There is no joy in Mudville
At least not for those of us (including yours truly) who are classical liberals on domestic issues, and who support a robust, forward leaning, and heavily armed global American presence in a dangerous world. (For those Europeans and Eurowannabes who think that the lion will lie down with the lamb if only those obstreperous Americans would cease their unilateral ways and listen to the UN like good little boys and girls—be careful what you ask for.)
At the very best, Barack Obama will govern as a Continental lefty, who will make the US more like Europe, an enervated—and enervating—nanny state offering cradle to grave security (in theory) while sharply constraining the scope for personal initiative. At the very worst, he is a hard core leftist, marinated in Hyde Park/Berkeley/Upper West Side radicalism, who believes that the US is essentially malign rather than essentially good but flawed; that the vision of the Founders is fundamentally and irredeemably unjust; and that American society is irretrievably racist and repressive. His official campaign rhetoric suggests the former, more benign, but hardly encouraging, alternative. The personal and political associations of a lifetime, his own autobiography, and less guarded statements made over the years support the latter, more sinister, possibility. One of the most discouraging aspects of the just completed campaign is that due to the active collaboration of the press with Obama, we were never given the information or opportunity to learn which of these two alternatives is closer to the truth. The blindingly obvious unwillingness of the media to probe the question seriously in public leads me to believe that they know the answer—and that we have elected someone more radically left than Henry Wallace or Huey Long.
My first inclination is to take a cue from DR, and assume a Leninist “the worse, the better” attitude. Hope that Obama and Congressional Democrats rush to attempt to implement every policy wish that they have kept pent up inside for the last years—or arguably for the last 28, since Reagan’s election. Refashion completely the health care system, turning it into a government managed and financed system. Seize 401(k) accounts. Impose payroll taxes on every dollar earned. Dramatically increase the cost of energy by imposing draconian restrictions on CO2 omissions. Shove huge subsidies down “alternative energy” rat holes. Raise income taxes and capital gains taxes. Gut the military. Go all squishy when dealing with Iran and Russia. Sell Israel down the river. Restrict freedom of expression by imposing the “Fairness” Doctrine (an Orwellian expression if ever there was one.) Answer every policy dispute with accusations of racism, and criminalize speech deemed racist. All in the teeth of a recession.
You know they want to. They are almost ready to burst from the pressure of bottling up their intense desires for so long. Even the Clinton years were frustrating to them, a period of centrist triangulation after the retreat from Hillarycare.
The operative word here is “attempt.” I expect that if Obama and the extreme liberals that dominate Congress were to attempt to enact such an agenda—and it is the agenda of their desires—that even the dreamy types mesmerized by anodyne promises of change would awake from their reveries. Talk of unspecified “hope” and “change” allows the lazy listener to imagine the changes she or he hopes to see, and assume that Obama shares the same vision. (That’s how cons work.) Things are quite different when one sees the specifics, and comprehends the dramatic implications thereof. The resulting popular outrage would make the Clinton 1993-1994 explosion look like a dud firecracker.
That’s what I expect would happen—but I am not sure. There is the risk that it might not, and in the event, the costs would be catastrophic. Indeed, even if the probability of implementation of even a modest part of the agenda is small, the costs are so large that a rational, risk averse individual should recoil from thoughts of “the worse, the better.” Hence, I so recoil.
My estimation that that the risk that some of the agenda could in fact come to pass is increased by an examination of the broader election results, beyond the Presidential vote. An election in which a mean, spiritually deformed buffoon, Al Franken, might win a Senate seat, and attracted over a million votes. In which a convicted crook, Ted Stevens, retained his seat. In which a corrupt bastard (to put it as politely as I can muster, believe me) who insults his constituents and slanders Marines who faced death and agonizing decisions in a war against a dishonorable and vicious enemy is re-elected easily. In which the party in control of a Congress with lower approval ratings than Bush’s subterranean numbers increases its majority. I always try to avoid Peter Jennings-esque blame-the-voter rants when results are not as I would like, but at the same time I cannot resist the thought that the results betray a fundamental unseriousness, self-absorption, gullibility, and willingness to suspend disbelief in vast swaths of my fellow citizens. And given such a frivolous citizenry, men and women of will and guile in positions of power can achieve a lot. In some ways, the alternative is even worse—that alternative would be that people actually want to see this agenda implemented. Either way, there is a non-trivial probability of a vast enhancement of the power and intrusiveness of the Federal government at home as great as, or greater than, anything experienced since FDR. And there is a non-trivial probability of a vast diminution of American power abroad, as severe as occurred during the isolationist 20s and 30s, or during the Jefferson administration.
My wife asked me to say something positive about yesterday’s outcome. Everything I could think of reminded me of the old joke about the farm boy whose mama told him to make sure that he said something nice to his prom date. At the dance, he strained his brain to think of a compliment, finally blurting out: “You don’t sweat too much for a fat girl.” So I demurred from responding to Terry’s request.
Adam Smith wrote that there is a good deal of ruin in a country. I think we are about to test the limits of how much there is in this one.
Obama reminds me of Gorbachev.
Comment by So? — November 6, 2008 @ 2:46 am
As I said in my post http://darussophile.blogspot.com/2008/11/congratulations-america.html, you shouldn’t be so sad SWP. Obama’s main Russia advisers are unrepentant Russophobes (McFaul and Brzezinski); in any case it would be exceeding difficult not to mention politically costly to decisively sway foreign policy towards Russia, political capital that would be better expended on domestic reform.
Speaking of which, I much approve of most the “radical” measures you’ve suggested he’ll try to carry out (and which, being a bourgeois reactionary element, you decry), although unfortunately I doubt he’ll try to carry most of them through.
“Refashion completely the health care system, turning it into a government managed and financed system.”
Because the current system is so efficient, turning 16% of GDP into close to the worst health results in the developed world… I wouldn’t worry too much, though – if you care to read it, his health plan mainly requires more oversight and accountability on the part of insurers. It may also save money because of the emphasis on generic drugs, removing grounds for ridiculous lawsuits against medical mistakes and prevention (e.g. more screenings).
“Seize 401(k) accounts”
Haven’t heard of that one.
“Impose payroll taxes on every dollar earned”
Not everyone earns above $250,000, Professor. Besides, someone has to pay for Social Security. I propose gradually raising the retirement age in line with life expectancy and going back to the good old days of 70%+ income tax rates on top brackets.
“Dramatically increase the cost of energy by imposing draconian restrictions on CO2 omissions.”
It’s a real hard choice, but overall I’d rather pay more for electricity today than risk starving to death due to catastrophic climate change in 2040.
“Shove huge subsidies down “alternative energy†rat holes”
Because it’s much better to shove huge subsidies down the holes of ethanol lobbyists, whose energy return on energy invested is minimal and may even be a net loss (not to mention preventing the world’s poorest people from “putting food on their family”).
“Gut the military”
Because it will be so much better for the military to continue running massive deficits to finance uncontrolled expansion of dubious programs (run by politically well connected companies) while neglecting infrastructure and social investment, and go into bankruptcy like the Soviet Union. At least Obama’s deadline for an Iraq withdrawal means that that particular fiscal hole will get plugged.
“Go all squishy when dealing with Iran and Russia”
Unlikely, for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of the post; secondly, the Iraq withdrawal means the US would be better able to focus attention on Russia, if Obama really is stupid enough to continue replaying the Cold War.
“Sell Israel down the river”
I for one am tired of how the US gives all kinds of political cover and military assistance to Israel, which ignores its advice, inflames Muslim opinion against it and even sells US military technology to China. I can vouch that it’s a lovely country with some good people…but I’m not Israeli, and they’re bad allies, so screw them.
“Answer every policy dispute with accusations of racism, and criminalize speech deemed racist”
If you want to criminalize jihadi propaganda and bomb al-Jaazera (as Bush revealed several years ago), then it’s only fair to add racism to that mix. Not that I support any of the above…but on balance, I dislike hypocrisy more.
BTW, I found a forum which I think might be to your liking.
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=3
Comment by Da Russophile — November 6, 2008 @ 3:10 am
SWP can you give me a tip please. I’m setting up my personal site so I’m interested, what blogging software do you use? It would be much appreciated.
Comment by Da Russophile — November 6, 2008 @ 4:07 am
[…] 6th, 2008 · No Comments Adam Smith wrote that there is a good deal of ruin in a country. I think we are about to test the limits of […]
Pingback by Not Happy — November 6, 2008 @ 6:05 am
DR–WordPress. Currently running 2.6.1. Version 2.6.3 is available. Good luck w/the new site.
It’s times like these that bring to mind the H. L. Mencken quote: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Comment by David Gillies — November 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am
[…] Fund of the WSJ’s Political Diary passes along this excerpt from a blog post at Streetwise Professor by economist and blogger Craig […]
Pingback by Kicking Over My Traces: Classic Liberal Breaks Crockery Over Election Results — November 7, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Darussophile wrote:
” “Seize 401(k) accountsâ€
Haven’t heard of that one.”
There is mention of it in this WSJ story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html
Essentially, Jim McDermott from the People’s Republic of Washington wants to take 401(k) accounts and move them into government-managed pension accounts, basically a new Social Security-type program.
Comment by Michael B — November 7, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
DR–“Bourgeois reactionary element.” LOL. It fits, and I’ll wear it with pride. Not least because unlike consciously anti-bourgeois movements (be they “progressive” or fascist–to the extent there’s a real difference), we bourgeois reactionaries have no responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions, and the barbaric imprisonment of countless others.
This perhaps relates to an earlier comment of yours, in which you defended Bill Ayers as a crusader against oppression. A perfect illustration of the DR is from Mars, SWP is from Venus (or vice versa) disjunction in our worldviews. Ayers was, and is, an ardently anti-bourgeois reactionary type. And someone I loath. You say that he fights against repression. I say that he is a toadying advocate for the greatest oppressors in human history, the Maos, the Pol Pots, the Stalins, and their Mini Mes, the Castros and Chavezes. And he is quite open in his fantasies of being an oppressor himself, viz., his advocacy of re-education camps and the extermination of 25 million bourgeois reactionaries unfit for his Brave New World.
And as for those brave professors who signed a letter defending him–surely you jest. If you think that it takes any kind of courage for a bunch of English and anthropology professors to sign a letter singing the praises of an anti-American communist revolutionary–then you don’t understand the modern academy. (Which is odd, given your Cal-Berkeley IP address;-) What would take real courage is for someone in one of those departments to condemn him.
Re McFaul–I’ve always considered the identity of a President’s advisers to be a side-show. They are usually window dressing, especially in Democratic administrations where (since Kennedy) they are primarily used to give an intellectual patina to same-old, same-old politics. And, despite my seeming obsession with Russia, Russia issues are of Nth order importance, N being a large number, when it comes to my concerns about the havoc an Obama administration could wreak.
Re specifics. Don’t have time for all, so will confine myself to a few brief remarks.
Re healthcare. The American healthcare system is the worst in the world, except for all the others. Most of the dysfunctions in the US system–and there are many–are directly attributable to perverse government policies (e.g., coverage mandates and the non-taxation of health coverage). All the stuff about oversight of insurance companies, etc., is just yadda-yadda. The key thing is any single payer system will lead to extensive rationing of coverage, sharp restrictions on choice and options, and burgeoning inefficiency.
Re Social Security, Obama has been all over the map re where the cutoff for SS taxes would kick in. He once said that he was in favor of some sort of “donut” where wages of between some-number-that-kept changing-bigger-than-the-current-approx.-$95K and $250K would be exempt. The donut idea was later removed from the Obama website, so who ‘effin knows what’s really in his mind, and since it is Congress (dominated by old style lefties) that will have a major voice in this, my presumption is that the expansion in the incidence of the payroll tax will be rather broad. And even when the donut was in play, the hole in the donut was constantly shrinking. And the donut is a really bad idea because it would imply a huge spike in marginal tax rates once the the limit was hit.
And I hope you are sitting down, because I do agree with you that raising the retirement age to address SS funding issues is the way to go.
Completely different take on climate change.
And I hope you are still sitting down, because I despise ethanol too. (Back in March I did a segment on Fox Business News where I totally bagged on ethanol–I shocked that you didn’t see it’-) But ethanol illustrates the entire problem with subsidies, and using the same model to prop up other uneconomic technologies will result in the ethanol boondoggle writ large. (For one thing, we’ll just see a proliferation in sleazeball lobbyists pimping–or is it whoring?–for other alternative fuels and technologies.) What’s more, just as ethanol has myriad unintended, and perverse, consequences, so will many of the other alternative fuel technologies. And the problem is that with politicians and lobbyists so invested in the system and the associated graft, these consequences will be suppressed and ignored.
Oh, and BTW: (1) Obama has been a longtime ethanol booster, and (2) given the very power of the ethanol lobby that you acknowledge, dontcha think that ethanol will get a disproportionate share of the boodle that DC will shower on alternative fuels? Especially now that the industry is in financial straits. (Which is one of the perversities of a subsidy culture–the more inefficient you are, the more money you get.)
On the foreign policy issues. Mainly just have to agree to disagree. Re Israel, yeah, a pain in the neck sometimes, but for completely understandable reasons. If you think that the Middle East would turn into an island of tranquility if the Jews would just do the world a favor and go away–well, I have a bridge to sell you. As for inflaming Muslim opinion–I say, get over it and stop using a minuscule nation as a distraction from and an excuse for your own pathologies. Israel is just an excuse for the perpetually inflamed. Take it away, they’ll come up with another one PDQ.
I certainly didn’t want to criminalize jihadi propaganda, and even so, there is a distinct difference between incitements to violence and the kind of speech that is effectively criminalized on college campuses–and which will become increasingly problematic in the broader public space if Obama’s academic lefty camp followers attain any power and influence in his administration. As an example from the news, when calling somebody a socialist is deemed racist, you know that any policy dispute is capable of being transformed into an accusation of racism even when race is not remotely involved. If you see what has happened in the UK, you see that the assumption of power by racial grievance mongers leads to the gradual strangulation of free speech.
So?–Welcome back. Where have you been? Missed your short-but-not-so-sweet comments.
And, if I can hazard a guess, your comparison of Obama to Gorbachev is not meant to be flattering, right? By that do you mean Obama is a glib, arrogant, and superficial character who, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, will engage in a flurry of activity and unleash chaos that he can’t control?
Let’s just say that when Gorbymania swept the West, I was very unimpressed. I pegged him as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in 1985-1986, and predicted that his Rube Goldbergesque “reforms” would lead to the collapse of the USSR–and I was right. That’s likely one thing you and I can agree on, though we might have a difference of opinion as to whether that was a good thing.
SWP said: The key thing is any single payer system will lead to extensive rationing of coverage, sharp restrictions on choice and options, and burgeoning inefficiency
Yes, indeed. If anyone’s in any doubt of that, simply look at the National Health Service here in the UK. It’s so marvellous that it kills 8,000 a year with hospital-acquired infections (MRSA and c.difficile) because no one has the job of making sure hospitals are cleaned properly; has some of the worst cancer-survival rates in the world, and people are routinely denied treatments on the basis of cost. It’s next to impossible to find a dentist – unless you pay for private treatment in which case dentistry here is amongst the very best.
As P J O’Rourke said – if you think healthcare’s expensive, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.
In our case, the cost of the NHS is over £100 billion a year; cost inflation within the NHS runs at around 10% p.a. and productivity has remained flat despite the huge sums of money poured in. It employs around 1.3 million people, directly and indirectly and is far too big to be coherently managed. Being managed from the centre, in the best Soviet fashion, it always responds inappropriately, and too late.
Comment by formertory — November 10, 2008 @ 4:58 am
SWP-
“We bourgeois reactionaries have no responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions, and the barbaric imprisonment of countless others.”
Not only is that false, it is an ongoing process. There have been more than a million excess deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, and today the US has the world’s highest incarceration rate by far to feed the prison-industrial complex. It’s just that this beastly ideology cares to put on a smily mask before mauling its victims. If it’s necessary to use a little force to tear that mask off the beast to reveal its real nature to the world, then so be it.
Actually, yes it does take courage to support Ayers. Although academia remains a (relative) bastion of freedom (despite the Bush junta’s best efforts to the contrary), mass consciousness is very much against independence in individual thought.
Re McFaul – Probably best if we just wait and see. I remain pessimistic of any real change.
Re health-care – the only area where the US is a world leader is in creating new (and mostly unnecessary) drugs and specialized high-cost medical procedures. The idea that it is in any way superior to just about any West European system can be revealed for the nonsense it is by comparing health expenditure (16% of GDP, compared to 6-11% of generally lower GDP’s) and results (an infant mortality rate comparable to Poland’s, 7/1000 and far below typical European rates of 3-5/1000).
“(Back in March I did a segment on Fox Business News where I totally bagged on ethanol–I shocked that you didn’t see it’-)”
🙂
“But ethanol illustrates the entire problem with subsidies, and using the same model to prop up other uneconomic technologies will result in the ethanol boondoggle writ large. (For one thing, we’ll just see a proliferation in sleazeball lobbyists pimping–or is it whoring?–for other alternative fuels and technologies.)”
I just totally disagree. The reason ethanol is a bad idea is that it either has an extremely low rate of return, or doesn’t even break even (there are different calculations but they all come to similar results), in terms of net energy. Your point about Obama being a supported is disturbing. What’s McCain’s record on it?
Now wind power and solar are clean (not entirely, but concerns about things like aesthetic pollution or whatever are irrelevant when we’re talking of a potential global energy crisis) and have very good rates of return on energy invested. At this time they are still somewhat more expensive than traditional hydrocarbon based energy sources. However, the market has failed to price in externalities like CO2 pollution (on which, yes, you have a “completely different take”) and the possibility that the hydrocarbon energy crunch will develop much quicker than a new renewable energy infrastructure can be built up (which takes decades). As such, diverting money towards mitigating those twin threats is a much better investment in security than fighting for Halliburton in the Middle East.
“If you think that the Middle East would turn into an island of tranquility if the Jews would just do the world a favor and go away–well, I have a bridge to sell you.”
They don’t even have to go away, just negotiating with Palestinians in good faith and being willing to COMPROMISE will cut the violence West-Islam violence in half. Withdrawing US troops will cut out the other half. Use the money saved to lessen dependence on oil and leave the Middle East to either develop or wallow in local hatreds as they wish.
“If you see what has happened in the UK, you see that the assumption of power by racial grievance mongers leads to the gradual strangulation of free speech.”
I believe these incidents are in practice vastly overstated, being exaggerated and splashed on tabloid front pages whenever they do happen.
@formertory,
I agree that the NHS is a poor performer, in some areas. Obviously if you have money and suffering from cancer you’d be much better off in the US (although it is better for inexpensive routine operations, for which the US massively overcharges).
However overall there are likely better systems than either that of the US or the UK, like the French, German or Japanese. So perhaps it’s better to look at them for solutions.
Comment by Da Russophile — November 10, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
A lot to respond to DR, and don’t have a lot of time now for a full reply. So a couple of quick hitters.
1. McCain has actually been a stalwart opponent of ethanol for years, even though it cost him politically in Iowa both in 2000 and 2008. It’s one of the few of his economic positions that I agreed with.
2. The question before the house is whether subsidies should be directed to alternative fuel technologies. Re low rate of return for ethanol–indeed, that’s exactly why ethanol producers pleaded for subsidies and tariff protection. If other technologies are economically justified, they will earn a rate of return that will attract an investment without a subsidy. If a subsidy is required to induce investment, that’s prima facie evidence that the technology is not economically justified. Only some sort of spillover exists (e.g., the inventor/developer cannot capture the benefits of the innovation) is a subsidy justified. But that’s why we have a patent system. What’s more, why should energy be uniquely susceptible to such a problem? The appropriability of ideas and innovations is a challenge in all industries, most of which solve it quite well in a variety of clever ways without Uncle Sam picking technology winners and showering his beneficence on them.
3. Re wind and solar. You mention “return on energy invested.” Don’t exactly know what that means. Investment–the direction of capital–uses return on capital as the appropriate metric. Yes, if external effects of conventional fuels are underpriced, they will be overconsumed and arguably alternatives underproduced/consumed. Fossil fuels are subject to a considerable tax burden, and although some calculations indicate that these taxes do not fully adjust for external environmental effects, the difference is not as great as you might imagine.
4. Wind and solar also have huge issues with reliability, and the necessity of investing in expensive transmission go get the power from where it is produced to where it is consumed (where the wind blows and the sun shines, say west Texas, is not where the people who consume power live) and in backup conventional generation as well (to kick in when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun ain’t shining.) Texas almost had a grid failure earlier this year when a freak decline in wind caused wind generation to drop precipitously. The system operator had to scramble to find enough gas fired units to put on line in a hurry, and almost didn’t make it. That’s an often ignored aspect of wind power, and solar too.
Ayers, Israel, health care, and the comparative body counts of alternative political philosophies will have to wait for another day. I have a book to write.
Ah, what the hell. I have one thing to say about the prison population–and probably something you will agree with. A very large component of it is due to the “war on drugs”–a war that Milton Friedman vigorously opposed, as do I. And I presume you as well.
Cheers.
A comment on one of the points you raise…
“Re wind and solar. You mention “return on energy invested.†Don’t exactly know what that means. Investment–the direction of capital–uses return on capital as the appropriate metric.”
In a world where energy is limited, and given that energy is a vital input to economic growth, I think it is more appropriate to optimize energy production not from a monetary perspective but from a systematic analysis of reserves, how much they’d cost to extract in energy terms (generally speaking, this cost increases since the low-hanging fruit are picked first), the costs of the pollution they would produce and how much energy it would take to clean that pollution up, etc. Since market players have no incentive to do the latter, it has to be done by the government.
(Although, since your views seem to be cornucopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian), I realize you’re unlikely to change your mind on this.)
Anyhow, one of the most important concepts in energy policy should be EROIE, energy return on energy invested.
“In physics, energy economics and ecological energetics, EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), ERoEI, EROI (Energy Return On Investment) or less frequently, eMergy, is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an “energy sink”, and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy.”
(I recommend the Wiki article on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI.)
The age of cheap oil has just been one massive, unearned, one-off energy subsidy that is now ending by the year. (Oil a few decades back tended to have an EROIE of 100, but has since declined to about 10). Perhaps if we had approached it from an energy-based perspective we wouldn’t yet face the problems with soaring oil prices that we’re in now (and Putin wouldn’t be quite as popular, probably! which would be a plus in your book).
Now we have another choice – either build a large, sustainable, renewable energy infrastructure (e.g. lots of EROIE = 10 wind turbines), or burn away the last high-EROIE hydrocarbons until industrial civilization is no longer sustainable and collapses, like the Romans and Maya did (and this is not even taking the effects of pollution into account). If I had to choose between that and a blackout every other week I know what I’d take.
Comment by Da Russophile — November 10, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
“I have a book to write.”
What is it about?
Comment by Da Russophile — November 11, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
It is titled “The Path to Purgatory: Russia Under Putin.”
Just kidding.
Actually, it is titled “Structural Models of Commodity Price Dynamics.” It’s an application of dynamic programming & rational expectations models to the study of the price behavior of a variety of commodities, and the implications of this price behavior for the pricing of commodity derivatives including options. Lots of computational methods stuff involved, as well as economics. One thing you might be especially interested in is a chapter on the pricing of pollution credits (e.g., CO2 credits in a cap-and-trade scheme.)
In other words, it’s related to my real job;-) This is for fun.
🙂
I’ll be sure to check it out from the library
Comment by Da Russophile — November 12, 2008 @ 2:58 am
[…] In my post-election post, I toyed with the Leninist concept “The Worse, the Better,” considering whether in the long run it would be better for Obama and the Congressional Democrats to indulge their wildest legislative whims, thereby sparking a popular backlash that would ultimately prevent them from doing too much harm. Well, they are indeed living out their wildest dreams, and much of “the Worse” is coming to pass, with no backlash in sight. Â That possibility is what eventually led me to conclude that the Worse wouldn’t lead to the Better. Â […]
Pingback by Streetwise Professor » The Sorcerer’s Apprentice — March 5, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Nothing wrong with this, at all, people should get it more.
Comment by lorie — March 19, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
[…] In my post-election quasi-rant, I considered the possibility that the worse, the better: Â that it would be better in the end for liberty and more limited government if Obama and the Congressional Democrats indulged the wildest policy fantasies in health care, climate change, and domestic government spending. Â I conjectured that this would set off a popular reaction that would derail these endeavors. […]
Pingback by Streetwise Professor » An Historic Moment — August 15, 2009 @ 9:33 am
[…] a year to the day after my No Joy in Mudville post that mused whether there would be a huge backlash if the Democrats attempted to achieve their […]
Pingback by Streetwise Professor » Banzai? — November 5, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
[…] SWP, 5 November, 2008: The operative word here is “attempt.” I expect that if Obama and the extreme liberals that dominate Congress were to attempt to enact such an agenda–and it is the agenda of their desires–that even the dreamy types mesmerized by anodyne promises of change would awake from their reveries. Talk of unspecified “hope” and “change” allows the lazy listener to imagine the changes she or he hopes to see, and assume that Obama shares the same vision. (That’s how cons work.) Things are quite different when one sees the specifics, and comprehends the dramatic implications thereof. The resulting popular outrage would make the Clinton 1993-1994 explosion look like a dud firecracker. […]
Pingback by Streetwise Professor » Barone on 2010 vs. 1994 — January 28, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
[…] the day after the 2008 election, in a post titled “There is No Joy in Mudville,” I wrote: My first inclination is to take a cue from DR [who you now know as "Sublime […]
Pingback by Streetwise Professor » As So It Came to Pass, as Predicted Here — November 3, 2010 @ 2:44 pm