When the dollar is high Other Places seem very expensive. When the dollar is low Other Places seem very inexpensive.

as just the opposite.

There is surely a correlation between the “value” of the dollar and “economic wellbeing” but to my experience it doesn’t seem the correlation is particularly strong, or at least not anything approaching proportional. By that I mean that even though I have experienced a dollar worth twice as much of a particular foreign currency (or, conversely, half as much) I didn’t see economic conditions as twice as good or only half as good. My purchasing power was certainly not twice as much or half as much. I therefore make the knuckleheaded guess that there are other, probably more significant, factors at work.

You are obvuously not familar with the economic history of the 1980’s. The Dems made the same argument about the Reagan deficits and the dollar. Turns out that the dollar became stronger as inflation declined. In fact, there is absolutely no correlation between exchange rates and deficits. Check the economic literature.

I agree that if there’s to be a realignment, the core issue will come down to whether we embrace the big bad world that threatens to outsource US jobs and import foreign terror.

A secondary issue– which may became THE issue faster than we think– is what the nation’s dollar policy should be, or more precisely, how we can prevent the collapse of the dollar given spiralling entitlement spending and Bush’s deficits. A strong dollar requires lower deficits and market opening, especially in Asia, for US exports.

Here’s one vote for an unambiguous embrace of globalization. In the world to be of the world! Free trade! Engage the jihadists on their home turf! Strong Dollar! Thou shalt not crucify us on a cross of weak dollars!

The third party of the future (it would actually be incorporated into one of the two major parties) is the Libertarian/libertine based party. This (without the libertine element) was the original Democratic Party (the anti-Federalists). This party would advocate small government, isolationist foreign policy and modern libertarian notions of personal autonomy. The later is a new element introduced in the postmodern age. The original Anti-Federalists were quite conventional when it came to social norms.

The reason why the political system hasn’t moved in this direction is because the Democrats remain imprisoned in Socialist norms and values that absorbed in two phases from Debbs’ Socialist Party and Post McCarthyite Communist influence. The reason that the socialist oriented Democratic Party supports individual autonomy issues is that they undermine bourgeoisie institutions not out of any commitment to Gay, abortion and similar autonomy issues. One positive aspect of a catastrophic Democratic defeat is that it would give them an opportunity to recreate themselves for 21st Century issues. The Republican Party, as they are currently constituted, embodies the Federalist philosophy of Madison and Hamilton and therefore represents one of the two poles of historic American political views. However, if the Democrats either win or come close we will remain in a deadlock between 20th and 21st Century politics. And if the Democrats win big, we will be transformed into a stagnant and ultimately dieing 20th Century Eurosocialist society.

–W.B. Yeats

Opportunidad Para Todos!

a) cosmopolitan fiscal conservatives on the coasts, Chicago and high-tech centers like Austin and Denver-Boulder;

b) religious blue-collar types in the upper Midwest, Great Lakes and the South who favor more government protection for the little guy.

The Dems’ social agenda appeals to a); the Republicans’ social agenda to b). The Repubs’ economic agenda appeals to a); the Dems’ economic agenda appeals to b).

Clinton’s triangulation strategy appealed to the fiscal conservatives. Rove’s strategy is to pander to the blue-collar types with some protectionist gestures, increases in Medicare etc.

Maybe it’s too early to tell, but it seems neither of these approaches has made large inroads on party registration patterns. So here’s a proposal for a long-term winning strategy:

Given that increased trade and services are creating many more new economy than old economy jobs, AND that the largest minority group will soon be Latinos, the vast majority of whom are from Mexico and therefore solidly behind NAFTA, one would expect the pro-free trade and pro-fiscal conservatism votes to increase faster than the anti-free trade and protectionist votes.

Especially so in states with a high concentration of economic cosmopolitans and Mexican immigrants. A version of the Republican party that downplayed religiosity, or one of the Democratic Party that was solidly free trade and fiscally conservative in best Rubin-Clinton fashion, would sweep elections in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado and be very competitive in the Northeast and Northwest. It might even win, if it were clever, across Texas and Florida.

CA, CO, NM, AZ + TX FL and 6-7 New England and PacNW states would = about 140 electoral votes.

If it could win NJ, most of the mountain states and some yuppifying, increasingly-high tech sunbelt states like GA, NV and NC, we’d have a nationally competitive party.

Any takers?

The big leap that immigrants made to become “American” was largely an intellectual one. They had to be willing to leave everything on the bet that the “grass is greener”. Once they placed the bet they had to help sell the concept.

All the physical “did stuff” parts were dictated by their situations. They were miserable where they were or were chased away in some fashion or other and then had to make it or not by their own efforts. This would have been required no matter what the system they arrived at. The US could have been anything moving in any direction and they would still have come here because they couldn’t stay where they were.

The truly remarkable thing about the Great Experiment is that so many millions arrived, suffered the pains, and looked around and said, “Hey, I’m in. Let’s get to work making this work.”

I am trying to put my finger on what precisely that spirit is. All of the above, but I think another thing is simply physical action. People did things. The action was not intellectual, but physical. None of this arguing of ideas as an end in itself. It brought out a sense of living as opposed to existing.

Along the same lines, it strikes me that the Left has become morbidly pessimistic. There is always something wrong, our leaders are corrupt, our businesses exploitive, our morals reactionary; we are bad people and should simply stay still to avoid damaging others. WTF? This should motivate me to vote for these folks?