Enthusiasm for Obama among the scribbling classes–journalists, academics, most beneficiaries of tertiary education, and, ex officio, “community organizers” of all descriptions–puts me in mind of Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of the Eternal Return. Nietzsche wanted to come up with the world’s most difficult idea–difficult in the moral or emotional sense. Nietzsche wanted to affirm the world, but he wanted to be sure he wasn’t sentimentalizing it. Hence the idea of the eternal recurrence: if he could say Yes to a world in which everything returned over and over again–every horror, every boredom, every stupidity–then he would know he had achieved his goal.
As a piece of philosophy, I think the idea of the eternal return of the same is a pretty silly idea, but as a metaphor for human folly it has its uses. If the pundits are to be believed, the American people are just about to elect as President a man who espouses in concentrated form just about every bad, discredited, and exploded social and economic idea of the last fifty years.
For example, as has been pointed out by many commentators, what people call Obama’s “tax plan” is really a tax and welfare plan. Far from granting a tax cut on “95 percent” of taxpayers, as he claims, it will raise a whole suite of taxes:
– marginal tax rates
– estate taxes
– taxes on dividends
– capital gains taxes
And that is before breakfast. Just wait till Obama, together with a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid, really get going.
But the tax portion of the Obama Plan to Redistribute Money is only the first step. A second and in some ways even more worrisome portion regards the welfare side of the equation. Note well: it’s not just that Obama plans to cut taxes for people he thinks do not make enough money; he also wants to send them some money from folks whom he thinks make too much money. Yes, that’s right: the IRS will be in the business of issuing as well as collecting checks, not just for refunds, as has been their practice, but as a means of redistributing your money to those that Obama thinks deserve it more.
In other words, Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth. It will be the same thing–the dole–but it will be called a “tax credit,” which has a more emollient sound than “relief,” “public charity,” “the dole.”
What I find depressing about this–as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut–is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. I’ve written about the “déjà-vu-all-over-again” phenomenon before in this space. Bill Ayers? Haven’t we done that? Jeremiah Wright? Haven’t we done that, too? Haven’t we tried Obama’s “soak the rich,” anti-business economic policies? Haven’t we tried his “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” foreign policy? Don’t we know that economics is about the creation rather than the redistribution of wealth, and that low taxes and strategies that encourage productivity and investment are best calculated to make the entire society, including the less fortunate, more prosperous? Don’t we know where appeasement and capitulation get us in foreign affairs? Don’t we remember Jimmy Carter? Haven’t we learned anything?
The whole thing puts me in mind not only of Nietzsche but also of that advertising slogan: In Life, Experience Is the Great Teacher; In Scotch, Teacher’s Is the Great Experience. The problem, of course, is that experience has been a bad tutor indeed, which is why one wants to reach for the Teach.
Still, I do not despair. I’m on record saying that I thought McCain would win by a landslide. Of course, that was before the economy suddenly said goodbye to $3 trillion, a fact that bizarrely counts for Obama–”bizarre” since it was the policies of his party that precipitated this economic dégringolade. Nevertheless, were I Obama, I’d hesitate before thinking about how to furnish the Oval Office.
People tell me that all the ducks are lining up in a row for Obama. To which I say: “Fine. But are the voters?” A few months ago I said I didn’t think Hillary would get the nomination. Everyone looked at me sadly and said, “Poor chump, don’t you see it’s inevitable?” Like so many things, it was inevitable until it didn’t happen. That’s one reason I dislike this constant recourse to polls–weekly, daily, hourly polls, polls, polls. But “RealClearPolitics/Gallup/Zogby/Rasmussen says . . .” Meaning what? That voting is a superfluous exercise? “Oh no, you must vote, but really the polls say . . .” I say, forget the polls: just vote. You might be surprised!
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
67 Comments
1. Gary Ogletree:I think the race is split evenly right now. The gradual awakening to Obama’s real live socialist intentions among those who haven’t voted yet may put Sarah Palin over the top (I’m worn out with McCain). However, we don’t know how many bogus ballots the Obama Cult will cast in the swing states.
Oct 28, 2008 - 6:12 am 2. Gary Ogletree:If Dear Leader is elected there may be a silver lining. McCain might be lucky not to take office with such a severe recession developing. (Our country not so lucky.) This thing could easily last four years. Expect the new regime to screw up everything they touch. Their addiction to spending, taxing and borrowing will not be tempered by the dire economic situation. Expect the Obama cult thugocracy to be more vicious and the Constitution violated at will. After a few years of this a large majority of Americans will have had enough of wealth redistribution, oppression studies, reparations, indoctrination, unemployment, etc. Thus, we could see Americans vehemently reject Obama Socialism the way the tribes of Anbar rejected Al Queda style Sharia. Nothing beats experience when it comes to learning the hard truth. Then the question becomes, as it is in Venezuela now, can the emerging dictatorship be overthrown by the ballot box or will a rigged electoral system make it necessary to resort to armed resistance? So we could get a nasty case of socialism that acts like an innoculation, or we could be on the road to the gulag or to civil war. God bless America and keep us free, whatever the cost.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:04 am 3. Tominstl:So you toss out all polling experts and call it even. You toss out the candidate in favor of Palin. Then you Set up a phony “bogus ballots” argument before any voting even happens. Sounds like a perfect plan to remain a content Republican.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:11 am 4. Austin:Carter brought Reagan.
An Obama will bring another Reagan and maybe we can finally get our house in order.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:15 am 5. Ken Nelson:http://www.kennelson.com/newblog/?p=386 has a new logo I devised that sums this view up Roger. (-:
Gary… I agree. I think the polls have it wrong this year. And I also believe, with you, that fraud is an important part of the Obama victory plan.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:16 am 6. Percy Dovetonsils:Even if he wins, he and the media can’t keep the mask up forever. When the public finds out what this guy is all about, the hammer will come down on the Lil’ Messiah.
And if not, well, this country deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately, that means that the world overall will be a poorer, bloodier place.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:17 am 7. ricpic:Given the fact that the great majority are barely literate and ahistorical to boot, it’s not the same old same old — to them. They are blissfully unaware that socialism has been tried and failed on many occasions in many places. All they know is that it sounds great and puts money in their pocket. What could be wrong?
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:19 am 8. Donald Sensing:Wasn’t it JFK who said that a rising tide lifts all boats? There would be no room for JFK in the Demcrat party today.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:19 am 9. JayC:I think we’re in for a bad time. Don’t forget that McCain isn’t much of a libertarian either, even if he wins.
Also, don’t underestimate the stubborness of people who are convinced that they are right. The problem, they will tell you, is that past attempts at socialism (or even communism) weren’t done “right”, and this time we can do it better.
It’s a shame that every generation has to learn the same things over and over. I only hope that they’re willing to learn quickly.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:25 am 10. Mwalimu Daudi:If this were an honest election it would be interesting, although I suspect that the Messiah would probably win. But ACORN has been a bunch of busy little weasels, and in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Missouri I predict that it will swing those states to the Chosen One.
BTW: I am wondering if this alleged plot to assassinate the Messiah will turn out to be an American version of the Reichstag fire. The Messiah and His followers in the MSM see racists under every bed, and they have been going howarddean over this. Given the twisted assassination fantasies the Far Left routinely indulges in (the recent West Hollywood “art” display of Sarah Palin being lynched merely being the latest), one can safely dismiss concern for the safety of public officials as being behind the media feeding frenzy.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:25 am 11. fred lapides:You are not going to be happy with what I say here but you are bright folks so you will at least give it a hearing.
When our banks, auto industry, insurance industry ask for a bailout, is that the free market or socialism? When our bank deposits are insured, isn’t that a form of govt socialism?
when the GOP ran things for a number of years: had majority in Congress and ran the White House, things turned into a mess, even by the best conservative standards: bigger govt;huge deficit, unemployment etc etc–thus, is it any wonder that the nation seems willing to try a change, any change, because folks are in deep trouble–jobs, health care, education, home defaults, de-regulation…and now huge bailouts for failed enterprises with OUR money…
that explains why the Democrats are probably going to make a huge sweep in this election. Add, now, to the very shabby campaign run by McCain and how his running mate might appeal to social conservatives but her lack of awareness of so much has turned off the undecideds, the ones that the GOP needed.
If socialism (?) is not your cup of tea, did you approve of my money being used to bail out AIG and so on? what is that if not socialism? But that was ok because jut \temporary? What then of what you would call “the free market”? How free is it?
I got a Phd.D through two hitches in the army and thus the G.I. Bill–socialism!
the govt rewarded me with jmoney for that which as a citizen I should have done as a good citizen…I helped me. It helped me and the G.I. (socilaims Bil_) helped a lot of others…
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:33 am 12. Ken Mitchell, Citrus Heights, CA:Govt subsidies to the oil industry and the farmers is price suppots, and that, for better or worse, is socialism and not the free market at work.
All of Ann Coulter’s reasons for “supporting” Hillary over McCain also apply to Obama. If the Dems succeed in screwing things up as much as I expect they will, Obama (like Jimmy Peanut before him) will be a one-term loser. I suspect, in fact, that Carter supports Obama in the forlorn hope that Obama will be an even WORSE president than Carter himself was, so that history won’t record that Jimmy Carter was the WORST president ever.
For Conservatives, McCain was a marginal candidate to begin with. His (presumptive) loss, while painful, is far from a repudiation of conservative principles and ideas. McCain’s refusal to pin the sub-prime mortgage mess on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, plus the shame of MCCain-Fiengold campaign finance “reform”, is more than enough albatross for even McCain’s neck.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:35 am 13. woody h:Your points are well taken. However, the country will survive another round of Carteresque economic and foreign policies, as retrograde as they may be. Rather more disturbing has been the death of truth, the Orwellian perversion of reality that has accompanied and abetted Obama’s rise — blaming the mortgage meltdown on Republicans, when Democratic fingerprints are all over it; portraying the Obama campaign as sweetness and light, when in reality it is the most well-funded, Wall-Street beholden, phantom-donor laden, phony-registration promoting campaign in presidential history. That our traditional media are heavily implicated in this smoke and mirrors process is a cause for real despair. The only thing I can think of that resembles this in recent times was the trial of O.J. Simpson. Somewhere, somehow someone realized you could put over practically anything, no matter how far-fetched, if it was packaged with a bit of wit, a component of racial guilt, and an underlying narrative of nasty, conspiratorial white men. Ignore the elephant in the room! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! We saw the tapes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We read about Ayers and ACORN. And Obama and his media cohort told America: Are you going to believe your eyes — or me? And we mooed and went along. This is the scary part.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:41 am 14. kevIN:If you look at the European models of socialism – what do we see? Higher unemployment, more people living on the dole, long hospital wait lines and the rich squirreling there money away from the taxman. Welcome to the new world order, same as the old world order.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:46 am 15. Matt:“said good by to $3 trillion” don’t you mean “good bye”?
Regardless, I agree with your assessment. At this point, people are acting as if Obama was elected months ago and “the People” are just superfluous. Once again we see the Democratic mantra of serving the people tossed aside because they know what is best for people… now it is time for us all to just shut up and them our betters decide our fate.
Two years of a Democratic majority will likely do to the DNC what eight years of a Republican majority did to the RNC. I am amazed that their own hubris seems to prevent them from seeing that without some kind of restraint they are sowing the seeds to their own downfall.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:48 am 16. jonathan K:RE: redistribution
The funny thing about it is the we have been redistributing wealth in this country for at least the past 75 years, only we don’t call it that, instead we call is “Social Security and medicare ( from the young to the old) . farm subsidies ( general public to a specific class i.e. farmers), housing (through the tax system i.e. mortgage interest deduction.
my point is that from FDR onward, both republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses have accepted redistributionist policies either through direct payments and or subsidies or the tax code or some other form of payment. Neither party seems to have had a WINNING CANDIDATE who has repudiated these policies. It may be that as a philosophy of governing these policies are wrong, but voters don’t seem to have bought into that argument in the past.
Obamas is merely statingthe obvious, as opposed to McCain, who has not seriously opposed such policies, but rather whack Obama with the Marxist label. I have not heard McCain come out for repeal of Social SEcurity or medicare, the mortgage interest deduction, to name only a few of biggest redistribution items.
The differences b etween the two parties are merely at the margins i.e. how to do it and to what degree, and thus a McCain administration would be not much different than an Obama one. This is why the true believing conservatives are like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football which is held by Lucy!!!.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:53 am 17. Karen:Exactly, Gary! I wouldn’t be worried either, except that I KNOW the DEMS will steal the election and the DOJ will do nothing about it.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:58 am 18. T:Two points:
First,
If one reads the polling analyses of D. J. Drummond (who blogs on Wizbang), one might actually agree with Roger’s last sentence. Drummond’s provides very plausible arguments for why the pollsters are very very wrong this election cycle (remember the exit polling in 2004?).
Second,
I believe that the middle class is slowly realizing that the democratic party has become a party controlled by ivy league elites and held hostage by special interest groups. More and more, they bring to mind the folllowing thought by John Gardner:
An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
Think of the excoriation of Sarah Palin because she is neither ivy league nor a Washington insider v. the adulation heaped upon Obama purely due to his rhetoric and style. As Roger points out, the tried and failed policies of the democrats have been proven to “not hold water.”
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:00 am 19. Dave:Do you think Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment might have some applicability here? When I talk to liberals advocating redistribution, the sheer venom directed against those more well-off than them is astounding (as well as their about-face when they say that being less affluent makes them more “authentic”).
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:01 am 20. MarkJ:Something to think about:
“‘Inevitability’ ends when enough people say ‘Enough.’”
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:01 am 21. JGreer:While I agree with the premise of this article (US returning to discredited ideas) I disagree with blaming present issues solely on the Democrats. Conservatives need to recognize their own failures over the past few years and how we contributed to present circumstances.
First of all, Republicans (our supposed conservatives) have had extensive control within the government up until recently. And they aren’t exactly powerless today. Most of the issues that are now manifesting began under the Rep’s watch. Yes, the Dems were behind many of those ideas, but where were our ‘conservative leaders’ battling for their values? The fact is, while a few brave souls, including McCain resisted, the rest folded.
Another point regarding Conservatives love for deregulation. Less regulation is always preferable to more — when POSSIBLE. Let’s keep in mind that NO regulation is anarchy. At a lesser extreme (but unfortunately real), too little regulation and suddenly we find ourselves with several corporate entities that were too big to fail, in fact failing. Furthermore we find that somehow these corps are ‘critical’ to the US economy and require govt intervention. I’m sorry but no corporate entity should ever be allowed to achieve a position that would threaten the US economy if it were to fail. I’ll take regulation over that scenario any day of the week.
Finally, as much as I detest Obama’s platform, he is not any more socialist than the next guy. If you want to see socialism at work you certainly don’t need to wait for an Obama presidency because it is happening right now as our govt takes trillion dollar stakes in several industries, while several more are lining up with their hands out.
Conservatives must take responsibility for our mistakes and fix them. Don’t blame the Democrats. They have remained true to their values all along!
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:02 am 22. Terri:Amen. I feel the same way. I am amazed nay shocked at the people who actually think this guy is about change.
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:03 am 23. Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » “Like so many things, it was inevitable until it didn’t happen”…:[...] that, Roger Kimball gets the line of the day award. I admire his tenacious hopefulness. People tell me that all the [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:05 am 24. Guest:Who is Henry Reid? You mean Harry?
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:05 am 25. JMH:Well, you know the old saying, “those who don’t know history are bound to make a farce out of it.” Or something like that.
The people who will vote for Obama don’t know history. Don’t know squat about history. And some of them probably even have BAs in History from big-name schools, but it was a history focused on various groupist studies.
And honestly, I’ve never come across a more closed-minded group than Obama supporters. Nothing that contradicts their cherished view of their cherised One gets across the threshold.
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:11 am 26. Nicole Tedesco:Obama reminds me of the economic populists of Latin America, or even of America’s own Huey Long. Economic populism is an easy tool to use to stir a crowd, or be awarded enough votes to attain some office. In some respects Reagan used a vaguely similar ploy, telling us that the dirty elites were hoarding our money–the government elites, that is. Not that Reagan’s vision was the same as “economic populism” but it does invoke and utilize a similar set of emotions.
If we are lucky–really lucky–Barack Obama will turn out to be just another narcissist who is more in love with the job, the celebrity, the jet-setting life and the parties than he is with his “ideas.” Perhaps he is just a smart chameleon who will do anything, say anything to get elected, then play it all by ear. Perhaps, being a smart guy surrounded by reasonably smart people, he may actually have enough guts to do something Bush didn’t have the backbone to do with the leaders of his own party and veto a bad law or two. Perhaps, being a smart guy surrounded by reasonably smart people he may adopt reasonable economic policies in the end, even if he does tweak the equations in favor of the poor a little more.
As for foreign policy, I do fear a return to the Carter years. Regardless of the criticisms of the Bush administration, I still feel that his first term foreign policy was the correct course of action. Oh well, sometimes people need to relearn certain lessons I guess.
Perhaps I am being a little too optimistic.
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:15 am 27. More of the same, stat! | Cold Fury:[...] bitter and clingy again, now? What I find depressing about this–as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut–is [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:27 am 28. Pay Attention:–First of all, Republicans (our supposed conservatives) have had extensive control within the government up until recently.–
NO. Almost no control at all.
Department of State – constantly leaking in opposition to President’s policies. Have we stopped the fast track Saudi visas?
CIA – constantly leaking in opposition to President’s policies. Bush should have fired the top 50 people in the CIA on September 12 2001
Department of Justice – Fitgerald appointed prosecutor to detriment of President’s position and policies. Gonzales pilloried for exercising hire/fire authority.
Senate – balance of power in the hands of Republicans in name only (and in Democratic hands when Jeffords jumped). Bush can’t get judges confirmed.
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:29 am 29. Jim:The very fact that Obama is an empty suit may play in the country’s favor. Remember, he’s no racist (like Wright) or terrorist (like Ayers). Obama simply attached to these men to cynically build his Chicago political machine street cred. We in Chicago have seen it time after time.
Since Obama, like Clinton, has no core principles, he just may pay attention to polls alone and do some good things by swaying with the political winds. If Obama believed a single thing he said, THEN I’d be scared.
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:30 am 30. nlcatter:want to see a narcissist
Oct 28, 2008 - 8:46 am 31. BobN:look in the mirror
Obama is the American Hugo Chavez. He does have principles and beliefs, but they are of the most reprehensible Leninist type. He has learned well from his Yoda figures, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers. If he steals this election, he and his henchmen may do too much damage to the Constitution for voters to replace him with a Reagan.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:07 am 32. lahru:All conjecture…. I have read most of these posts and no one has said ” you know I was talking with Barack the other day and he said he was going to………………”. I just pray that all of you are mature enough to acknowledge his success and understand the only way to make mistakes is to DO SOMETHING.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:26 am 33. K:The “taking from the rich to give to the more numerous voting poor” has been tryed again and again because it works. Oh, it doesn’t result in a richer society or more income for everybody, but it gets people elected, which is the whole point. This is a virus that republicanism has and represents the aging of a society. The longer that aging can be held off, the longer the society, as a democracy, will live.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:32 am 34. gs:Sir:
Since you make extensive use of quotations, you surely recognize this one: We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.
To what extent have you criticized the Bush Republicans’ ruinous fiscal practices? If you link to such criticisms, a nonpartisan reader might be induced to examine your philippic against Obama in greater depth than currently is the case.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:38 am 35. LarryD:Personnel is policy. If Obama wins, what kind of people will his administration be filled with?
As for the polls, here’s the opinion of an insider:
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:40 am 36. POLYSEMY Online: The Daily Goose:She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM.
[...] be part of the human condition: Obama and the “return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer“. addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fpolysemy.org%2Fdailygoose%2F%3Fp%3D1648′; addthis_title = [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:40 am 37. amr:Unfortunately all too many people voting weren’t around when Kennedy, the war hero, was being thought as being a weak president by the Soviets or the stupidity of Carter’s economic and foreign policies. My 27 year old son, who was raised to follow the idea of rational and critical thinking about all things, finds it almost impossible to rationally discuss political issues with his contemporaries. There is just too much emotion in their beliefs like so many children imagining goodies galore from relatives at Christmas. I find some older FDR Democrat relatives. who were against Mr. Obama because of his inexperience, now are for him because he is bribing them with the idea of free money in his tax plan; just like my son’s contemporaries with their hands stretched out for goodies.
The rugged individualism of the past appears to be past its prime, unfortunately. All so many Americans are willing to trade freedom for supposed security as were the German and Italian peoples in the 1930’s. Just as the failed policies of the past have been forgotten or are being ignored, so is 9-11 and the threat it exposed.
Some of us refuse to join the security and economic suicide pact being developed in D.C.; but I suspect we are a minority soon to have few choices or rights.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:53 am 38. TruthBeTold:For a picture of the root of the hidden Obama, see this link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
Review and decide if the Obama wants to CHANGE our system of government or destroy it.
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:11 am 39. Tex Taylor:[Another point regarding Conservatives love for deregulation. Less regulation is always preferable to more — when POSSIBLE.]
If government regulation is the ultimate answer to all of our problems, why didn’t the Sarbane Oxley Act prevent all the deception and the misleading of investors as was the intent? Looks to me like another regulation has turned into an unnecessary intrusion and cost, and government boondoggle by any standard.
Great article Roger!
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:16 am 40. Jackson Laurence:Fred at #11 makes a good listing of current redistribution of wealth, but I think that the tone of his post points to where the crux of our differences lie. It seems that Fred is not just “on board” with continued redistribution; indeed, he seems to see redistribution as a good thing, in and of itself. I believe this is where we part company. Yes, a decent society will always try to assist those who require a temporary hand up. But it seems to me that a prudent society will always realize that – because of the cupidity that is part of being human – such assistance can all too easily get quickly out of control, and therefore always requires a healthy dose of resistance and skepticism.
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:19 am 41. bigjim-ky:I think it will be an interesting social experiment, if Obama wins, to see what the lower crust of society will do with this redistributed wealth. My wife and I make much less than the $250,000 number that is being thrown around, and presumably would be on the receiving end on at least some of these giveaways. I would take that money and invest it in the Forex market, or durable, inflation resistant investments like art or metals. The lower class will probably spend theirs on chrome wheels for their used Escalade that they lease for no money down, or high quality imitation Rolexes. I don’t think there is any amount of money you could give them that would make them ‘not poor’.
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:31 am 42. Polemicscat:It’s not his economics that scares me most about Obama. It’s his willingness to sit at the feet of God-damn-America Wright for twenty years—and his choice of Ayers as ghostwriter.
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:43 am 43. Seerak:You’re the guy who told us that it’s not a good idea to think too much about things.
And now you are complaining that people are falling for the same BS all over again, the same kind of BS that Ayn Rand said would only take about five minutes of thinking to refute?
Reap what you sow, sir. If you do not inquire “too deeply” into the origins of laws and sausages, you should not be surprised to end up with laws like sausages (not to mention laws that threaten to turn all of us into sausage).
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:55 am 44. TmjUtah:If Obama does steal it, look for the Dem caucus leadership go to CBC members, probably within days of the opening of the first session after the inaugeration.
The move will be necessary in order to safeguard the socialist attack Obama plans on the nation, but more importantly it will be the first step in labeling any dissent of the administration or the congress to be RACISM.
They tend to go with what works.
I get a little chuckle amidst my tears when I think of what may be about to happen to Pelosi and Reid. They have never had a clue; they are approaching anti-ignorant status they are so far detached by what their party has brought against this nation.
Obama wins, we all will pay. He’ll make Carter look good.
Oct 28, 2008 - 11:31 am 45. Billy Beck:I have a question for you, Roger.
If the voters prove your optimism wrong, what exactly is it that you will have been wrong about?
Oct 28, 2008 - 11:48 am 46. Billy Beck:jonathan K: “The funny thing about it is the we have been redistributing wealth in this country for at least the past 75 years,…”
That’s exactly right, and it always pains me to see someone of Kimball’s caliber cramping the analysis at something like “every bad, discredited, and exploded social and economic idea of the last fifty years.” This is a lot deeper than that.
Oct 28, 2008 - 11:52 am 47. Learning Life’s Lessons « Thinking Things Through:[...] Life’s Lessons Roger Kimball writes nice prose. In considering the Obama campaign, he wonders why we haven’t learned from the past. I think the answer is simple: most people are unaware of the past and are willing to believe any [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 11:58 am 48. Billy Beck:Seerak: hallelujah.
+1
Oct 28, 2008 - 11:58 am 49. Mule:This election has reinforced the differences between Republican and Conservative like no other. As a Conservative, I want to punish the Republican Party for their malfeasance and departure from (quasi-)sound economic principles. They have gambled their principles away for the pursuit of power.
However, if I intend to follow through with my threat of retribution I will have to do so through the most liberal candidate ever to grace our presidential ticket. True, the Democrats have no disguise for their economic policies, but does blatant redistribution and class warfare fulfill my need for vengeance?
So where does a guy like me go? Obama supporters state that we have progressed toward socialism under Republican rule, which is fairly true. But does that mean I must vote for new leadership that assures me the slow migration away from free market principles looks better through the eyes of the hair rather than the tortoise?
Whereas today’s middle one-third seems to employ the “grass is greener” strategy, I can’t help but look across to a pasture more riddled with weeds and dead grass than the one I stand on now. Are we simply forced to watch this soiled version of “pendulum politics” unfold for the next 50 years (assuming we can make it that long)?
Oct 28, 2008 - 12:04 pm 50. No Power of Hell, No Scheme of Man, Can Ever Pluck Me from His Hand « Obi’s Sister:[...] Roger Kimbell at PJM feels that all is not lost. What I find depressing about this–as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut–is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 12:18 pm 51. elHombre:This is one of Obama’s “teachable moments.”
He and Acorn are about to teach us what community organizers do.
He and the media are about to teach us that media advocacy and censorship are at least as effective as voter fraud.
He and the electorate are about to teach us that a significant number of Americans are ignorant enough to believe that raising corporate and capital gains taxes will stimulate the economy during a recession.
Republicans, conservatives and libertarians who have been sitting on their asses, and their wallets, while whinging about McCain/Palin and/or Bush are about to teach us that Edmund Burke was right: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Oct 28, 2008 - 12:20 pm 52. Donna V.:Fred L. wrote:
I got a Phd.D through two hitches in the army and thus the G.I. Bill–socialism!
Thanks for your service, Fred. I’ve never considered the G.I. Bill to be “socialism.” You had to do a little something to get it. It’s hardly welfare.
Yes, many Republicans have lost sight of true conservative principles and shown themselves to be as corrupt as the Democrats. That does not prove conservative principles are wrong, or validate socialist economics.
As bratty and arrogant as young Obama supporters can be, I can understand where they are coming from. They are barely aware of anything that happened before 1990 and I have found they can barely imagine a non-prosperous America.
But people who were adults during the Carter years are now going to give Jimmy his second term. I find that astounding.
Oct 28, 2008 - 1:16 pm 53. Chazz:Barack alone may not be terminally malignant, inasmuch as incompetence could be his saving virtue, but accompanied by Harry and Nancy, irreversible damage is inevitable.
Oct 28, 2008 - 1:31 pm 54. rvastar:Fred, you’re missing the point. Everything you’re listing represents the results of socialism. IOW, govt – in the form of Democrats – decided to involve itself in the free market by mandating that banks begin lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of people who couldn’t afford to pay that money back. On top of that, in order to further facilitate the Ponzi scheme, Democrats used Fannie and Freddie to grease the wheel by agreeing to have the two entities simply buy up all of those bad loans – banks would never have gone along with it if they were actually required to hold onto to these mortgages.
This is an expenditure, not socialism.
Again, not socialism…expenditures. And they’re expenditures that serve a national security interest. For example, in a global economy, American farmers simply cannot compete with the prices that poorer nations can set for food products. Without some sort of support, the American farm would disappear completely.
Now, do you think it would be a good idea to have our nation totally dependent on foreign countries for our food? I didn’t think so. It would be just as bad of an idea as hiring a foreign country to provide our military protection.
Pay Attention very ably points out the fact that “govt” is not simply a group of elected officials – as a matter of fact, elected officials make up a very small part of our federal govt. Also, “control” is a very loose term when you’re talking about Republicans, because not only are they fighting the Democrats, they are also in a never-ending war with the US news media. And while the majority of the American public may understand that the US news media is biased to the Left, they don’t understand that their bias includes one-sided reporting, intentional omission of information that’s harmful to Democrats or the leftist agenda, and outright falsity…IOW, a good 80+% of the American public still trusts the information they get from the US news media as basically true and accurate.
EX: in 1996, Republicans led an effort to repeal the CRA because they rightly foresaw that forcing lenders into making inherently risky loans opened the institutions up to the risk of significant losses and even complete failure. They failed in their effort. Why? 1) Because unless a party has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate AND control of the White House, that party doesn’t have “control” of anything. The Republicans had neither. 2) Also – and probably more importantly – the US news media let it be known that if Republicans pushed too hard on this matter, that they would proceed to excoriate them in public as racists and anti-poor/middle class.
Again, you’re seeing the world through glasses that are tinted with Leftist ideology.
No one claims that there should be NO regulation; however, what regulation there is should be concerned with protecting individual Americans from having their Constitutional rights infringed upon…it should not be concerned with social tinkering through pricing controls, etc.
Again, it wasn’t too little regulation that caused this crisis…it was too much govt interference
I don’t mean to be insulting, Fred, but you’re perfectly illustrating the failures of our Leftist-dominated educational system and news media.
Again, the damage that was done to these so-called “critical” industries wasn’t the result of normal market forces – they were the result of socialist tinkering in a free market economy that has spent hundreds of years developing and perfecting the economic rules by which they operate. In a normal economic environment, what happened would have been impossible.
Look, prior to the 1990s, the reason banks weren’t lending hundreds of thousands of dollars in home loans to poor people wasn’t because they were black or Hispanic or whatever…it was because the realities of their economic circumstances (i.e. salaries, savins, loan-to-debt ratios, credit scoring, etc.) did not meet the underwriting standards that have been accumulated over hundreds of years of financial history.
But what the Democrats did in the 1990s was say “we don’t care about any of that…human beings have a right to own a home and we are going to use the law to force you banks to give these people money to buy homes”. They forced the US banking system – which is the underpinning of the US economy – to deviate from their normal business practices in order to pursue an ideological agenda.
The best way to think about what happened to the financial markets is this: what the Democrats did with their social tinkering in these markets is no different than someone who poisons their spouse with arsenic. A little arsenic here (a few thousand sub-prime loans)…a little arsenic there (a few more thousand sub-prime loans)…and there’s no noticeable effects. But as the arsenic levels slowly increase (hundreds of thousands of sub-prime loans…month after month, year after year), the adverse effects begin showing up (increased foreclosures, increasing inventories of houses, over-leveraged companies). Then, finally, a critical juncture is reached and the body begins to fail, and the problem is that by the time this happens, the arsenic has critically damaged all the bodies organs (the problems in the financial system spread throughout the entire economy). Finally, death occurs (market collapse).
Now, in the arsenic example: do you blame the human body for not being able to process the arsenic? Of course not. You blame the spouse who introduced the arsenic the person’s body. And since that’s the case, why do you blame the US economy for not being able to process the poison that Democrats introduced into the system?
Also, if I were you, I’d be much more worried about the lethal – and completely unstoppable – threat that an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy poses to the US economy. For example, the coming Social Security/Medicare nightmare: where by 2050, $1 out of every $5 that the US economy creates in a given year will have to go towards paying for just those TWO entitlements.
You haven’t seen damage yet. And there won’t be any “bailout” to fall back on.
Really? Does “the next guy” usuallly have a famous member of the Communist Party USA (i.e. Frank Marshall Davis) as a teenage mentor?
Does “the next guy” usually have a Harvard-educated, communist father who sought to influence the Kenyan govt to adopt 1) 100% taxation, 2) communal farms & the elimination of private farming, 3) the nationalization of businesses owned by “Europeans” and “Asians”, and 4) “active” measures to bring about a classless society.
Does “the next guy” usually have a “spiritual mentor” who is an adherent to the marxist-informed Black Liberation Theology?
Does “the next guy” usually have a decade long relationship with domestic terrorists who are avowed communists? And who he worked with by spending $100+ million in an effort at indoctrinating school children into a Leftist ideology?
If you can find even one other American – period – with the same amount of historical ties to various communists as Barack Obama has, color me impressed.
Oct 28, 2008 - 1:43 pm 55. Demosophist:A “reverse income tax” was originally proposed by Milton Friedman, who wasn’t exactly a socialist. James Buchanan, who is also not a socialist, has proposed a flat income tax coupled with a demogrant, which could be redistributive depending on the income tax rate and the size of the demogrant. But the tax credit Obama is talking about is closer to Friedman’s idea than Buchanan’s. Of course in both cases, Friedman and Buchanan, the proposal was to replace the current welfare system with something that has less overhead and that removes government from the “commanding heights” of the economy. If it’s merely an addendum to the current welfare system, it’s of little help.
Oct 28, 2008 - 1:47 pm 56. Steve:Many people younger than 45 or so may not be aware that these sorts of policies had been implemented previously, and so aren’t familiar with their consequences.
I was born in 1969. Never throughout my primary or secondary education, or college, was I presented with a description of the later sixties, or seventies, which provided an accurate analysis of these periods from social, economic, and/or political perspectives.
The narrative that we were presented was roughly such: America had an awakening of consciousness surrounding the civil rights movement which motivated people to challenge their government and social injustice like the racism, the Vietnam war and misogyny. Then Reagan came and changed things, motivating all sorts of social problems. He was calloused and bigoted, America became that way again as well, and that’s the way it’s been ever since. All the best people want to return to what it was like in the 60’s.
Oct 28, 2008 - 6:03 pm 57. Demosophist:Neither a negative income tax via Friedman or a flat tax/demogrant have been tried. The former was advocated, briefly, by the Nixon administration the the left rejected it, mainly because they hadn’t thought of it. Eugene McCarthy advocated something like the demogrant proposal (although I don’t think he included a flat tax, but I may be wrong). It wasn’t actually tried either. So it’s just completely inaccurate to say that either of these ideas have been tested and found wanting.
Again, the proposal was to do away with traditional welfare and replace it with one of these ideas (or some variation). Obama hasn’t made such a proposal, but his proposal is fairly close to the negative income tax.
Of course it’s redistributive. Nearly everything that provides some sort of safety net is, by definition, redistributive. The issue is the degree of redistribution, and what the cost will be. That’s why Buchanan suggested allowing states to determine their own formula for the flat tax/demogrant idea (which he calls the generality principle). Some will be more and some less redistributive, allowing federalism to answer the question of optimality.
Look, I voted for McCain… but let’s get up to speed on this stuff, huh? The Left has rejected both of these ideas because they don’t transfer enough power to the state. But that’s the point. The issue is statism.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:27 pm 58. Michael Lonie:Obama proposes to buy your votes with a paltry bribe, paid with money ripped from the pockets of a minority of your fellow citizens. Is that the way you see yourselves as citizens, selling your vote to the highest bidder? And what does that tell you about Obama and the Dems? They hold the American citizen in the utmost contempt, as osmeone who will vote as directed for the promise of a bribe. I find this insulting, myself.
You will be amazed at how many of you with quite modest annual incomes turn out to be among “the rich” that Obama and the Dems will tax into poverty.
Oct 28, 2008 - 7:44 pm 59. mtraven:Kimball has an amazing ability to combine wretched partisan hackery with intellectual pretentiousness. Dropping half-assed mentions of Nietzsche or Berkeley into your emissions doesn’t change their essentially worthless nature. Eternal return indeed — there’s nothing here but recycled wingnut talking points.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:11 pm 60. Donna V.:56. Steve: I’m a younger boomer, and so I personally am not a good guide to the ’60’s (I can tell you about the ’70’s). Here’s what writer Joe Queenan has to say about the Fab ’60’s in his book “Balsamic Dreams: A Short But Self-Important History of the Baby Boomer Generation” :
“Let’s get one thing straight about the ’60’s: It was not a simpler, more innocent time. It was a nightmare. Everyone hated each other. Everyone was shooting at one another. Civil war was in the air. The food was abysmal. There were race riots in every major city. Drugs ravaged the underclass. People got lynched. The only good thing about the ’60’s were the music and the fact that it wasn’t the ’70’s. But even rock ‘n’roll was problematic, since people were always getting stuck with worthless tickets because Jim had been arrested for whipping out his c*ck or Janis had overdosed or Jimi had gagged on his own vomit. I wouldn’t live through the ’60’s again if you paid me. Which is pretty amazing because Baby Boomers will do just about anything if you pay them.”
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:17 pm 61. nlcatter:REDLINING was going on
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:11 pm 62. noticer:NOT because of someone ability to pay loan payments
“… the IRS will be in the business of issuing as well as collecting checks, not just for refunds, as has been their practice, but as a means of redistributing your money to those that Obama thinks deserve it more.”
What do you mean when you say: will be.
The IRS already is in the business of cutting welfare checks. It has been the entire time that Republicans have had control. Republicans helped to put the IRS into the check-writing business. If John McCain wins, Republicans would keep the IRS in the business of writing checks to people who pay no taxes.
So … given this reality, which is better:
1) Lower checks by McCain
2) Larger checks by Obama
People are going to vote their interests, I suspect.
That’s the trouble with Republicans. They don’t want to stop the IRS writing checks to people who pay no taxes, they just want lower check amounts.
“Lower Rebates For You” is not a compelling electoral message.
Oct 29, 2008 - 3:44 am 63. raven:Whats all the talk about the 60’s? In my opinion, a more relevant date to keep in mind is 1933.
Oct 29, 2008 - 9:05 am 64. Some simply never learn. « Cmblake6’s Weblog:[...] Some simply never learn. 30 10 2008 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/28/obama-and-the-eternal-return/ [...]
Oct 29, 2008 - 5:59 pm 65. cmblake6:Right. I’ve just written a short post at mine, linking back to here. This was a superb article, worthy of MUCH deep thought!
Oct 29, 2008 - 5:59 pm 66. GayPatriot » Obama’s Pretense:[...] a more detailed piece, Roger Kimball finds “most depressing . . . is the extent to which [the whole Obama juggernaut] represents a return of bad…“ In listing the taxes Obama plans to raise, Kimball holds that “Obama plans to [...]
Oct 30, 2008 - 2:06 pm 67. Michel Zala:In our lifetime we haven’t seen a more disturbing example of what we call Demagogy. Saying to the people all the right things, while in fact pursuing an utterly different direction. If the people had in fact a source of unbiased information, if the people in fact knew, what this candidate in reality truly stands for, Obama would be 30 points behind and never in a million years be elected. The People are misled to such an ugly extent that we assume that this election may well be remembered in history as one of the biggest stealing of an election ever.
If the people in fact knew:
That Obama will raise taxes, directly and indirectly, hence their lives as well as the econmy will be drastically negatively impacted
That his plans in fact would hamper the drive towards independence from foreign oil, as opposed to getting there witin 10 years
That job generation in the US will be hampered by these tax hikes on businesses
that the deficit will worsen because of higher spending and a huge government talking into prettymuch any of our private affairs
that a full DEM controlled government will take us far to the left
that his presidency would make an already volatile world even more volatile
that under Obama we have a much higher chance for future military conflict
that in fact our defense forces will get weakened
that we would migrate towards a socialist system which has in Europe almost bancrupted many countries
The American People would never even consider this man to become our next President.
This is why I ask and implore you all to try to see through the cloud of marketing money, adverts and infomercials, the violins and sunsets, the tv evangelist hype. Don’t look at the promises, people, look at the small print. Obama is N O T pro drilling or business, economy. Obama will N O T lower taxes, but in fact inbcrease the burden on you. Obama can not hastily withdraw from IRAQ without endangering our way of life. Obama is N O T pro nuclear power. Under Obama we will N O T see new jobs and a recovery. Obama is N O T pro free Trade which has generated the most wealth worldwide. Obama is N O T for strengthening our forces. Obama can N O T change Washington, but will in fact make the pit deeper and nastier. Obama will in fact spend us into an abyss and will N O T pay down the debth.
Look at the facts. Consider the measures you take yourself, when finances get tight. The very same basic principles apply to the government and clearly Obama stands for the exact opposite – all you need to do is look at the meat, facts figures and evidence and forget the media, adverts and cloudy nonsense of a demagogue.
I implore you all to vote McCain , as the consequences for us all will be dire, if Obama is elected.
I still pray and hope that the American People are not stupid and vote substance over style.
To the Obamaniacs I ask only : What has Obama done to deserve your trust?
What leads you to believe his promises and speeches? His style or the actual track record? Don’t you see that all his promises are not supported by his actual record in terms of voting? That most of his promises (Taxes, Drilling, Energy or IRAQ) are misleading and thathe will do exactly the opposite?
If you forget for a moment all the talk – on what grounds, resume, personal history, track record, results, accomplishments, experience, qualifications do you base your decision upon to give the single most important job to someone who has not earned your trust the normal hard way? This is not a movie with a given happy ending. This is cold hard reality demanding amn unemotional hard assessment of the candidates.
Don’t you agree that we need a proven, tested leader now, not a president who may or may not be up to the task? Don’t you see that you gamble an entire country’s future upon someone nobody really knows, where he in fact stands?
This is not a time for gambling –
it is time for playing it safe.
God help us all.
Nov 3, 2008 - 2:42 pm