Posted on 08/16/2006 8:36:15 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
Oh I LIKE THAT!
Something I've noticed over the years here is (it appears) that many freepers live in an either-or world. You are eirther 100% one way or the other, and any deviation from the way I think means you are 100% wrong and are a pinko-commie-treehugging-rino traitor.
Several things. First, long before even presidential primary season, Bush W. had already locked up all the big contributors to the party, making opposition futile. Some shadowy Christian group in Texas then sold him the Crawford ranch land, which began immediate construction of the "Texas White House", which was finished just in time for inauguration day, because of some last-minute changes.
He was Governor of Texas at the time, which means his organization must have been hard at work on this for a year or two ahead of that.
All this could possibly just mean that he is very good at prior planning. However, his father's highly successful philosophy adds a new dimension.
George H.W. Bush was ambassador to China before he was head of the CIA. He was regarded as a world-class expert on Chinese affairs and was able to juggle hundreds or thousands of "linkages" between China and US and China and world relations. He knew what the Chinese were thinking before they did.
H.W. also pulled off some of the greatest diplomatic victories that the public has never heard of, because he was able to seize a tiny opportunity and capitalize on it, such as getting the Chinese to sign off on the non-proliferation agreement, something they swore they would never do.
"Linkages" are an almost Asiatic concept, in which you change one thing and it has a ripple effect, eventually changing all other things. Thus *no* event is isolated and can be dealt with as such; everything done must be inscrutable in complexity, with a focus on achieving the "great objectives".
This is why W. appears to be such a straightforward man, with few, but determined, principles. Principles that are unshakeable, because they have to be.
Already, it is obvious that the White House, the Pentagon, State Department, and a handful of corporations who must be involved, have fought and won the Iranian-US war hundreds of times, examining every variable. Following Napoleon's advice, we intend to leave our adversary *no* advantage.
But our military is being re-ordered now in prospect of the next great conflict after that: the China-US or China-India war. This reorganization began in earnest with H.W. Bush, and has continued despite Bill Clinton in the intervening years.
So my thesis, that "strategery" exists, above and beyond the strategies used by everyone else, has some strong foundations. If it doesn't exist, then it should. It is vital to the US that it does exist, and that we are the ones who gain advantage by it.
I also note that similar software specialized for police use has already proven itself in a spectacular fashion, examining the "linkages" in the lives of known criminals.
Thanks for your constructive criticism. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer to proof read my postings?
It's really not. A neocon is a liberal who is not a pu$$y when it comes to foreign policy.
Excellent points. Much more eloquently stated than my definition in post 104.
I found Michael Novak's book that you cite to be very enlightening back in the early '80s, and I think Novak embraced the general goal of less government micro-management of the economy that supply side economics achieves.
Jude Wanniski was one who came from the left to become the leading exponent of supply side economics. He helped put classical theories of fiscal policy (taxes/spending) together with classical monetary theory, and he renamed it supply side economics. He helped influence Ronald Reagan to adopt the Kemp-Roth tax cut proposals as his '80 campaign theme. He was a neocon, a Catholic, and would have led the Fed back to the gold standard (which he almost accomplished in 1987, but the academicians beat his efforts). However, in the mid-90s he diverged from other neocons by favoring dialogue with those in the muslim world to resolve differences. He vehemently opposed the war in Iraq.
Robert Mundell, the foremost monetary theorist in the world, then and now, is a professor at Columbia University, but has not been in government. Those involved in supply side didn't get there by being in government; they got into government because RR brought them there to assist his efforts to return to classical economic policies.
I sat at a luncheon table with DH a few years ago, and he looked at me suspiciously the entire time. I had no idea about his sense of smell. :>)
Please see my post 106. IMO Jude Wanniski was the most successful practitioner of economics in the investment world during the past 25 years, and he did it all as the foremost exponent of supply side theory.
Yes, in case you missed it, that "conservative utopian" phrase came from Podhoretz's interview, right at the end of the quoted excerpt I was able to fit into the initial post.
Democratizing the middle east is idiotic and enables Islamic extremists. In our great wisdom, we took out one of the only secular regimes in the region. Unrepentant foreign policy neocons are unfit to hold office.
We disagree. Your secularist Saddam Hussein was the dictator of a state that sponsored terrorism. Terrorists have global reach only when their sponsors are governments. People make war through governments, and small governments make war through terrorists. To his credit, President Bush put us on offense against terrorists and the governments which sponsor and shelter them. Playing defense by trying to catch terrorists and put them on trial was and is a losing strategy. I'm with the president.
Those involved in supply side didn't get there by being in government; they got into government because RR brought them there to assist his efforts to return to classical economic policies.M
That's just not accurate. Supply side policy was being promoted by economists working as Congressional staffers for Republicans during the Carter years. A number of them, including Craig Roberts who drafted the Kemp Roth bill, went on to the Treasury in the Reagan administration.
I suppose there might have been something in all that that was worth reading, but once I ran across "old people" I decided to take a nap.
Try again when you have mastered brevity or wit and maybe I'll take a look.
Why come here? Just Google "Wit" and "Brevity."
Neo-Con is the politically correct term for a Jewish Republican.
I did. You weren't mentioned.
Didn't think I was.
Wanniski credited Martin Anderson for blocking Jack Kemp's offer to endorse Ronald Reagan at the 1976 convention. Kemp had offered to lobby the New York and Mississippi delegations for additional delegates to swing the nomination from Ford to Reagan, if only Reagan would adopt the Kemp tax cuts as part of his platform. Reagan and his campaign manager had approved it, but Reagan wanted the approval of his economic advisor, Anderson, who dinged the deal. Wanniski was the one trying to broker the deal.
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.