and doing well economically. Most of the rest of Asia is in the hands of assorted tyrants, oligarchs, representative governments of one kind and degree or another, and slow, but measurable economic betterment. India has abandoned socialist-oriented oligarchy masquerading as representative government, embraced genuine representation and capitalism, and begun to make good economic progress.
Much of Latin America has representative government in name, oligarchy of one style or another in practice, and economic betterment slowly simmering on back burners. Mexico had an outwardly representative government that was actually an oligarchy in the hands of the very wealthiest and best connected crony capitalists; it's now well on its way toward devolving into anarchy and local tyranny or corruptocracy by assorted narcotics war lords. Brazil seems determined to work its way up to clean, open representative government and open market capitalism, which is probably why it's doing so much better economically than the rest of Latin America.
Some Islamic states tolerate superficial appearances of representative government and capitalism; in reality, however, they're theocratic, dictatorial, royal, oligarchic, or some combination thereof, and their idea of capitalism is to find safe places for the very few to keep wealth from oil. Islam is an anti-religion, not a genuine religion. It has many of the trappings of religions, but it's solidly hate-based; its ethical system is perverse in many ways and riddled with exceptions, and the culture of Islam is solidly autocratic. I regard Islam as a theological ideology that's always adamantly resistant to change of any kind, always socially rigid, always obedience-oriented, and often, (as it is today,) imperialistic.
Nations in Africa run the gamut from hopelessly corrupt, backward theocracy and unvarying poverty to tribe-based tyranny to... Heaven may know, but I've to confess I don't.
In sum: the economic success of representative government and open market capitalism is well and widely understood; most unfortunately, totalitarians and oligarchs and theocrats are intrinsic, vehement enemies of the very idea of representative government, and even when they're willing to tolerate capitalism, they greatly prefer closed market or crony capitalism, which is to say: the weakest, most readily controlled form of capitalism.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch
The "progressive" oligarchy at the apex of our national government doesn't stand a chance of remaining in power very long. Any self-appointed genius who'd publicly announce, "You didn't build that," is at best an economic illiterate. As well as I've been able to discern, President YDBT is determined to "redistribute the wealth," which is to say: punish the successful, grow the feral government, and win the undying admiration of the former main stream "news" media and his constituencies of "progressives," looters, blacks, and followers of the prophet the world over. That's not a plan: that's a disaster earnestly looking for a place to happen.
Two fairly obvious possibilities
1.) Economic disaster, closely followed by social unrest and collapse of the nation.
How stable is the dollar? How stable are stock and commodities markets and banks? How stable is the Federal Reserve? How stable is the E.U., and if it's not, how unstable are its banks and largest companies with close ties to American banks and largest companies? How much more economic stress can our nation absorb before a crushing avalanche is loosed?
If the dollar loses some portion of its value, there'd be a sudden, dramatic shortage of oil for gasoline and diesel fuel. Without those, how much transportation would grind to a halt? What if groceries started to run short of food? What if pharmacies started to run short of medicines? What if gasoline hit $15 a gallon, but only when it was available? Arson and looting, cholera, collapsing state and local governments, cops and firemen and doctors and nurses without pay checks, typhus, failing water and sewage systems, failing electricity, failing telephone systems, failing... Never mind the fine details: it could easily be horrendous. We, the people would find ourselves deep in massive unemployment and social unrest in no time.
If all heck broke loose, how long do you think it would take various states to secede from the United States and restore constitutional republican government, civil rights for all, individualism, open market capitalism, and in short, the American way? Believe it or not, millions of Americans have had it up to here with the "progressive" affliction, and would gladly restore a portion or portions of our country to legitimate American government and culture. How long would that take? Not years, but decades, I'm sure. 2.) Economic trouble, followed by the replacement of the "progressive" oligarchy with an E.U.-style oligarchy.
America 2.0
How jarring an economic earthquake would it take to scare the socks off us, the American people? I'm sure it wouldn't take a complete collapse, especially if it were a carefully planned, controlled collapse.
Mysteriously, a guy thunders into Washington, D.C. on a white horse. He's go an emergency rescue plan. Yes, it does include some temporary measures such as the nationalization of banks and oil companies, wage and price controls, control of food distrubution, and a few other things, but those are just temporary inconveniences. Yes, parts of the internet will have to be shut down temporarily, but only because subversive terrorists have been plotting to blow up Congress.
Meanwhile, not behind the famous curtain, but in a completely separate building, the very wealthiest and well educated best connected crony capitalists finish putting the fine touches on the plan, and go to work. They're going to end up owning this, relying on the government to manage and control that, own parts of something else, and as in Europe, make sure business and government keep things quiet and orderly. Congress will still meet and pass emergency measures as needed. The Supreme Court will verify they're all fully constitutional. The stars and stripes will still fly.
If you want to buy a car, it'll be made by one of several surviving car companies, all quietly owned or controlled by the right people. If you want to buy gas—mysteriously, we'll suddenly begin to work toward the "energy independence" politicians began to foam at the mouth about 40 years ago—you can pump it at any of hundreds of thousands of competitive convenience stores, but it'll be produced by quietly owned or controlled by the right people. Banks will be un-nationalized as soon as the emergency begins to show signs of subsiding, and the big banks will be quietly owned or controlled by the right people, too. Socialist medical care? No. As soon as the emergency is over, there'll be a national insurance plan, and what's more, you can choose among competing companies, most quietly owned or controlled by the right people. Repeal the Second Amendent? No, of course not. This is America, isn't it? Temporary emergency firearms registration, maybe, but no one's going to round up guns, (and don't worry about the new insurance requirements: it's not going to be expensive, and it's for the sake of public safety.) People will go back to work. The hero on the white horse won't just be tolerated, but elected in a landslide for a second four-year term.
In sum: I can all too easily see millions of Americans not merely accepting, but cheering for a European-style, American-looking crony capitalist regime. It wouldn't need to look very different from our original constitutional republic, and in fact, the raw size and intrusive power of the current feral bureaucracy could be cut back dramatically: business and government working toward shared goals would be much more efficient than government run riot, wouldn't it?
Ooops! One more fairly obvious possibility
Have you noticed President You Didn't Build That has been "tilting," you might call it, away from Israel toward Islamic states? What if, as a sign of undying gratitude, one or another Islamic jihad state were to finish cobbling together a few nuclear weapons and set some off to punish Great Satan? I can't think of a reason that couldn't happen concurrently with a "progressive"-inflicted economic disaster of one kind or another, one degree of severity or another.
Things could turn—and stay—really ugly for a long time.
After the rampant vote fraud, the weak GOP candidate and now the GOP capitulation, you still cling to the possibility that this will be solved via an election?
The GOP is toast. They and the Dems are becoming, for all practical purposes, one party.
Well, then they won't have to waste time by doing any ole "voting", as it would be unanimous every time. So why send anybody to Washington D.C.
Yes. Why? Votes against the status quo have not accomplished anything in the last almost 30 years. Why is an awesome question, that remains unanswered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.