61 Comments

1. Michael Hoskins:

W,
Not being a Ferguson regular; could not his comments be tongue in check?

My limited reads at Der Spiegel lead me to believe they are self rightous enough to miss the humor.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:20 pm 2. Doug:

Ferguson:
“ No, because he will have the least latitude of all presidents we can remember.

Obama wants to assemble a nonpartisan government, and we will experience a more cautious first 100 days than we did under Bill Clinton.

He will be cautious to the point of being boring. This will be precisely his great strength.”
—
If only he and all the brilliant “intellectual” pundits on the left AND right that are Parroting this TEMPLATE were willing to put their money where their mouths are,
we’d all be rich!

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:28 pm 3. Herb:

Thanks Hank. You may not have a clue what to do with that $700Bil, but you may have saved us.
Considering the potential for excitement in the Obama (pbuh) campaign, boring is likely the best we can hope for.
Generally prophets are known for not being listened to and for warning of the hazards in the zeitgeist. While I havent seen a lot of warning from Obama, a large number of people don’t seem to be really listening to him. If they had been, the outcome may have been different.
I think a capable black man could have been elected president anytime in the past three or four elections. I’d vote for Thos. Sowell or Gen Honore in a heartbeat.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:32 pm 4. Doug:

It was when I learned the difference between Ayer’s and Obama’s fictional accounts of Hyde Park and reality that the pieces of the Fairy Tales began to fit together nicely.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:34 pm 5. Doug:

When the Tulip Bubble Burst

Tulip mania differed in one crucial aspect from the dot-com craze that grips our attention today:
Even at its height, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, well-established in 1630, wouldn’t touch tulips.
”The speculation in tulip bulbs always existed at the margins of Dutch economic life,” Dash writes.
After the market crashed, a compromise was brokered that let most traders settle their debts for a fraction of their liability.
The overall fallout on the Dutch economy was negligible. Will we say the same when Wall Street’s current obsession (Dotcom) finally runs its course?
—
It occurred to me that I had never read much about when the Tulip Bubble Burst. Even this short piece is interesting.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:49 pm 6. Mike Sylwester:

In general, I respect the intelligence and ability of anyone who manages to become US President, and in particular, I voted for and supported President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, there is something about this President Bush that eventually left the impression that he was not able to engage the public about some issues in an intellectually respectable manner.

One example was the issue of torturing (waterboarding) some captives. He simply said “we don’t torture” and apparently figured that answer was satisfactory.

Other examples were climate change and stem-cell research.

I don’t want to start arguments in this thread about any of those issues. My point is that he did not engage the public in these arguments in an effective manner. He seemed to be oblivious and dismissive about people’s concerns and his opponents’ arguments. He didn’t tackle those concerns and arguments head-on.

We all watched this President Bush for eight years. He had plenty of opportunities to impress the public positively as an intelligent and capable President.

We all have watched Obama in interviews and debates. In my opinion, he communicates well. His responses to questions are pertinent and focused. Even though I prefer McCain’s politics, I must say that Obama beat McCain decisively in their three debates.

In one of the debates, McCain tried to object to Obama’s statement that he would order a military strike on Osama Bin Laden if the US knew his location and if Pakistan refused to strike. McCain tried about three times to make some point that there was something wrong with Obama’s statement. McCain seemed to be oblivious to how pathetic his own argument was. I felt embarrased to watch McCain at such moments when he was being clobbered terribly in the debates. I never saw such moments in Obama.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:54 pm 7. vb:

Ferguson is just another “intellectual” who is in love with his own analyses. Furthermore he knows how to spin them to the foreign press (e.g., mentioning America’s original sin plays well in Germany.)

The more Obama’s grandiose plans to heal America are reigned in by reality, the more his ardent followers will be bored by him. He will need more than oratory to maintain the support of the public.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:58 pm 8. Mike Sylwester:

I’m not saying that I expect Obama to govern successfully. I do understand, however, that much of the public is fed up with the unsatisfactory arguments it has seen and heard from Bush and McCain.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:00 pm 9. wretchard:

The power to speak movingly has such an impact on the listener that we often forget it is a means, not an end. Two of the most accomplished orators of the Second World War were Winston Churchill and Adolph Hitler. Of the two, Churchill was arguably the inferior in that he was most effective in smaller settings. such as in Parliament or speaking through the radio into a family living room. But Hitler was a master of the crowds. He could whip them to a frenzy. It was said that women had orgasms listening to him. The sheer power of Hitler’s words is evident from the fact that he kept a willing band of followers loyal to him almost until the Soviet Army was at the bunker door. They believed in the Fuhrer. Eloquence by itself is evidence of nothing. But what is behind the eloquence is everything. This text used to be common knowledge:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

In this media age it’s hard to emphasize that the really imporant thing is not how well Obama speaks, but who Obama is. We’ll know soon enough. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:17 pm 10. sirius_sir:

Then one day, a large number of customers come to the bank at once—the exact reason is never made clear. Customers, seeing so many others at the bank, begin to worry. False rumors spread that something is wrong with the bank and more customers rush to the bank to try to get some of their money out while they still can.

Chuckie Schumer, on a whim, probably sent out one of his infamous letters.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:20 pm 11. Doug:

“It was said that women had orgasms listening to him. ”
—
So we could use Chris Matthews as a signpost…
…if he weren’t a self-winding Buzz Machine.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:25 pm 12. slade:

Ferguson: Because of his big bailout plan, Paulson has already spent the money for Obama’s healthcare reform and for his tax cuts. The money is gone.

Ferguson has jumped the shark, along with no small number of analysts, pundits, and academics.

The money spent by Paulsen funded the Democratic-sponsored housing initiative for people who had no business in the business – of either ownership or regulation. History has already been rewritten. And it happened in the blink of an eye.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:28 pm 13. Brock:

If Obama really can wipe away America’s “original sin” (in the eyes of the Left), that would be fantastic. Our greatest handicap in the War on Terror is that a big chuck of our population doesn’t think that Western Civilization is worth fighting for (or defending). If that were to change maybe we could make some real progress. I don’t buy into the original sin argument myself; but whatever works, man.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:29 pm 14. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"”there is something about this President Bush that eventually left the impression that he was not able to engage the public about some issues in an intellectually respectable manner”"”"”"”"

Agreed. It wasn’t just the President, but his administration in general that suffered from this variant of arrogance. It was frustrating to see the whole bunch act like they didn’t need to explain or defend themselves in any comprehensive, effective way.

In my opinion, the single most effective speech that Bush gave was in announcing the bailout package, where he concisely and quickly explained the whole history and timeline of the crisis and the solutions being offered. It was worthy of being compared to FDR’s fireside chats. Eight years Bush waited to give just one such speech.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:31 pm 15. ADE:

What Mike S said.

Bush, at a time of national crisis, was never a Churchill.

McCain looked like he was another inarticulate clone of Bush. At one point in the election, I felt that mumbling appealed to Republican voters, because the pattern was repeated over and over.

There is nothing more practical than a good theory.

ADE

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:35 pm 16. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"”He will need more than oratory to maintain the support of the public”"”"”"”"

One conceit of victorious politicians is the notion that because they got the most votes, that a majority of people are his/their ardent followers and they have been given a mandate. Many voters, especially in the large independent category, vote “cafeteria style” with little regard for ideology. The Republicans in’94 made this mistaken assumption, and Obama will likely do the same.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:37 pm 17. lucy:

Everyone is praising how this campaign was run but the success due to David Axlerod and various other helpers or because of Gilderoy Lockhart (aka The Lightworker)?

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:46 pm 18. Voltimand:

Ferguson references “the death of racism, the end of the original American sin” as one of the results of Obama’s election to the presidency. This little nugget has become such a verbal talisman as to be impervious to questioning, probably because it says so little while pretending to reference so much, and because it is patently false.

“Racism” as “the American original sin” is first a dubious quote from standard liberal/academic stock phrases. The “original sin” was in fact not “racism” but slavery. One can quibble that the two ideas imply each other, were it not true that “slavery” was gone by 1865 and the passing of the 13th admendment, while “racism”–a term of much wider reference,” is going to be with us forever.

In any case, there is a point that has been made before in public these days, namely that the supporters of Obama voted for him “because” he was black, and therefore are vulnerable to the charge of being motivated by “racism.” Of course, one can always argue that there is “good” racism and there is “bad” racism–conservatives are characterized by the latter, while liberals, with their impeccable moral credentials, espouse the former. Nevertheless, you’re not going to find any academics or pundits either wanting to push the “end of racism” meme too far just because it has such potential for boomeranging back in your face.

However, don’t forget Jesse Jackson and “reparations.” If one doesn’t want to get into making verbal and philosophical distinctions in public and you’re heading a major business concern worth many millions, you will be more likely to cede the “racism” high ground to people who make their way by means of callow phrase-mongering, and pay them off. In that particular game, the “sin of racism” is going to have a half-life that is well-nigh eternal.

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:18 pm 19. Doug:

A Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence

Eitan Gorlin as the phony McCain adviser Martin Eisenstadt, who claimed to be the source of a rumor about Sarah Palin.

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:26 pm 20. Doug:

Obama’s illegal alien auntie: The rest of the story; Update: Open-borders lobby demands enforcement freeze

I hope Barack Obama remembered to thank George Bush on behalf of his illegal alien aunt this week.
The lame-duck Republican president did the Democratic president-elect a generous — and dangerous — favor right before Election Day: Putting politics above homeland security, the Bush administration ordered immigration authorities across the country to halt all deportation enforcement actions until after the campaign season was over.
– Malkin

A Nation of Laws, Indeed!
Think Bush, Johnny Sutton, Ramos, and Campeon.

Not too hard to figure why things didn’t work out well for our Party and what once was our Nation.
—
Update: Open-borders lobby demands enforcement freeze

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:36 pm 21. Squirrel:

Ferguson more than ‘initially favored McCain,’ as Der Speigel puts it. Speaking at Hoover in April, he says he has “been for a year-and-a-half one of Senator McCain’s foreign policy advisors”:
http://fora.tv/2008/04/28/Niall_Ferguson_on_Why_America_Needs_McCain
(@ 3:36)

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:00 pm 22. pendejo grande:

#6 Mike Sylwester

Re: Bush’s apparent disregard for people’s concerns and his opponents arguments.

I’ve often wondered if Bush’s refusal to communicate his agenda with the American people was a result of his distaste for Clinton’s poll focused “leadership”. We watched for 8 years as Bill followed no particular idealogical wind but went wherever the polls told him the American people wanted to be led, and found it repulsive. I sometimes wonder if Bush’s detachment wasn’t a backlash against such “leadership”. His attitude seemed to be, “I’m gonna do what I think is right, and you can run a poll on it in 2004 and we’ll see what you think at that time”. McCain may have gotten the bad end of that polling here recently. Not that he communicated that effectively either.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:21 pm 23. Ricardo:

Mike:
Obama doesn’t communicate well. He does have a great communicating STYLE.
If he communicated well, we would have known the truth about Rev. Wright, Ayers, his college and Grad school records, not to speak of his agenda much sooner.
If anything, he is a master of miscommunication. How many times have you heard “Now listen to me, what I have said all along”… or ” I have always said that if this had happened I would do this”, as when he reneged on campaign funds, wiretapping, etc.
As Wretchard said, he is the con man par excellence, who has his marks standing up to defend him even after he has stolen their life’s savings.
The market has acted, and I don’t think his soaring rhetoric will calm the waters.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:45 pm 24. MarkJ:

Ricardo,

Indeed. I’m now under the impression that America has just elected its first “Ponzi President.” Obama has promised so many things, and big payoffs, to so many constituencies that, inevitably, his whole scam will come crashing down when he runs out of Peters to pay his Pauls. The Left is already starting to grumble about some of his appointments: if there’s a motto for the nascent Obama agenda, it could very well be “Forward…to the past.”

Obama has already thrown just about everybody he’s associated with under his bus–even his own supporters. The question is, “When will Obama’s faithful finally throw him under THEIR bus?” The answer is probably “sooner rather than later.”

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:18 pm 25. Doug:

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

- George Orwell

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:33 pm 26. whiskey:

The Problem with Obama is that he has to deliver, and cannot.

People’s 401Ks are just ruined. Unless Obama makes them whole, he creates an entire class of enthusiastic enemies (Machiavelli defined this well in the Prince — never make men poor then leave them alive). Obama must to be successful create a huge, broad patronage net that pointedly spends most of the money on most of the people. Otherwise, he creates a dangerous situation where the majority of the populace sees money and effort going to privileged, cosseted minorities, namely Blacks and Hispanics.

This creates space for someone to run on that issue, completely ignoring the Media which has already tarred any opposition to “the One” as “racist.” That’s the downside of the Media playing the race card and being an adjunct institution for Obama. The political opposition will ignore them, and run against them.

Obama can provide all the rhetoric and speeches Ferguson wants, it will not alter people’s perception of how well they do economically, and personal security-wise. It won’t change nuclear proliferation and the ability of factions in poor nations to destroy with impunity American cities. It won’t check rampant crime. It won’t affect racial perceptions (i.e. the First or Second Black President favoring Blacks over Whites, a case which WILL be made over and over again sub-rosa).

Ferguson is a perfect example of a corrupt elite dominated by the need for status (concerns about status-original sin vs. economic and military effectiveness). A need for status determined by not, output/achievement or things like that, but having the “correct” social manners in a profoundly feminized environment.

Hitler’s power came not from just women having orgasms during his speeches, but a program of deliberate middle/working class patronage coupled with an overt policy of military conquest that made ordinary German men into potential “nobles” under his Great King model. That’s why he launched the Wars in the West and the East in the first place. Against him was the Imperial British who used the sea, a few radar installations, and a tiny air force to stave off invasion, and Stalin’s brutal empire which had it’s own network of “nobles” who enforced his Tsar’s will.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:52 pm 27. 3Case:

“He simply said “we don’t torture” and apparently figured that answer was satisfactory.”

I have seen the video of waterboarding. As I believe I have said here before, I do not consider it to be torture. It is the clear use of a very primal urge against a person; an urge I contest every night on the path from brushing my teeth to my dresser to take my Lipitor; an urge that anyone who has swum competitively (I have) has to overcome. Beyond that, the danger to the individual ceases when the hose is turned off or away. Given a choice, Daniel Pearl would have chosen waterboarding, I suspect….

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:53 pm 28. Steve Skubinna:

I would find amusing US intellectuals (and others) who crave European affirmation, were I not filled with contempt for them instead. We owe Europe no apologies regarding our racial issues, since their genesis lay in Europe, and since we ourselves spent lives and treasure addressing them. Europe, on the other hand, has spent lives and treasure perpetuating racial discord.

There are many individual Europeans whose opinions and good will I would respect, but “Europe” as a beacon of tolerance and sophistication is a fraud. By claiming that Obama is merely symbolic and discounting the real effects of his likely policies, Ferguson is addressing a particularly European (and American leftist) mindset. Europeans in general have an exaggerated deference to authority until recently lacking in Americans. Until now we have had little patience for the philosopher-kings and God-Emperors other cultures have revered and perhaps still yearn for.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:16 pm 29. Cannoneer No. 4:

Bush’s failures to Strategically Communicate to domestic and international target audiences justifications, rationales, successes and set backs in the Iraq Campaign of the Long War prolonged the campaign. He never seemed to figure out that low approval ratings limited his freedom of action. SC failure at the National Command Authority level had a deleterious effect on SC, perception management, and influence operations all the way down the chain of command. We The People were left almost entirely undefended against enemy PSYOP, and what litle counterpropaganda there was we got mostly from amateurs.

That even 30% of the American people still support the war effort is due almost entirely to their own perseverence and a valiant band of Counter Insurgent Supportive bloggers.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:59 pm 30. Derek:

Ugh. I cringe when I hear intelligent people speaking like this.

My take on this election is that the US voted for another holiday from history. This confirms it.

The holiday is over. A vacant look is just vacant.

Derek

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:35 pm 31. james wilson:

We do not have nothing to fear but fear itself. What we have to fear is an acuumulaton of rot gone so long we have no sense of reality.
And the men in charge are charging in the wrong direction, while the men in nominal opposition only want to help out.
This is not even the end of the beginning.

Nov 12, 2008 - 10:55 pm 32. exdem13:

I think what we really need right now is to determine whether all the high-minded oratory coming from/about the Obama presidency-in-waiting is optimistic rhetoric, careful public scene-setting for policy, or sophistry intended to divert us from serious problems. Alas! We won’t know now, but in 2 months’ time. Many of the commenters here are discussing rhetoric based on Obama’s leftist logic, but I fear we have been given sophistry instead.

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:28 am 33. Mongoose:

RR: Bush gave many well written (if not well delivered speeches) in is tenure. I hope that someone post them in one place. You should really read them, that might cause you to rethink the “bad communicator” theory. As texts, the speeches are some of the best explanations of policy delivered by any US president

The MSM tore him apart, and half of the American people did not listen, mostly because at least half of them are spoiled children (and not to bright as well).

Nothing he could have done would have been effective, particularly since the cowardly Republicans on the Hill would not stand beside him. We forget that it was GWB that went to bat for the GOP congress in 04 and it was he that was responsible for the Senate majorities. It is they who refused to stand with an honorable man. Why?

Why are the American people so supine as to tolerate that monstrous behavior of the Left, the Democrats and the MSM these ast 8 years?

Why is GWB’s attempt to “reach across the aisle” condemned but the Democrats false claims to do just that are praised?

The Left wants their power of the 1930’s though 1950 back, and this time to finish the job. They look to be beyond stopping on this. I have never seen such brazen arrogance out of the Democrats.

Remember, it is the Democrats that are responsible for this mess. Remember you have B. Franks sitting on national TV calling for nationalization of the Auto industry. This is the same B. Franks that hold some portion of responsibility for CRA mess. Dodd is keeping his position after some very dubious financial arrangements with mortgage companies. What are the implications of the brazen and unapologetic corruption?

They will turn Bush into another Hoover and they will keep power for a generation and after that time America will just be another Latin American cleptocracy. You would be better severed by preparing to defend GWB rather than adding to the corrupt myth making about him.

Go look at his speeches in total before you make that judgment.

If the rest of us do not immediately start standing up for the truth and somehow getting that through to the American people all hope is lost.

The future of our nation depends on this. Truth, honor and justice demands it.

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:37 am 34. Mongoose:

in is tenure=in HIS tenure

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:37 am 35. Mongoose:

Exdem: The rhetoric of the Obama campaign is complete BS. I am surprised you even have to formulate that question. It serves to obscure the ruination of our civilization — this is their chief aim.

These people are have complete contempt for us. Look at what is happening in MN with Coleman. They are stealing that election in the clear light of day and laughing about it right out in the open. Maybe we deserve their contempt. The citizens of MN apparently do. I wonder if we will ever have an honest election in this country ever again.

They are cut from the same clothe as Lenin or Stalin. Bitter days are ahead.

Many here are in complete denial of what has happened.

The odds that there will be a replay of the Clinton year, that a Newt will appear and the congress will be taken back by the GOP are just fooling themselves.

Never have they been so sure of themselves, never has the USA been so thoroughly prepared for a communist takeover.

Nov 13, 2008 - 6:35 am 36. Staring In Disbelief:

When Churchill “mobilized the English language and sent it into battle” he did so by eloquently evoking deeply held beliefs in a large swath of the British public. Despite the enormous damage the First World War inflicted on the British soul, Churchill’s stirring calls to courage in the face of evil, honor in the defense of hearth & home, and faith in the justice and rightness of their cause roused Britain to one last heroic effort and victory. It was eloquence in the service of deeply held beliefs that were THE RIGHT THING TO DO that made his oratory powerful.

If Obama gave a Churchillian call to take our medicine, stop our whining and face the music about living beyond our means he MIGHT tap into a similar buried, shrinking, but still potent impulse in America to DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. If he then follows up with a moderate centrist program that minimizes long term damage to our free enterprise society while trying to cushion the worst of the shocks, he may very well be be judged favorably by history. Niall Ferguson is an interesting read (like Christopher Hitchens can be) – occasionally insightful but often wildly off base. The idea that there is nothing on the executive & legislative side to be done but feel good jawboning is as absurd as the idea that Obama has been granted God-like dictatorial powers.

Nov 13, 2008 - 7:22 am 37. jerryofva:

I dispute the claim that Obama is an elegant speaker. He is an elegant reader of someone elses words. When forced to ad lib he usually flubs it as badly as W. He is like a television newsreader who delivers well spoken lines written by someone with talent.
It is true the JFK gave elegance to other’s words but he was dynamite in a free form environment.

Both Obama’s supporters and opponents make the assumption that he is a well educated man because he went to Columbia and Harvard. He is undoubtedly intelligence but he is a long way from educated. Like many post baby boomers he has been trained and not educated. He doesn’t know philosophy, history and literature that makes one educated. That is the difference between JFK and BHO.

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:22 am 38. Mongoose:

SID: I cannot parse that Obama/Churchill comparison at all.

1) What Obama and Churchill represents in any manner other than the most superficial ones are diametrically opposed. One represents civilization (and man) at its finest and the other at its nadir.

In Plain terms, what has to be done is to return to the values that created our civilization, and that means turning back the Marxist policies and collectivist cant of the last 80 or so years. The lessons learn from our history are ignored at our peril. Neither centrism or leftism will work. We have to get our hands out of each other pockets, plain and simple, and go back to creating economic value in the workplace, and inculcating sound moral values in our families and communities. We have to understand that we are squandering our heritage and then act accordingly to restore it.
(BTW, a “restoration”, even in a practical, utilitarian sense, might also require a return to a revival of broad based Christianity.)

But here let me give one concrete proposal: Completely do away with corporate income tax. That would solve all our immediate problems and go a long way to helping them in the long term as well. Every Large corporation in the world would headquarter themselves here. If this were coupled with a flat income tax across all citizens that has some sort of rational spending cap, so much. This will never happen. The exact opposite will happen. For it to happen we would have to acknowledge that capitalism works, governments do not, that all people are not equal in terms of conditions, abilities and destinies, and that one has to work kard to advance. This will never happen for the democrat party is wholly opposed to even considering such simple truths to be valid for even one second.

They will not even let us drill for our own oil, and have reached into intellectual and life in this nation to put forward such a fraud as AGW.

And like mindless serf, we have allowed all of this.

In the end, the crisis is not a momentary one of “policy”, in fact it is not a political crisis at all nor can it be addressed by mere “politics”, it is just manifesting itself as a political crisis. It is much deeper and far ranging than this, but more on this later.

2) Obama, and the people that he “represents”, have not the moral, intellectual or spiritual capacity or capability to solve these problems or to claim any real moral authority to call others to do so. Moreover, they do not have the desire. They have in fact caused the problems and in some cases willfully so. There is nothing in their nature, minds, characters or souls that could ever give them the moral authority to “rouse the nation to restoration”. To claim that there is some sort of moral authority that reside in them that the Nation as whole and with their full being will respond to is just beyond belief. Most of them have never even had a real job, and most of their “supporters” are useful idiots. In fact, many of their “supporters” have never been responsibly for another human being beside themselves in any capacity whatsoever , or if they had this responsibility they executed it poorly (and the notion they are even responsible for themselves is a stretch, if you ask me). Any claim of parity or similarity between Churchill and Obama — and their parties — is flat out absurd.

They have spent generations trying to undermine this civilization; they will save it now?

3) Neither the UK or the USA is “a nation” in the sense that they were in the late 1930’s. Neither possesses the identity or the moral clarity — or even sense of reality — that they had at that time. If Churchill were to return today to the UK — or someone like him — he would be laughed off the national stage.

The United States is in a state of moral, intellectual and soci’al decay. That is how Obama got elected in the first place. The Democrats coreligionists in the UK have all but destroyed that nation and civilization. This is where we are headed. If one wants to make any comparison at all between the two nations this would be the area to make it. There is little left to rouse in the UK, and it is not much better here. In any case as I said above, it is absurd to think that these villians are the ones to do it.

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:23 am 39. Mongoose:

are diametrically = is diametrically

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:24 am 40. Mongoose:

lessons learn= lessons learned (shheesh, sorry for not proofreading, I am too PO’d)

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:25 am 41. Mongoose:

so much= so much the better

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:27 am 42. Jay:

Moongoose: I agree with your arguments but there are many good citizens in the US.
Bush hurt his presidency by trusting people such as Powell and the bureaucracy. He ran his presidency as an MBA, a good one but still a Harvard MBA.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:35 am 43. John Work:

Mongoose -
Re your comments on this post – Hear, hear!

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:53 am 44. Mongoose:

Well, Jay, my whole point is that we cannot blame this on Bush.

Did all of us stand up for him at every turn, in the work place? Did the GOP in congress do so? No, all of this lies at rest at the feet of the American people and the enablers for this moral rot that are to be found in the Democratic Party and their minions in the MSM. He repected the American people and, at least as far as I am concerned, it is wew let him down.

With respect, I would suggest I think that this is a bromide: Bush ran the presidency as an MBA. I am new yorker and was down there when Bush showed up after 911. I appreciated very much when he threw out that base ball at that game too.

I do not think he ran the WOT as an MBA but as a patriot and a hard nosed realist fighting against incredible odds and a traitorous opposition

Few presidents have had to deal with what he had to deal with, and NONE OF THEM had to deal with an internal opposition and a hostile press like he did — not even Lincoln.

I think when — or should I say “if” — the true history of the period is written he will come to be seen as remarkable figure. Historians will scratch their heads at his political opponents and marvel that their society tolerated them. Msrvel as well they will at what he accomplished. We were lucky to have him there when we did. He was resolute in the face of a braying pack of cowards, idiots and traitors. This all assumes that the Republic survives The One, of course.

Bush’s major failure was backing illegal immigrant amnesty at beginning his second term (that and the Supreme court kerfuffle). But he may have been right as far as the GOP goes. It seems inevitable now that this will happen and the GOP has completely lost out on this. Conservatives overreacted on this and look what it got them (I include myself in this bunch that overreacted)

Bush ran as a moderate pragmatist with a conservative social outlook. He never misrepresented himself. Conservatives projected more of themselves on to him than he ever clamed for himself.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:56 am 45. boqueronman:

Gosh, it’s kind of depressing to realize that this election campaign has led to the unleashing of the intellectual elite and a belief in rhetoric over substance. Anyway, couple of points:

1. It is unbelievable that anyone is still deluded enough to think FDR’s policies aided a “recovery” from the Great Depression. If he had been elected in 1930 there would have been little or no difference. Read your history.

2. The theory that Obama’s election will usher in the death of racism represents “white guilt” dreaming of absolution. It’s always a good idea, as an early boss advised, to “follow the money.” There is a huge diversity industry fully and totally invested in the concept of racism and its subsidiaries. For this army of consultants, advisers, non-profits, professors, lawyers-judges, and special interest groups to surrender this lucrative vocation and acknowledge that the problem is solved is sheer fantasy. A new raison d’etre will be formulated and off we’ll go in a different train headed for the same destination.

3. Finally, if anyone believes that an intellectual elite can contribute anything worthwhile to “resolving” societal issues, your reading assignment is Thomas Sowell “Knowledge and Decisions” and Paul Johnson “Intellectuals.”

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:00 am 46. Rick:

Wasn’t Neville Chamberlain a great orator too? And tall and handsome to boot.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:01 am 47. james wilson:

boqueronman–
Things damn well would have been different if Roosevelt had been inaugerated in 1929. He would have been a one-termer.
But the 1930 analogy may be appropriate for Obama. We’ll see what sticks to him.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:11 am 48. Cannoneer No. 4:

Mongoose, what we need is a Cultural Revolution analogous to the Great Awakening, in which Cultural Revolutionaries, American Exceptionalists, entrepreneurial frontiersmen, small l libertarians, people who want to be left the hell alone, Gulchers, Constitutionalists, Appleseeds, Crabgrass Jacksonians, bitter clingers, Christians and Patriots band together to influence and persuade Americans that it is socially unacceptable to be personally irresponsible, to live beyond one’s means, to breed children one cannot afford to raise properly, to shirk one’s duty to prepare to be productive, to prostitute one’s vote to the party that offers the most free government cheese.

Perhaps any coordinated collective rejection of socialism and wealth redistribution is impossible for rugged individualists, but we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.

Show your First Naval Jack, Gadsden Flag and Culpeper Minutemen colors. May our challenge be Wolverines, and our password Rattlers. Let the NOI and BP Brigades of the CNSF know they better pack a lunch when they come to redistribute our wealth.

We have 67 days. Do the best you can with them, while you still can.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:25 am 49. tomw:

44. Mongoose:
Did all of us stand up for him at every turn, in the work place?
….
I did what I could. I discussed (argued) with others that his course of action was the only one that had any possibility of the USA surviving. That it was part of our duty as a nation to the world, and as parents to children to take up that task. We who had been given so much were expected to give, in turn.
I reacted as we all did to the casualties reported, to the stress on families left behind – in more ways than one, to the blatant partisan shouting of the left that we were demons, and monsters and baby killers.
Where was my soapbox? Where was my bullhorn? Where was my broadsheet upon which to announce and voice my support and encouragement?
There is none. So, I ask, what can I do more than I did? I cut and pasted facts, not illusory fables, along with some information from snopes that voiced a different opinion, and sent them off. I tried to influence others with what I thought critical flaws in the Dem candidate, to no avail, apparently.

I voted. Those of you, probably very few, that lurk and read this Club regularly, probably voted also. Even here in a ’solid red’ state, I voted.
I ask again, what more? I refuse to support the RNC, for their perfidy to true conservatism in recent primaries. They will get the message, eventually. Perhaps I will be around to see it, perhaps not.
Stupidity is not illegal. Willful ignorance cannot be overcome. The selfish have voted their pocketbooks, and they will probably be disappointed in what they receive. The honorable, IMO, voted their conscience.

Churchill brought out the best. Obama brings the worst along to pick the pockets of the honest, hard working.
phooey.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:47 am 50. Mongoose:

boqueronman: Just so.

However, I will point out that democracies paradoxically seem to require an elite or group of elites, the signal point being that the ascendancy of these groups should be justified by some moral,intellectual,practical or spiritual accomplishments and set of values that have been demonstrated to be of true, high and necessary value to their civilization as a whole.

Is it really the notion of any elite that fulmmuxes you or this elite?

The old WASP Establishment did may great things, even though it is their perhaps failure to stand up for what was right after WW1 that started us down this path. I often ponder this as I walk by the wonderful buildings they built in NYC during the Gilded Age. (But Here we are back to FDR and the democrats again.P

It is my feeling that the current elites has not earned their positions, and this includes the enervated remnants of the old establishment that went to the fashionable left and the new entrants that came in as technocrats under the New Deal and the Cold war (or their descendants and/or epigones).

Not only are the current elites incompetent, they are against us. They seem to hate our civilization and everything it stands for while at the same time not truly comprehending what that civilization is. In fact they do not seem to understand the notion of civilization at all, not civilization of any sort, Western or otherwise. Or if they do, they only understand it to the point required to acquire some sort of hatred for it. This seems to be one of the main points of their education. It seems to be what they use to hold themselves apart from and above the rest of us. This is absolute insanity. It is a parody of what elites are supposed to be.

It is very much like the situation in Europe after WW1 where the foundation of the old order — crown and altar — were cracked and thrown out in disgrace and disrepute. Our current intelligentsia is much like the British intelligence of that time, of the time of Shaw and Bloomberg crowd, only much less civilized. It is just harder to see just what barbarians they are because they hide behind and obscuring veneer of pseudoscience, sciencism, jargon and arcane pseudo-intellectual nincompoopery. The difference between now and then is that then there was a diseased and decadent remnant of the ancient order whereas here we have rent takers, frauds, poseurs and hucksters. Our debauched elites seem to be not caused by any real crisis, just born out of our own lack of seriousness.

I am constantly amazed that we tolerate them. This nonsense on Wall St. is but one manifestation of what buffoons these people are and it touches across all their harbors: Politicians, business “leaders” and academics, and infuriatingly, it seems like they will pay no real personal price for their rank and oh so obvious incompetence.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:54 am 51. Mongoose:

Cannoneer 4: With you on that. See you on the barricades.

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:57 am 52. Mongoose:

Tomw: I meant that rhetorically. I am sure you did your best. I could have done more, I can tell you that.

My point is we did not mobilize like the hordes of the Left. Perhaps if we had had a couple of million man marches or a coordinated national boycott of the media, things might have been different. We can not blame all of this on one man, and certainly not fine a men as GWB or Dick Cheney.

Nov 13, 2008 - 11:01 am 53. Mongoose:

J. Work: Thanks.

Nov 13, 2008 - 11:04 am 54. Angry Dumbo:

Obama can stimulate self-confidence because he is so calm and collected. He will not simply put an end to the crisis or ensure that banks lend money again. He is a politician, not the Messiah. But he can change the national mood.

Isn’t this THE SECRET, writ large? Envision the world you want to live in and inhabit it? What happens if the healer doesn’t heal?

Nov 13, 2008 - 12:12 pm 55. exdem13:

You are right that the Obama camp is giving us nothing but BS. Sometimes though we have to point at the BS at clearly label it for the benefit of argument. Besides, the Left really hates it when we call them on their empty words and slogans.

I agree with you that Dubya was not that bad a president, and did his best. His best was not good enough, but with a hostile opposition party, daily denunciations in the news media, and selfish alliances like the “Gang of Fourteen” arrayed against him, he had a hard row to hoe. It would have been a hard road for any of our presidents. He can go home to Crawford to relax and console himself that at least he tried. Meanwhile, the MSM will give Obama a free pass on just about anything, so it’s up to the blogosphere to hold him to account, until 2012.

Nov 13, 2008 - 2:57 pm 56. JMH:

One conceit of victorious politicians is the notion that because they got the most votes, that a majority of people are his/their ardent followers and they have been given a mandate. Many voters, especially in the large independent category, vote “cafeteria style” with little regard for ideology. The Republicans in’94 made this mistaken assumption, and Obama will likely do the same.

Actually, I think the conceit is that they assume one particular agenda item must have been the thing that got them the votes, and usually it’s (conveniently) an agenda item that plays well with some small but vocal and generous interest group. The ‘94 Republicans is a bad example – they got elected on the strength of the Contract With America and Democrat hamhandedness about health care. After a brief attempt to enact some changes, they decided it was too hard and bellied up to the trough instead. That’s what ultimately cost the GOP control of Congress.

Did all of us stand up for him at every turn, in the work place? Did the GOP in congress do so? No, all of this lies at rest at the feet of the American people and the enablers for this moral rot that are to be found in the Democratic Party and their minions in the MSM.

I partially disagree. I did stand by and up for him at every turn. I never waivered in my support. But I sure felt unsupported myself. I gave him the benefit of the doubt every time he neglected to explain why he was doing something, but eventually I started to wonder. Was I just projecting my own hopes onto his unexplained actions? It was a possibility I had to consider, and had to consider it more frequently as time went by. I stuck by to the end, but others gave up along the way and I don’t blame them becaue I knew I was gambling. The only thing that held me was a deep-seated mistrust of Democrats – I knew that gambling on Bush was better than throwing in with Kerry. But Bush convinced too many of his supporters that he was playing three-card-monte with them by not being more forthcoming. It sunk his agenda.

Nov 13, 2008 - 4:22 pm 57. Mongoose:

I never felt he was playing three card monty with me. What did he do that seems so mysterious to you? The only thing I did not get what the Meyers nomination debacle. I forgive him on that one, but it was pretty loony.

That is not to say I agreed with everything he did or proposed, I just do not find them mysterious.

And again, I was being rhetorical, I am thankful that you did what you did.

But we really should have organized like the Democrats, and we should have seen this coming; we got complacent. Conservative nitpicked and groused too much in the year after his re-election and the Democrats really took advantage of this disatifaction and played apon it. Seems to me that Obama even shaved off a portion of the so called “religious right” this time around. He seems to have gotten quite a few Catholics, for example. If so, then shame on them. This is hardly Bushes fault. It can only be chalked up to momentary moral insanity

We have only ourselves and the GOP to blame for this. We really need to face our collective culpability on this and stop blaming Bush for everything.

For example, he may have been right after all about the immigration issue. I bitterly fought it at the time, but if the GOP had been identified with it, the vote from Latino demographic might have been different in this last election. Now that voting block appears to be lost for a generation and there WILL be amnesty, and on much worse terms than he had proposed. As bitter as it is to admit it, he appears to have been right on this one after all.

I am not sure what you mean by “killed his agenda”. He stated more than once that the WOT was by far the main focus of his administration and he was wildly successful here, at least in my book. What was the agenda that was killed?

The final kicker was the bizarre behavior of the GOP on the Hill. They could not act either ethically or ruthlessly, not to mention intelligently, for the sake of the nation. They are fearful as church mice, aa bumbling as clowns and appear to have no principles at all. Time and again they were told to stop acting like European christian socialist and time and again they arrogantly ignored this warning. The had plenty of waring in 2006 and they continued in there ineptitude through another election cycle.

They never seem to understand what the democrats are really up to, they cannot understand what enemies they are to our civilization and way of live. They think that they are either misguided fools or just playing to locked constituencies that control locked in seats. They cannot grasp what they are up to at all. They also can never stand up to the meida or create alternative channels. The stupid party, indeed.

The left are motivated and involved. We do not put in the same time in an organized, focus manner as do they. We expect the GOP to do it for us. If we are to take back the country, we have to change that. (I realize that this assertion s not true of some people reading this blog, but I am talking in general.

No, this is not Bush’s fault. That is just the path of denial and self delusion. There is plenty of blame to go around. We cannot fix things until we get over this.

The final balme must rest on the American people. TO chose Obama because of Bush — really more emotional manipulation by the MSM and the democrat establishment — is really mindless and childish. Bush can do little about that.

Again, if there is an honest appraisal of Bush histroy will treat him kindly, and condemn the traitors, scoundrels and scum that harassed him.

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:34 pm 58. Mongoose:

TheY had plenty of warNing in 2006 and they continued in theIR ineptitude through another election cycle.

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:50 pm 59. JMH:

I never felt he was playing three card monty with me. What did he do that seems so mysterious to you?

You and I may have maintained our trust, but polls (and the election) show we’re in the minority. Let’s be honest, President Bush lost the support of half the people who used to support him. We have to understand why.

Blaming the mendacious MSM isn’t enough. Sure, they helped, but too many people ultimately decided they weren’t getting enough information on what the President was trying to do. What’s mysterious? How about, what were we trying to do in Iraq?

Do you know what the President’s objective in Iraq was? I mean really know. Not guess, not project, not assume, but know. I honestly don’t know. I have an assumption. I think my assumption makes sense, is a right thing to do (as opposed to the right thing to do) and it fits with most of the observed facts of our involvement. But after a while, I realized I didn’t know – I was ultimately projecting my hopes for what we were doing onto the President’s actions.

Watching Obama’s rise, I have also realized just how dangerous projection is.

Regarding your comments on the Congressional GOP – taken as a whole they are exactly as you described – bumbling, unethical incompetents. Honestly, where do these people come from? Or better yet, what does the national party do to them? Somehow, the GOP turned Duke Cunningham into a felon. Karl Rove is called a political genius. I have my doubts. He’s looking more and more like one of those CEOs who took over a thriving company, goosed profits for a quarter or two, and then augered the whole thing into the ground.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:41 am 60. julian_the_apostate:

I’m sure I’m on the younger end of the commenters but i must say hear hear for Mongoose…… I think the real problem with this country is the education system that has been established by the liberal elite. speaking with my peers in the younger generation on the subject of politics/social-ills is depressing due to their blind faith in whatever they have been brainwashed to think.
its sad that there are so few of us youngsters who are willing to fight for our civilization.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:48 am 61. Mongoose:

Julian: Thanks, and more power to you. You hang in there — it will take people your age to turn this around. Do not be embarrassed by your age. Perhaps a role here (or elsewhere) for you is to give the rest of us insight into your generation. We must find a way to engage young people with truth and to avoid the manipulative political and social machinations of the Left. IMO, it is a mistake to emulate the left in these underhanded tactics and strategies of mass politics. This is a lesson that some in GOP have forgotten.
Reagan did not forget it and this was one of the chief reasons for his great accomplishments.

I am from the other side of the age spectrum, and missed most of that collectivist swill that the Left pushed into the classroom, though one could sense it building on the horizon back then. Also, I was protected by that fact that I did not attend public schools.

But I taught and was an academic for a few years, and believe me, my heart goes out to you. I know it is tough to be in your shoes.

But whatever it is in you that lead you to your apostasy, cleave to it and hold on to it. It speaks of character.

There is hope if enough of your generation turn from this madness.

JHM: Yes it was and is abundantly clear. No post ww2 engagement has been jawboned more that the Iraq war, not even Viet Nam. Read the UN resolutions, for heaven’s sake.

The whole WOT was explained quite well and vividly by Bush, Rummy, Cheney and a host of others.

I find this a surprising comment. Nothing could have been clearer.

It was certainly made much clearer that any of the post war “adventures” hatched up by the Democrats: Korea, Vietnam, Clinton’s “exercises”, etc.

It is true that military tactics were sometimes obscure, but that is that nature of war.

The Left tried to do exactly what they did during Viet Nam. They may yet pluck defeat from the jaw of victory. Americans should have demonstrated a little more wisdom when faced with this. They should have taken all the rhetoric, casuistry, sophistry and fear mongering of the Left for what it was, taken their measure and shamed them off the nation stage. They did not. In fact a lot of us have come to think in the same vile thought processes of the left. This one of the reasons that Obama is president.

That is just one of my main points. After the Viet Nam experience, the nation should know better, they should understand what the Left is up too. But even today we cannot understand the Viet Nam experience clearly it seems. Millions were sacrificed because of our quite callow failure of nerve there, and no amount of rationalization and carping can cover hide this.

We in fact could say this about the entire Cold War area wherein the large portions of the Democrat party fought a rear guard action for the international Left. We should know better.

And, true enough, more people in the country where aware of it than during the Viet Nam years, and so we got some success. But not enough. It is not Bush’s fault that the boomers cannot be honest about their youth — honest about their motives then and now.

I think the blame lies with the rest of us not taking on the left.

This is not all Bush’s fault, not by a long shot.

Or perhaps what you are saying that it was more a matter of Bush did not propagandize the war enough rather than not explaining it properly.

This could be true, but again read his speeches (and those of Cheney, et al.). This point of view — and forgive me, for I am not trying to put words in your mouth — veers towards a very low estimation of the intelligence of Americans. And I think it was not necessary (or should not have been). I noted that “Joe the Plumber” got it. Our elites and our upper middle classes seem to have a difficult time with it however. This is because they have bought into the intellectual and spiritual vices of the Left, if you ask me (I am not including you in this, JHM). There is a woeful lack of common sense out there in the body politic.

ALso, I think it was also clearly articulated at the GOP convention for the 2004 election.

It was a failure to understand and parse the strategies and tactics of the left and compensate for them on the part of the American people.

Again, a large section of the people did not behave very well through out this whole episode. True, another large segment behaved quite well.

Remember that the Democrat may yet undo all the advances so far made in the WOT. In fact, they could undo the whole Cold War.

They would love too, you know.

Nov 14, 2008 - 8:45 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.