Tag Archives: 2016 election

The Foreign Policy of the GOP, by Justin Raimondo

From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.org:

They’ve learned nothing because they remember nothing

If the “first tier” Republican presidential debate revealed anything, it is the huge empty space that is at the heart of the conservative mind, circa 2015. No wonder a vacuous nonentity like Donald Trump is leading in all the polls: his gargantuan ego has invaded that vast emptiness and expanded like a giant hot air balloon. As to how soon that gaseous zeppelin will pop – well, it’s anybody’s guess. All we know is that if and when it does another big nothing will take its place.

Speaking of a big nothing, the performance of Sen. Rand Paul, once the great hope of anti-interventionists and libertarians, was even worse than this writer expected. The first mention of foreign policy was the following question posed by Fox News anchor Brett Baier to the junior Senator from Kentucky:

“BAIER: Senator Paul, you recently blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks. You later said that that statement, you could have said it better. But, the statement went on, and you said, quote, ‘Everything they’ve talked about in foreign policy, they’ve been wrong for the last 20 years.’

“Why are you so quick to blame your own party?

“PAUL: First of all, only ISIS is responsible for the terrorism. Only ISIS is responsible for the depravity. But, we do have to examine, how are we going to defeat ISIS?

“I’ve got a proposal. I’m the leading voice in America for not arming the allies of ISIS. I’ve been fighting amidst a lot of opposition from both Hillary Clinton, as well as some Republicans who wanted to send arms to the allies of ISIS. ISIS rides around in a billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees. It’s a disgrace. We’ve got to stop – we shouldn’t fund our enemies, for goodness sakes. So, we didn’t create ISIS – ISIS created themselves, but we will stop them, and one of the ways we stop them is by not funding them, and not arming them.”

Pauls’s answer was not merely inadequate, and shot through with an undertone of abject cowardice – it was confusing as well. To begin with, as Baier phrased his question, Paul’s original critique was directed at “Republican hawks,” i.e. the neoconservatives, a group of Republican ideologues the Senator used to criticize quite freely and regularly. Yet Paul let Baier get away with equating this group with every single Republican on earth: instead of challenging the premise of the question, Paul did what he’s been doing for months now, at great cost to his campaign – he backtracked.

Missing a great opportunity to point out that the neocons – his enemies – have indeed been spectacularly wrong about everything for the last 20 years, Paul instead went into a vague peroration about how we’re supposedly sending arms to allies of ISIS without specifying who those allies are. Are they the Turks? The Saudis? The Qataris? All three of these countries have been implicated in funding or otherwise assisting Syria’s jihadis, including ISIS. What I presume Paul meant is that the United States has been funding the Syrian rebels, who have gone over to ISIS and Al Qaeda in large numbers. Yet he didn’t deign to say that – which left millions of television viewers scratching their heads in puzzlement.

To continue reading: The Foreign Policy of the GOP

He Said That? 8/11/15

From Pat Buchanan, political commentator, speechwriter, blogger, and author, in a recent column, “Taking Down The Donald”:

Thus far in this presidential season, the rise of the Republican outsiders, insurgents, nonpoliticians and anti-politicians reveals how far the people of the United States are estranged and alienated from their political leadership.

In the Democratic Party, too, we have seen the rise of outsider-insurgent Socialist Bernie Sanders to within single digits of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and the fall of Clinton to where she is underwater in the polls on issues of trust and, “Does she care about people like me?”

If there is one lesson to be taken from this run-up year to the presidential campaign of 2016, it is that a huge and growing segment of the nation does not want what the establishment of either party has on offer.

And as insurgent parties spring up all over Europe, and the two-party system disintegrates there, the Europeanization of American politics may be at hand.

http://buchanan.org/blog/taking-down-the-donald-16347

Bottle Opener, from The Burning Platform

The Illusion Of Choice, from The Burning Platform

The Spectacle So Far, by James Howard Kuntsler

From James Howard Kuntsler at kunstler.com:

Yes, there is such a thing as “the public,” a term that derives from the ancient Latin, populous (the people), via publicus (of the people), via old French, public — pertaining generally to the mass of adults dwelling in a polity, a society under (political) governance. In the USA, government is vested as a republic, also from the Latin, res publica, meaning the public thing, the vessel that contains the public.

I present these terms to clarify how our society is cracking up. The American public, we the people, lately swoon into a morass of multi-dimensional failure: failure to control their economic lives, to regulate their appetites and their bodies, to understand what is happening to them, to fend off the propaganda and distractions that disable them, and to properly express and direct their wrath at those elements of the polity who deserve it.

True, their awful, epic failures at this moment in history are largely engineered and aggravated by those who have captured the polity and turned it into a looting and racketeering engine. The net result, though, is a self-reinforcing circle of degradation that rots the collective ethos of the public while it destroys the vessel of the republic that contains it.

Societies that act as though they are hostage to these forces of degradation are able to pretend that they are helpless in the face of them; that the public bears no responsibility for its own choices or for the disintegration of the polity they live under. Hence, the current condition of the American public and its disgraceful government.

It’s not difficult to understand how Donald Trump becomes the instrument for the public’s wrath. Whatever his checkered career in land development amounts to, he is at least a freely-functioning and unfettered actor in the political arena. The public enjoys most of all his assertion of independence from the tremendous engine of grift that the republic has become. His arrant contempt for his rivals, and for the disgusting political process erected for the election contest, also thrills a big wad of the public. So far, his actual ideas for governing lack coherence, except for the rather general notion that uncontrolled immigration, and all the mendacious fakery associated with it, is a bad thing for the republic. Beyond that he offers only blustering claims that he is “very smart,” an “artist of deal-making,” a “patriot.”

To continue reading: The Spectacle So Far

Snow Black and the 17 Dwarfs, by Robert Gore

Debt and the lure of power induce dementia. The positions of the presidential candidates, Snow Black and the 17 Dwarfs, are so removed from reality that they can only be attributed to those hallucinogens. As the world confronts the gathering force of the bust from history’s most gargantuan and longest running debt bubble, the candidates propose more costly foreign intervention; new domestic programs, spending, and regulation; reforms to burgeoning, out-of-control entitlements carefully designed not to offend their beneficiaries…or reduce entitlements; and budgets that balance at some point in the distant future.

It is a safe bet that none of the candidates’ economic analysts make debt the focus of their analyses. Yet debt is the centerpiece of the modern global economy. Politicians take credit for artificial, debt-fueled booms, but they panic, albeit opportunistically, during the inevitable busts. Not letting good crises go to waste, politicians and bureaucrats have used busts as an excuse to increase the size and powers of the government since the panic of 1907, which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve and imposition of the income tax. Since the Great Depression, they’ve done so under cover of Keynesianism, a political ideology disguised as economics designed to justify expanding government.

The other mainstream branch of economics, monetarism, gives money pride of place in its analysis when there is little money left in the world, a trivial amount relative to debt. Debt often serves the functions of money, however it is a different animal. It is someone’s liability with an obligation to pay back interest and principle. Money, properly understood, is not a liability or is 100 percent backed by something, generally a precious metal, that is not a liability. Even the green pieces of paper marked “Federal Reserve Notes” can arguably be considered debt: a “Note” from the central bank that pays no interest, with an infinite maturity, that can only be redeemed for another Federal Reserve Note. If current proposals to outlaw cash force people to conduct all transactions through the banking system, there will be no money left, only banking system liabilities.

Not understanding debt, none of the candidates understands that the collapse in raw materials’ prices and unravelling of associated debt signals the transition from global debt expansion to global debt contraction, and what that contraction means for the US population and its government. As SLL noted in “Crisis Progress Report (9): Landfall”: “The overwhelming force and destructive power of the crashing debt deflation tsunami will render the inane preoccupations of much of the US populace—and the preening, posturing idiocy of their elites—irrelevant, dangerous distractions.”

The US’s interventionist foreign policy and its associated domestic surveillance state are expensive endeavors. If their measure of success is progress in the war on terror, the former has been counterproductive while the latter has been, at best, ineffectual, and has shrunk citizens’ civil liberties alarmingly. Both receive the full support of Snow Black and the 17 Dwarfs. Dwarf Paul initially criticized the consensus, but is now hewing to the line necessary to curry favor with wealthy Republican campaign donors. Unfortunately for him, his early ambivalence and his libertarian father have fed suspicion about his “true” commitment to failed foreign policies and the destruction of civil liberties, so he’s not getting much money. Dwarf Rubio is a believer, even promising to expand the national security state to protect the entire global economy, on the land or seas, in the air, outer space, or cyberspace. Where will the money come from to pay for this fantasy, when we’re already deep in debt, in part due to the failed efforts of the past?

Dwarf Trump has garnered headlines and a lead in the polls by not hewing to the standard line on immigration. He’s pointed out that illegal immigrants cost US taxpayers money and some of them commit crimes beyond their illegal entry into the country. However, no dwarf, including Trump, wants to completely analyze immigration and deduce the contradiction at the heart of the issue: open borders, the welfare state, and solvency are incompatible. A store that gives its wares away will attract those who wait in long lines for free stuff, be packed as long as the free stuff lasts, and eventually go broke.

At root, the immigration “problem” is a welfare state problem, and Republicans have not challenged the welfare state for decades. They will not do so even as it goes broke. Much of its base, elderly, white Americans, are now beneficiaries, and nobody wins elections by proposing benefit cuts. Dwarf Christie has proposed raising the Social Security retirement age by 2 years, phased in over 25 years, and that’s considered a bold proposal!

Snow Black’s only solution to impending insolvency will be more taxes to feed the increasingly desperate and rapacious government, the Democrats’ base. They reflexively embrace higher taxes; lower taxes would decrease their and the government’s resources and power. Government grows; the private economy shrinks. Europe is proof that enough taxes, regulation, deficits, and debt can suffocate economic activity. Greece is the canary in the coal mine. With an economy that is less than 2 percent of the European economy, it threatens to bring the whole faltering EU enterprise down (see “Doomed Dinosaurs”).

Greece demonstrates the two most important facets of debt. The marginal return from debt in Europe—not just Greece—has gone negative. Both public and private debt have expanded massively since the financial crisis, but growth is virtually nonexistent. Secondly, debt is linked. Most of Europe’s debts are assets on European balance sheets. When one class of debt goes, it can force creditors to sell other assets to maintain the expected cash flows necessary to pay their own obligations, which is how unsustainable debt unravels. (Unraveling, connoting as it does systemic linkage, is a better analogy than the oft-used “contagion,” which implies random infection, as in an epidemic.) The US now has its own canary in the coal mine—Puerto Rico—but US politicians don’t pay attention to dead songbirds.

While every candidate makes obligatory noises about regulatory reform, and the 17 Dwarfs are especially incensed about Obama’s war on coal, institutional constraints will prevent them from jackhammering the regulatory and bureaucratic concrete encrusting the US economy, and they know it. Under the best case for any of them, they would have eight years to address the situation; the bureaucrats will be around long after they’re gone and will wait them out. The government has become so big and complex, the rules so voluminous and detailed, that any reform effort would demand tremendous time and attention from teams of reformers, and even then would only scratch the surface. Politically, it is an unattractive proposition, taking on entrenched bureaucracies and their cronies and clients for marginal improvements that may not win any public notice or praise. There are greener political pastures.

Snow Black and the 17 Dwarfs are oblivious to the crashing debt tsunami, embrace unaffordable and counterproductive security policies, and trumpet tepid reforms that will—perhaps—put a barely perceptible dent in the growth rates of entitlements, regulations, and debt, but will certainly not send those rates into negative territory. There is no reason for anyone seeking to reverse the long-running expansion of government and its power, and the consequent diminution of individual liberty, to vote in the next election. Fans of voting can make lesser-of-evils arguments, but it’s like drinking half a glass of poison rather than a full one. The heavy lifting of reducing the government to its proper size and scope will not be performed at the ballot box, but rather by the coming debt deflation and depression. They will leave the US and other governments bereft, with the ever-flowing milk and honey conjured by politicians exposed as a fairy tale.

A TIME WHEN NOBODY EXPECTED SOMETHING FOR NOTHING

Unknown

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Where Candidates Fear to Tread, by James Howard Kunstler

From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

That the snarkier circles of political commentary thrill to the elephantine bellowings of Donald J. Trump only shows the pathetic limitations of the snarkists. They enjoy Trump’s filterless mouth, his harsh goadings of the other presidential wannabes, and his supposed telepathic empathy for the suffering public outside the magic kingdom of DC.

Trump has one legitimate issue, immigration, plus a brief against the general incompetence of professional politicians, and a pocketful of grandiose claims about his majestic skills in business and deal-making. As business goes in this huckster’s paradise, being a real estate developer is perhaps one click above being a car-dealer, and the fact that some of Trump’s artful deals end up in bankruptcy court might argue against his self-proclaimed mastery. Hence, his relegation to the clown category.

What Trump represents most vividly in this moment of history is the astounding lack of seriousness among people who pretend to be political heavyweights. No one so far, including the lovable Bernie Sanders, has nailed a proper bill of grievances to the White House gate. A broad roster of dire issues facing this society ought to be self-evident. But since they are absent so far in the public discussion, here is my list of matters that serious candidates should dare to talk about (all things that a sitting president could take action on):

The security state. America has developed the most horrifying state security apparatus that the world has ever seen in its NSA and associated agencies. It has become the sugar tit for some of the most malevolent enterprises of the corporatocracy — the black ops companies and the weapons dealers. The growth of this monster was not mandated by heaven. A president could lead the move to deconstruct it. A candidate with a decent respect for our heritage would make this a major campaign issue.

Related to this is the disgusting militarization of the police. Police forces in small towns have no business owning MRAP vehicles, tanks, and heavy weaponry. The federal government gave a lot of this stuff to them. Guess what? It can take the stuff back. Serious candidates should propose this.

There is a more general militarization of national life that ought to be disturbing to thoughtful citizens. I live near a US Naval base. I see enlisted men in town wearing desert camo uniforms on their time off. I resent this hugely. Military personnel at home have no business wearing war theater garb in a place where they are not at war. Historically, it was never before the case that US soldiers went about in battle dress at home. This disgusting trend has even been adopted in major league baseball. The New York Mets and the Pittsburgh Pirates have gone on TV wearing camo baseball uniforms. What are they trying to prove? That we are all at war all the time?

To continue reading: Where Candidates Fear to Tread

Chris Christie Calls Snowden Supporters “Civil Liberties Extremists” in His Latest Desperate Neocon Diatribe, by Michael Krieger

You can’t tell the Republican neocons who want to be King without a program. Here’s a critical appraisal of one of them, Chris Christie, from Michael Krieger at liberty blitzkrieg.com:

Chris Christie is a uniquely American embarrassment. Only a person so completely consumed with his own bullshit and narcissism could miss the fact that he characterizes the word coward. He’s created a national presence for himself as a warrior against corruption, yet he only punches downward, and exclusively picks on the weak. While he rails against entitlements and takes particular pleasure in attacking teachers, he never dares go after the real entitlement criminals. Wall Street bailout babies, and the multi-national corporations constantly sucking on the taxpayer teat via corporate welfare are never the focus of his ire. That’s because he’s 100% completely full of shit with regard to pretty much every topic he addresses.

Chris Christie is the consummate authoritarian, and he worships at the altar of the rich and powerful. He loves war, the surveillance state and political control. He’s the type of person who would chop off the hand of a poor person caught stealing a cookie, while happily offering a deferred prosecution agreement to a financial oligarch stealing billions. The fact that anyone takes him seriously after all his scandals and previous examples of verbal diarrhea is a testament to how deranged and damaged our political system really is.

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/05/18/chris-christie-calls-snowden-supporters-civil-liberties-extremists-in-his-latest-desperate-neocon-diatribe/

To continue reading: Chris Christie Calls Snowden Supporters “Extremists”

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism Is a Hit, by Matt Taibbi

How dare anyone claim that Hillary Clinton is not a woman of the people! She is a woman of the hedge fund people, the investment banking people, the Fortune 500 people, the Forbes 400 people, the Davos people, the Hollywood people, and the government kleptocracy people. And now she’s reaching out to the little people! From Matt Taibbi at rolling stone.com:

Hillary Clinton ran onto the playing field this week, Rock and Roll Part 2 blaring in the background, and started lying within minutes of announcing her entry into the presidential election campaign.

“There’s something wrong,” she told a crowd of Iowans, “when hedge fund managers pay lower taxes than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 when I was driving here over the last two days.”

Oh, right, that. The infamous carried interest tax break, the one that allows private equity vampires like Mitt Romney and Stephen Schwartzman to pay a top tax rate of 15 percent while all of the rest of us (including the truckers Hillary “saw” – note she didn’t say “hung out with Bill and me over chilled shrimp at the Water Club”) pay income taxes.

The carried interest loophole is an absurd, completely unjustifiable handout to the not merely well-off but filthy rich, and it’s been law in this country for about three decades.

Raise your hand if you really think that Hillary Clinton is going to repeal the carried interest tax break.

We’ll come back to that in a minute. In the meantime, the reaction to Hillary’s campaign announcement went exactly according to script. Newspapers and news sites ever-so-slightly raised figurative eyebrows at the tone of Hillary’s announcement, remarking upon its “populist” flair.

This is no plutocrat who plans to ride to the White House upon a historically massive assload of corporate money, the papers declared, this is a candidate of the people!

“Hillary’s Return: Her Folksy, Populist Re-Entry,” proclaimed Politico. “Populist Theme, Convivial In Tone!” headlined the Los Angeles Times. “Hillary Lifts Populist Spirits,” commented The Hill, hook visibly protruding from its reportorial fish-mouth.

Having watched this campaign-reporting process from both the inside and the outside for a long time now, I knew what was coming after the initial wave of “Hillary the Populist!” stories.

In presidential politics, every time a candidate on either the left or the right veers in a populist direction – usually with immediate success, since the American populace is ready to run through a wall for anyone who makes the obvious observation that they’re being screwed by someone up above – it takes about two or three days before the “Let’s let cooler heads prevail!” editorials start trickling in.

These chin-scratching op-eds arrive on time every time, like clockwork. They declare that populism is all well and good, and of course a necessary strategy for getting elected, but the “reality” is that once in office, one has to govern.

And since the people are a stupid, angry mob, these op-eds say, and don’t know how to govern themselves, the politician will have to abandon the populism sooner or later.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/campaign-2016-hillary-clintons-fake-populism-is-a-hit-20150416#ixzz3XoTc6Ek1 

To continue reading: Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism Is a Hit

Will the GOP Kick It Away? by Patrick Buchanan

An instruction manual for Republicans: how they can shoot themselves in both feet come 2016. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org

With Hillary Clinton scrambling to explain her missing emails, much of America is wailing, “Please don’t make us watch this movie again!”

Why, then, would the Republican Party, with a chance to sweep it all in 2016, want to return us to the nightmare days of George W., which caused America to rise up and throw the party out in 2006 and 2008?

Do Republicans really believe that America wants a return to the Cold War with Moscow and new and larger hot wars in the Middle East?

With President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry seemingly about to conclude a deal to freeze Iran’s nuclear program, House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to use the State of the Union podium to call Obama and Kerry naive and trash their deal as paving the ayatollah’s way to an atomic bomb.

For the U.S. House to invite a foreign leader to come into its chambers and see that leader, on national television, mocking U.S. foreign policy to wild cheering was something few of us expected to see in our lifetimes.

Came then the astonishing letter drafted by Tom Cotton, a 2-month-old senator who makes Ted Cruz look like Ramsey Clark, that was signed by 47 Republicans. Sent to the ayatollah and mullahs, the Cotton letter instructed Iran that any deal signed by Kerry might not be worth the paper it was written on.

Congress could reject the deal, said the 47, and a new president in 2017 could cancel it with “the stroke of a pen.”

The letter’s purpose was the same as Bibi’s purpose — to scuttle, sabotage and sink any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. But if there is no deal and Iran returns to enriching uranium to 20 percent, we are on the road to war.

Is this what America has to look forward to if it votes GOP?

http://buchanan.org/blog/will-the-gop-kick-it-away-15744

To continue reading: Will the GOP Kick It Away?