Got this picture from Pat Buchanan's website:
Friday, September 11, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Consequence of Health Care Reform
The Mainstream Media and squishy pseudo-Republicans like Joe Scarborough are all aghast that Sarah Palin used the term "death panels" to describe the new health care bureaucracy. While there is no entity given the title "Death Panel" in the bills before Congress nor is there a body whose exclusive function is determining who lives and dies, her charge is essentially correct. There will be a group of G-12s and consultants sitting in a government office somewhere deciding what type of patient is allowed to receive what kind of treatment based on a cost/benefit analysis. Your choices will be eliminated based on what the nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats decide is in the best interest of society. Eric Erickson writes this in his article in today's Macon Telegraph:
He provides this real life example of what is already happening on the state level:
Clearly, there needs to be health insurance reform. But our health care is just fine. Can anyone seriously make the case that heavy government involvement in health care or outright government control of health care will produce positive results? Medicare and the VA health care system are atrocious. Does any thinking American want to swap access to our current health care system for that?
If the Dems scale back their Big Brother overreach for a consumer protection model of health insurance reform, with a government assist for folks who cannot afford premiums, they will be heroes...and deserve their accolades. But they won't do it. They cannot resist the socialism and statism that are fundamental to their political DNA.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said in March that as part of responsible healthcare reform people must recognize they would not be able to get every treatment they wanted. The government would use a cost-benefit analysis to determine treatment options.
Noted liberal writer Ezra Klein wrote that health-care reform would save money by making tough decisions about a person’s life. “We’re profoundly uncomfortable saying that a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price of a particular procedure,” he wrote, alluding to the need for panels of experts to make those decisions.
Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and one of Obama’s health-care advisors, wrote in a January 2009 white paper that health care should be rationed in a way that “promot[es] and reward[s] social usefulness.” He said age could play a factor in determining who can and cannot access health-care resources.
Emanuel also wrote, “[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
He provides this real life example of what is already happening on the state level:
We see where this road we are now traveling goes out in the real world. Reporter Dan Springer reported in 2008, “Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.” Oregon denied Mr. Stroup’s request and referred him to an assisted suicide specialist.
Clearly, there needs to be health insurance reform. But our health care is just fine. Can anyone seriously make the case that heavy government involvement in health care or outright government control of health care will produce positive results? Medicare and the VA health care system are atrocious. Does any thinking American want to swap access to our current health care system for that?
If the Dems scale back their Big Brother overreach for a consumer protection model of health insurance reform, with a government assist for folks who cannot afford premiums, they will be heroes...and deserve their accolades. But they won't do it. They cannot resist the socialism and statism that are fundamental to their political DNA.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Neocon’s Nook #2 (Pt. 1 of 2): BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years
BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years
26 April 2009
“This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.” – President Ronald Reagan, 23 Mar 1983
Seeing as I view our missile defense efforts of the past decade or so, and our continuing efforts at least through to the end of President Bush’s presidency, as something that can be used as a bond that holds the U.S-European Alliance together, I should probably start by mentioning NATO. While not only America and countries of Europe, this alliance was what kept Europe and the U.S. on the same page throughout the Cold War, even when our different approaches to the world caused major disagreements in defense as well as in other areas. Even when France left the military structure in 1966, it never actually the Alliance itself, and a “secret accord between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Aillert Agreements, laid out in great detail how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.”1 Basically, NATO was the glue that held the West together during these difficult decades.
It is not new to hear in reference to NATO, “the alliance is wrestling with an identity crisis that has lingered since the Cold War ended” as written in the March 28, 2009 issue of The Economist. Such comments have been around since, well, since the end of the Cold War. Although personally I believe it now more than at any other point in time. The current economic “crisis” is being handled mainly by the G20, how to deal with unreliable energy supplier, Russia, is being handled mainly by the EU, Iran’s nuclear aspirations by the EU’s “Big Three” and with North Korea’s irresponsible nuclear behavior we have the six-party talks.2 The one area where NATO has really taken the lead today is in Afghanistan and that is proving extremely difficult to the point America has recently had to agree to pick up the slack yet again and send another 17,000 troops. Not exactly confidence-inspiring about NATO’s future as a forum for strategic dialogue.
I get the strong impression that NATO hasn’t really decided as a whole exactly what its top priority is. No doubt this isn’t an easy answer to get to as all 26 nations have their own national interests and particular reasons for being in NATO in the first place. However, it would most definitely be worth it in my opinion to ask, discuss and answer what is the top priority of NATO.
So now let’s focus on missile defense. The very first thing we must realize is that aside from bringing us closer to allies, which interceptors, radar stations, etc. deployed on their territories would certainly do, it is in our national interest to be able to defend ourselves against long-range ballistic missile strikes. Nearly all Americans believe this yet a large portion mistakenly think we already have such a system in place. We don’t. This fact is very dangerous because it skews opinions when talking about deploying parts of the system today in Poland and the Czech Republic, especially amidst the global economic “crisis.” But the post-Cold War threats realized under the Clinton Administration didn’t magically disappear. If anything, it’s become more dangerous and not due to U.S. policy.
Iran is not more dangerous because we are in Iraq, they are more dangerous because their leaders believe they don’t get the respect they deserve as descendants of the Persian Empire and they believe nuclear weapons are the only way to get that respect. Plus, they’ve seen China and Russia protect them within the U.N. time and time again.
Does anyone believe we pushed China into increased military spending? Many on the Left in America believe we are the cause of all bad and arrogantly believe any action from any other country must be in response to something we’ve done. However, it was noted only three days ago following a maritime parade in the port city of Qingdao commemorating the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) that China has major sea disputes with numerous countries, most notably Vietnam, Japan and the Phillipines.3
We tried a softer line with Russia and supported their entry into various international organizations. There could be some argument they may be more dangerous because they lost respect for our strength but as a person living close to six years in a former Warsaw Pact country, I can say with no shadow of a doubt, it has nothing to do with us talking with Poland and the Czech Republic about the Missile Defense Shield. Russian leaders like Prime Minister Putin long for the influence they had in the Soviet Union and are embarrassed by the 90s. There was no policy, hard or soft, we could have had to prevent them from becoming more belligerent and resurgent when they were capable. They still act like former satellites are theirs by constantly trying to use strong arm tactics and flat out threats to influence their policies rather than treating them as free and independent nations.
A soft line was taken with North Korea and they thumb their nose at the international community over and over again and had a more successful test than ever before only a few short weeks ago. Would harder lines with all the countries I’ve mentioned helped? I believe so but looking back on President Bush’s treatment by the media made that almost impossible as they sucked every ounce of political capital he had, often with little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. And regardless, I am under no delusion that it is our fault. Americans must stop blaming our leaders for all the ills of the world and the actions of others around the world. We have much influence but we do not make their decisions for them. I want to reiterate we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.
I mentioned it earlier but allow me to elaborate. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, missile defense came to light once more during the Clinton Administration not only because rogue states at the time who did in fact have missile programs: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. There was also a serious concern that Russia’s crumbling infrastructure could lead to an accidental launch. Congress mandated R&D on a national missile defense system. President Clinton gave approval and his Vice President, Al Gore, continued to support a missile defense system while campaigning for president. There have been numerous foreign policy experts, James Lindsay of the liberal-leaning think tanks Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations to name but one, who have strongly supported a missile defense system.4 Fast forward to today and while the details on the type and deployment of the system can still be controversial, there is large support on both sides of the aisle for the idea of missile defense. Again, we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Cody, Edward. "After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member." Washington Post, 12 Mar 2009: A08
2) "Have combat experience, will travel." The Economist, 28 Mar-3 Apr 2009
3) "Distant horizons." The Economist, 25 Apr-1 May 2009: 57.
4) Rust, Michael. "Think Tanks Look at Missile Defense." United Press International, 4 Mar 2001
26 April 2009
“This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.” – President Ronald Reagan, 23 Mar 1983
Seeing as I view our missile defense efforts of the past decade or so, and our continuing efforts at least through to the end of President Bush’s presidency, as something that can be used as a bond that holds the U.S-European Alliance together, I should probably start by mentioning NATO. While not only America and countries of Europe, this alliance was what kept Europe and the U.S. on the same page throughout the Cold War, even when our different approaches to the world caused major disagreements in defense as well as in other areas. Even when France left the military structure in 1966, it never actually the Alliance itself, and a “secret accord between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Aillert Agreements, laid out in great detail how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.”1 Basically, NATO was the glue that held the West together during these difficult decades.
It is not new to hear in reference to NATO, “the alliance is wrestling with an identity crisis that has lingered since the Cold War ended” as written in the March 28, 2009 issue of The Economist. Such comments have been around since, well, since the end of the Cold War. Although personally I believe it now more than at any other point in time. The current economic “crisis” is being handled mainly by the G20, how to deal with unreliable energy supplier, Russia, is being handled mainly by the EU, Iran’s nuclear aspirations by the EU’s “Big Three” and with North Korea’s irresponsible nuclear behavior we have the six-party talks.2 The one area where NATO has really taken the lead today is in Afghanistan and that is proving extremely difficult to the point America has recently had to agree to pick up the slack yet again and send another 17,000 troops. Not exactly confidence-inspiring about NATO’s future as a forum for strategic dialogue.
I get the strong impression that NATO hasn’t really decided as a whole exactly what its top priority is. No doubt this isn’t an easy answer to get to as all 26 nations have their own national interests and particular reasons for being in NATO in the first place. However, it would most definitely be worth it in my opinion to ask, discuss and answer what is the top priority of NATO.
So now let’s focus on missile defense. The very first thing we must realize is that aside from bringing us closer to allies, which interceptors, radar stations, etc. deployed on their territories would certainly do, it is in our national interest to be able to defend ourselves against long-range ballistic missile strikes. Nearly all Americans believe this yet a large portion mistakenly think we already have such a system in place. We don’t. This fact is very dangerous because it skews opinions when talking about deploying parts of the system today in Poland and the Czech Republic, especially amidst the global economic “crisis.” But the post-Cold War threats realized under the Clinton Administration didn’t magically disappear. If anything, it’s become more dangerous and not due to U.S. policy.
Iran is not more dangerous because we are in Iraq, they are more dangerous because their leaders believe they don’t get the respect they deserve as descendants of the Persian Empire and they believe nuclear weapons are the only way to get that respect. Plus, they’ve seen China and Russia protect them within the U.N. time and time again.
Does anyone believe we pushed China into increased military spending? Many on the Left in America believe we are the cause of all bad and arrogantly believe any action from any other country must be in response to something we’ve done. However, it was noted only three days ago following a maritime parade in the port city of Qingdao commemorating the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) that China has major sea disputes with numerous countries, most notably Vietnam, Japan and the Phillipines.3
We tried a softer line with Russia and supported their entry into various international organizations. There could be some argument they may be more dangerous because they lost respect for our strength but as a person living close to six years in a former Warsaw Pact country, I can say with no shadow of a doubt, it has nothing to do with us talking with Poland and the Czech Republic about the Missile Defense Shield. Russian leaders like Prime Minister Putin long for the influence they had in the Soviet Union and are embarrassed by the 90s. There was no policy, hard or soft, we could have had to prevent them from becoming more belligerent and resurgent when they were capable. They still act like former satellites are theirs by constantly trying to use strong arm tactics and flat out threats to influence their policies rather than treating them as free and independent nations.
A soft line was taken with North Korea and they thumb their nose at the international community over and over again and had a more successful test than ever before only a few short weeks ago. Would harder lines with all the countries I’ve mentioned helped? I believe so but looking back on President Bush’s treatment by the media made that almost impossible as they sucked every ounce of political capital he had, often with little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. And regardless, I am under no delusion that it is our fault. Americans must stop blaming our leaders for all the ills of the world and the actions of others around the world. We have much influence but we do not make their decisions for them. I want to reiterate we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.
I mentioned it earlier but allow me to elaborate. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, missile defense came to light once more during the Clinton Administration not only because rogue states at the time who did in fact have missile programs: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. There was also a serious concern that Russia’s crumbling infrastructure could lead to an accidental launch. Congress mandated R&D on a national missile defense system. President Clinton gave approval and his Vice President, Al Gore, continued to support a missile defense system while campaigning for president. There have been numerous foreign policy experts, James Lindsay of the liberal-leaning think tanks Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations to name but one, who have strongly supported a missile defense system.4 Fast forward to today and while the details on the type and deployment of the system can still be controversial, there is large support on both sides of the aisle for the idea of missile defense. Again, we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Cody, Edward. "After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member." Washington Post, 12 Mar 2009: A08
2) "Have combat experience, will travel." The Economist, 28 Mar-3 Apr 2009
3) "Distant horizons." The Economist, 25 Apr-1 May 2009: 57.
4) Rust, Michael. "Think Tanks Look at Missile Defense." United Press International, 4 Mar 2001
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Neocon’s Nook #1: The Stable State: a case for the two-party system
The Stable State: a case for the two-party system
9 October 2005
“‘…though neo-conservatives are political intellectuals, their persuasion is a philosophical one that happens to have a political relevance.’ Despite the fact that neo-conservatives have different backgrounds and experiences, ‘they [all] believe in the fragility of social institutions, that all human enterprises will have monumental unintended consequences, that man has a moral responsibility to forcibly confront evil, and most of all, that the world is governed, in the end, by ideas.’” – Mark Gerson, The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, 1996
Our world IS governed by ideas. Ideas which DO have consequences, sometimes intended and often unintended. I’ll argue fiercely to the grave (with plenty of supporting evidence) that the best ideas come from the United States of America. The quality and quantity of intellectual life in America is still the highest in the world. A quarter of American adults have a university education. The country produces one-third of the world's scientific papers, employs two-thirds of the world's Nobel-prize winners, has 17 of the top 20 universities (as ranked by Shanghai's Jiao Tong University) and has more ideas-based workers than anyone else.1-4
I’m going to talk about one of the ideas we are governed by that a great majority of the world and even a great majority of Americans have a hard time grasping and even understanding, much less accepting. Although, I’ve found that giving the alternative serious consideration has proven to reduce my hasty opinions. I’m not so concerned with if we intentionally created this or if it resulted from a complex set of voting patterns. I’m more concerned with defending this pillar of stability, hence production, which has helped place the United States of America as the only true superpower in today’s world, the two-party system.
First, before getting into any real serious discussion on this, I’d like to dispel one of the common mantras of critics of the two-party system. I’m sure you’ve heard it. The “two-party monopoly” remark. How ridiculous! By definition, this doesn’t even make sense. Usually expressed by those who are out of touch with reality and the rest of society, and often have neither the ability to compromise nor function in a diplomatic way. These are the ones who will throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way and run off and create their own party over one issue and risk cutting off their nose to spite their face because their overall belief system can never be realized with such little support. I often wonder how much they truly know about living in a one-party dictatorship to throw out terms so casually.
It’s very reminiscent of the days of Liberum Veto. The disruptive parliamentary device used prior to 1764 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where anyone could completely end a session when they heard something they didn’t like. Needless to say there was very little reform or progression during this period. This track of thought aided tremendously in completely wiping Poland off the map for over 120 years. It effectively placed the once European power in a state of anarchy and in a position too weak to fight off the partitioning by Prussia, Russia and Austria.
Another misconception is that a two-party system only gives you two options to choose from. The absentee ballot I filled out last year had no less than 13 third-party candidates, and that’s not including independents and write-ins. Pretty wide range of choices in my opinion, even for the people who feel disenfranchised and whose beliefs fall outside the norms of society. What a two-party system does do though, is allow us choices while at the same time, not forcing a large percentage of the population to be burdened by listening to radical ideas during debates and campaigning that don’t reflect the principles our country was built on, and distracts us (usually already with a tight time-schedule) from real issues that do affect our lives.
I’m a Republican and an average human being, and therefore I hate taxes as much as anyone. Although, it’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone about federal tax laws, for example, when that person just can’t get past the fact that taxing is not against the law. Or with someone who believes requiring a permit to protest is done to censor or make money, and has nothing to do with coordinating logistics effectively so the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. Let’s take a rather well-known American third-party, the Libertarian Party. As a Republican, I can agree with Libertarians on a great number of issues, but if you’ve ever talked with one for longer than five minutes, I’m sure you’ve walked away from the conversation feeling like you didn’t believe in the Constitution because you don’t want Mr. John Doe down the street to own weapons of mass destruction to protect his home, or because you don’t long to live in the 18th Century.
When an idea gains political influence and represents a large portion of the citizens, a third-party can, in fact, develop. Which can be seen with the rise of the U.K.’s Labour Party at the expense of the Liberals in the 20th Century as well as the rise of the U.S.’s Republican Party at the expense of the Whigs in the 19th Century. Basically, it’s very ignorant to believe that a two-party system occurs chiefly due to political engineering, “The Man” holding the little guy down, campaign finance laws, unfair media outlets or any of the other claims from extremists.
I touched on pre-election distractions; now let’s talk about post-election in a multi-party system. It’s one thing for a future leader to not receive over the majority of support from the entire public due to low voter turnout, it’s quite another to not receive the majority of support from the citizens who did take the time to vote. It is not uncommon for the leaders of nations with a multi-party system to win with an embarrassing level of support and faith of only near 20-25%. Allow me to give another more telling example. The United Kingdom has long been considered a two-party system, though the Liberal Democrats have emerged the past 20 years or so as an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the Tories. Keep in mind; this is three parties, not the myriad seen in true multi-party systems. Not the 18 parties I witnessed two weeks ago while my Polish fiancée was voting in her country’s parliamentary elections. And yet, the Labour Party, while gaining a majority of seats, 66 more than the others combined, could muster only 35.3% of the national votes.5 Could be worse, but there will always be watering down of effective reforms due to the necessity of making concessions. Public apathy will always be higher than necessary. The combination leaves the door wide open for easily corruptible parties and a lack of motivation for intellectual growth. This does not set the stage for effective development, leadership and governing.
The past few weeks have given us such comments about Germany, the long-time champion of the proponents of multi-party systems, like “Instead, a divided electorate has given a majority to nobody. All the political parties, and their leaders, are now engaged in tortuous manoeuvring over possible coalitions that smacks more of Weimar than of the Federal Republic. The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain but, on almost any betting, it will produce a weak, short-lived government that has little capacity for further reform. Not surprisingly, business leaders and financial markets are upset: both the euro and the stockmarket have fallen sharply,” and, “Yet whatever coalition, if any, emerges from the mess, it is not likely to prove either strong or stable. Germans are thus likely to find themselves returning to the polls soon, certainly long before the election due in four years' time. But however many times they are asked to vote, if their economy is to thrive, their country has no alternative to further reform.”6 Comments like these are nothing extraordinary for a multi-party system.
Neither are comments like these, concerning Poland, rare in multi-party systems, presently going through their own coalition negotiations, “That will mean little chance of the new government attacking Poland's problems head-on with a radical, comprehensive programme of reform. Red tape will be snipped, rather than slashed. Reform will be piecemeal. Change will depend on which minister gets which portfolio, rather than being pushed hard on every front by a government with big ideas,” and “The most important task for Poland's new rulers will be to make sure that they govern for a full term, without splits or scandals. An interesting feature of the election result is that the populist parties, the right-wing League of Polish Families and the left-wing Self-defence, were not wiped out. Together with the ex-communists, they will form a disparate but probably effective opposition. With almost all the sensible politicians in the government, any alternative administration is bound to look alarming. In short: if this government fails, watch out for what comes next.”7
In addition to Germany and Poland, an analysis of Israel, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, whose parliament has never completed a five year term, is a short list of only a few of the examples to reinforce my claims. A comparison of their economic indicators and America’s, like unemployment or production rates, give ample evidence that a stable government gives more opportunities. After years of a chaotic political situation in Italy, it seems that public opinion is starting to see the advantages of stability, “Most Italians would prefer to have a two-party democracy. What they have instead are loose alliances of left and right, made up of nine and six parties respectively. Few people in Italy keep their opinions to themselves, so the authority of the alliance leaders is always undermined by sniping from fellow party bosses.”8 The irony of multi-party systems is that they do not result in any greater policy cohesion or transparency, as many naïve advocates think. They mean more backroom deals and accommodation, which is often very temporal and transient. Short-lived governments and short-term fixes are the norm rather than the exception. Doesn’t make for a strong foundation if you ask me.
So, whether the U.S. coming to a two-party system stems from consequences that were unintended, coming from voting system discriminations against third-parties or whether they come from the intended consequences of our brilliant and farsighted Founding Fathers is of little importance to me now. I’m happy with the two-party system and fear what the consequences would be for America if we were to ever lose that status.
Our stability and greatness would surely be lost.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Parker, John. "Centrifugal forces." The Economist 14 Jul 2005
2) Frey, William. "Brain Gains, Brain Drains." American Demographics Jun 2005
3) "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003." Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
4) "Academic Ranking of World's Universities 2004.".
5) "UK Election 2005." BBC News.
6) "Germany's nightmare." The Economist 24-30 Sep 2005: 11.
7) "Can the eagle soar?" The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 21-23.8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
9 October 2005
“‘…though neo-conservatives are political intellectuals, their persuasion is a philosophical one that happens to have a political relevance.’ Despite the fact that neo-conservatives have different backgrounds and experiences, ‘they [all] believe in the fragility of social institutions, that all human enterprises will have monumental unintended consequences, that man has a moral responsibility to forcibly confront evil, and most of all, that the world is governed, in the end, by ideas.’” – Mark Gerson, The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, 1996
Our world IS governed by ideas. Ideas which DO have consequences, sometimes intended and often unintended. I’ll argue fiercely to the grave (with plenty of supporting evidence) that the best ideas come from the United States of America. The quality and quantity of intellectual life in America is still the highest in the world. A quarter of American adults have a university education. The country produces one-third of the world's scientific papers, employs two-thirds of the world's Nobel-prize winners, has 17 of the top 20 universities (as ranked by Shanghai's Jiao Tong University) and has more ideas-based workers than anyone else.1-4
I’m going to talk about one of the ideas we are governed by that a great majority of the world and even a great majority of Americans have a hard time grasping and even understanding, much less accepting. Although, I’ve found that giving the alternative serious consideration has proven to reduce my hasty opinions. I’m not so concerned with if we intentionally created this or if it resulted from a complex set of voting patterns. I’m more concerned with defending this pillar of stability, hence production, which has helped place the United States of America as the only true superpower in today’s world, the two-party system.
First, before getting into any real serious discussion on this, I’d like to dispel one of the common mantras of critics of the two-party system. I’m sure you’ve heard it. The “two-party monopoly” remark. How ridiculous! By definition, this doesn’t even make sense. Usually expressed by those who are out of touch with reality and the rest of society, and often have neither the ability to compromise nor function in a diplomatic way. These are the ones who will throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way and run off and create their own party over one issue and risk cutting off their nose to spite their face because their overall belief system can never be realized with such little support. I often wonder how much they truly know about living in a one-party dictatorship to throw out terms so casually.
It’s very reminiscent of the days of Liberum Veto. The disruptive parliamentary device used prior to 1764 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where anyone could completely end a session when they heard something they didn’t like. Needless to say there was very little reform or progression during this period. This track of thought aided tremendously in completely wiping Poland off the map for over 120 years. It effectively placed the once European power in a state of anarchy and in a position too weak to fight off the partitioning by Prussia, Russia and Austria.
Another misconception is that a two-party system only gives you two options to choose from. The absentee ballot I filled out last year had no less than 13 third-party candidates, and that’s not including independents and write-ins. Pretty wide range of choices in my opinion, even for the people who feel disenfranchised and whose beliefs fall outside the norms of society. What a two-party system does do though, is allow us choices while at the same time, not forcing a large percentage of the population to be burdened by listening to radical ideas during debates and campaigning that don’t reflect the principles our country was built on, and distracts us (usually already with a tight time-schedule) from real issues that do affect our lives.
I’m a Republican and an average human being, and therefore I hate taxes as much as anyone. Although, it’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone about federal tax laws, for example, when that person just can’t get past the fact that taxing is not against the law. Or with someone who believes requiring a permit to protest is done to censor or make money, and has nothing to do with coordinating logistics effectively so the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. Let’s take a rather well-known American third-party, the Libertarian Party. As a Republican, I can agree with Libertarians on a great number of issues, but if you’ve ever talked with one for longer than five minutes, I’m sure you’ve walked away from the conversation feeling like you didn’t believe in the Constitution because you don’t want Mr. John Doe down the street to own weapons of mass destruction to protect his home, or because you don’t long to live in the 18th Century.
When an idea gains political influence and represents a large portion of the citizens, a third-party can, in fact, develop. Which can be seen with the rise of the U.K.’s Labour Party at the expense of the Liberals in the 20th Century as well as the rise of the U.S.’s Republican Party at the expense of the Whigs in the 19th Century. Basically, it’s very ignorant to believe that a two-party system occurs chiefly due to political engineering, “The Man” holding the little guy down, campaign finance laws, unfair media outlets or any of the other claims from extremists.
I touched on pre-election distractions; now let’s talk about post-election in a multi-party system. It’s one thing for a future leader to not receive over the majority of support from the entire public due to low voter turnout, it’s quite another to not receive the majority of support from the citizens who did take the time to vote. It is not uncommon for the leaders of nations with a multi-party system to win with an embarrassing level of support and faith of only near 20-25%. Allow me to give another more telling example. The United Kingdom has long been considered a two-party system, though the Liberal Democrats have emerged the past 20 years or so as an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the Tories. Keep in mind; this is three parties, not the myriad seen in true multi-party systems. Not the 18 parties I witnessed two weeks ago while my Polish fiancée was voting in her country’s parliamentary elections. And yet, the Labour Party, while gaining a majority of seats, 66 more than the others combined, could muster only 35.3% of the national votes.5 Could be worse, but there will always be watering down of effective reforms due to the necessity of making concessions. Public apathy will always be higher than necessary. The combination leaves the door wide open for easily corruptible parties and a lack of motivation for intellectual growth. This does not set the stage for effective development, leadership and governing.
The past few weeks have given us such comments about Germany, the long-time champion of the proponents of multi-party systems, like “Instead, a divided electorate has given a majority to nobody. All the political parties, and their leaders, are now engaged in tortuous manoeuvring over possible coalitions that smacks more of Weimar than of the Federal Republic. The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain but, on almost any betting, it will produce a weak, short-lived government that has little capacity for further reform. Not surprisingly, business leaders and financial markets are upset: both the euro and the stockmarket have fallen sharply,” and, “Yet whatever coalition, if any, emerges from the mess, it is not likely to prove either strong or stable. Germans are thus likely to find themselves returning to the polls soon, certainly long before the election due in four years' time. But however many times they are asked to vote, if their economy is to thrive, their country has no alternative to further reform.”6 Comments like these are nothing extraordinary for a multi-party system.
Neither are comments like these, concerning Poland, rare in multi-party systems, presently going through their own coalition negotiations, “That will mean little chance of the new government attacking Poland's problems head-on with a radical, comprehensive programme of reform. Red tape will be snipped, rather than slashed. Reform will be piecemeal. Change will depend on which minister gets which portfolio, rather than being pushed hard on every front by a government with big ideas,” and “The most important task for Poland's new rulers will be to make sure that they govern for a full term, without splits or scandals. An interesting feature of the election result is that the populist parties, the right-wing League of Polish Families and the left-wing Self-defence, were not wiped out. Together with the ex-communists, they will form a disparate but probably effective opposition. With almost all the sensible politicians in the government, any alternative administration is bound to look alarming. In short: if this government fails, watch out for what comes next.”7
In addition to Germany and Poland, an analysis of Israel, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, whose parliament has never completed a five year term, is a short list of only a few of the examples to reinforce my claims. A comparison of their economic indicators and America’s, like unemployment or production rates, give ample evidence that a stable government gives more opportunities. After years of a chaotic political situation in Italy, it seems that public opinion is starting to see the advantages of stability, “Most Italians would prefer to have a two-party democracy. What they have instead are loose alliances of left and right, made up of nine and six parties respectively. Few people in Italy keep their opinions to themselves, so the authority of the alliance leaders is always undermined by sniping from fellow party bosses.”8 The irony of multi-party systems is that they do not result in any greater policy cohesion or transparency, as many naïve advocates think. They mean more backroom deals and accommodation, which is often very temporal and transient. Short-lived governments and short-term fixes are the norm rather than the exception. Doesn’t make for a strong foundation if you ask me.
So, whether the U.S. coming to a two-party system stems from consequences that were unintended, coming from voting system discriminations against third-parties or whether they come from the intended consequences of our brilliant and farsighted Founding Fathers is of little importance to me now. I’m happy with the two-party system and fear what the consequences would be for America if we were to ever lose that status.
Our stability and greatness would surely be lost.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Parker, John. "Centrifugal forces." The Economist 14 Jul 2005
2) Frey, William. "Brain Gains, Brain Drains." American Demographics Jun 2005
3) "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003." Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
4) "Academic Ranking of World's Universities 2004."
5) "UK Election 2005." BBC News
6) "Germany's nightmare." The Economist 24-30 Sep 2005: 11.
7) "Can the eagle soar?" The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 21-23.8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
Introduction to Neocon's Nook
After getting the green light from Ed, and mentally committing myself to try very hard to post relatively regularly, I've decided to start a column written from the point of view of a Neoconservative. I was asked to write a column from this perspective around three and a half years ago for a political website but unfortunately it never got off the ground.
Neocon has become an ugly word the past 5-6 years with criticism from all over the place, Right and Left. Very sad in my opinion because not many people I've spoken with actually know what one is other than connecting a few names to it. Very sad because it is exactly the plan created and endorsed by Neoconservatives from day one in Iraq that helped us turn the corner after a disasterous 2006 (somehow the media convinced the public that Messrs Rumsfeld and Bremer are Neoconservatives and hence we ruined everything). Very sad because the 70s, which most American Conservatives can agree was a disgusting decade, was dominated by the Democrats because while Conservatives and Neoconservatives were natural allies on almost every single issue, they weren't ready to work together and often Neoconservatives undermined Presidents Nixon and Ford. We came together under the great President Reagan and remain to this day on the same side usually. But things haven't been perfect since Iraq started.
I don't even like putting American Conservatives and Neoconservatives in different categories as if we aren't both Republicans and as if there aren't plenty of other differences within the Republican Party besides between these ideologies but there are some small ones worth pointing out. I often go back and forth when I give my own self a label. I am a little different than the tradtional Neoconservative though. Unlike most, I didn't move from the Democrats after being fed up with liberalism gone wild, I was already an American Conservative who had experiences in my life that made me very interventionist in foreign policy. The pro-military stance of American Conservatives have often hid the fact that many are not nearly as interventionist outside our borders. Despite not being nearly as much in favor of Big Government as Democrats, most Neoconservatives are more tolerable than the traditional American Conservative. I am not.
I had many articles prepared when I was first asked to write a regular column but most that I do now will be new. The first one won't though. It will be one from Oct 2005 dealing with the two-party system. I don’t think anyone, any party or any ideology has ever made a stand on it one way or the other. However, I think most Americans from both sides of the fence would say they are against the two-party system but since supporting it would be supporting the status quo, and since not supporting it, in my opinion, shows a desire to change without considering the consequences (change just to change), I find it to be a Conservative position. I thought that when I wrote it and since a main tenet of Neoconservatism is a strong belief in unintended consequences, I found it a Neoconservative position as well. I would love to see the Republican platform defend the two-party system.
I will attempt to contribute as regularly as humanly possible... at least a few articles a month... but I will forewarn I have a very very limited schedule.
Hope Y'all enjoy what I can make time for.
Happy Easter!!!
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
(Hutch)
Note: If anyone would like to contact me privately, the best email address to use is: c.hutchinson@curb-tec.pl
Neocon has become an ugly word the past 5-6 years with criticism from all over the place, Right and Left. Very sad in my opinion because not many people I've spoken with actually know what one is other than connecting a few names to it. Very sad because it is exactly the plan created and endorsed by Neoconservatives from day one in Iraq that helped us turn the corner after a disasterous 2006 (somehow the media convinced the public that Messrs Rumsfeld and Bremer are Neoconservatives and hence we ruined everything). Very sad because the 70s, which most American Conservatives can agree was a disgusting decade, was dominated by the Democrats because while Conservatives and Neoconservatives were natural allies on almost every single issue, they weren't ready to work together and often Neoconservatives undermined Presidents Nixon and Ford. We came together under the great President Reagan and remain to this day on the same side usually. But things haven't been perfect since Iraq started.
I don't even like putting American Conservatives and Neoconservatives in different categories as if we aren't both Republicans and as if there aren't plenty of other differences within the Republican Party besides between these ideologies but there are some small ones worth pointing out. I often go back and forth when I give my own self a label. I am a little different than the tradtional Neoconservative though. Unlike most, I didn't move from the Democrats after being fed up with liberalism gone wild, I was already an American Conservative who had experiences in my life that made me very interventionist in foreign policy. The pro-military stance of American Conservatives have often hid the fact that many are not nearly as interventionist outside our borders. Despite not being nearly as much in favor of Big Government as Democrats, most Neoconservatives are more tolerable than the traditional American Conservative. I am not.
I had many articles prepared when I was first asked to write a regular column but most that I do now will be new. The first one won't though. It will be one from Oct 2005 dealing with the two-party system. I don’t think anyone, any party or any ideology has ever made a stand on it one way or the other. However, I think most Americans from both sides of the fence would say they are against the two-party system but since supporting it would be supporting the status quo, and since not supporting it, in my opinion, shows a desire to change without considering the consequences (change just to change), I find it to be a Conservative position. I thought that when I wrote it and since a main tenet of Neoconservatism is a strong belief in unintended consequences, I found it a Neoconservative position as well. I would love to see the Republican platform defend the two-party system.
I will attempt to contribute as regularly as humanly possible... at least a few articles a month... but I will forewarn I have a very very limited schedule.
Hope Y'all enjoy what I can make time for.
Happy Easter!!!
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
(Hutch)
Note: If anyone would like to contact me privately, the best email address to use is: c.hutchinson@curb-tec.pl
Monday, March 2, 2009
Michael Steele: A Disappointment
The reservations of conservatives about the election of Michael Steele as RNC Chair appear to have been well-founded. It seems that he is more of the same that we've seen from the GOP over the last several years: tell conservatives what they want to hear, but secretly lust for a centrist GOP. It defies imagination that Steele and the other Beltway Republicans haven't figured out that they lost the election because they couldn't inspire the base and they failed to articulate a clear, conservative message. The result was not only the loss of the presidency to a Euro-leftist, but the disastrous losses down the ticket.
Enter radio king Rush Limbaugh. He absolutely killed at CPAC this weekend. He spoke clearly and concisely with no apologies for or muting of the conservative message. He delivered the full-throated rallying cry for the downtrodden rank and file. And what is Steele's first instinct? He attacks Limbaugh on the CNN talkshow hosted by D.L. Hughley. (Btw, Eric Cantor played the spineless wienie in his appearance on the shows this weekend, too.)
Watch their comparative performances.
Enter radio king Rush Limbaugh. He absolutely killed at CPAC this weekend. He spoke clearly and concisely with no apologies for or muting of the conservative message. He delivered the full-throated rallying cry for the downtrodden rank and file. And what is Steele's first instinct? He attacks Limbaugh on the CNN talkshow hosted by D.L. Hughley. (Btw, Eric Cantor played the spineless wienie in his appearance on the shows this weekend, too.)
Watch their comparative performances.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Welcome to my new blog
Welcome to the American Conservative Patriot. I'm glad you've come by. The purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my political opinions, observations, and items of interest that I come across. Please be active and join the conversation in the meta!
My other blog, the Parson's Ponderings, will still be up and active. But my political opinions don't always fall into the category of "thus saith the Lord"! It will continue to be a forum where I discuss the intersection of faith, life, and contemporary issues.
My other blog, the Parson's Ponderings, will still be up and active. But my political opinions don't always fall into the category of "thus saith the Lord"! It will continue to be a forum where I discuss the intersection of faith, life, and contemporary issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)