Daniel Ruwe's blog

Crossposted at Right Minds

Next Tuesday, Barack Obama will replace George Bush as president of the United States. Not surprisingly, given Bush’s approval ratings and Obama’s pop culture status, there is a lot of anticipation for the inauguration.

Many people are as eager to see Bush out as they are to see Obama in. Bush is not very popular, and has made his share of serious mistakes. And he’s not a very good communicator. Still, the hatred and disgust directed towards him by so many people is baffling. Bush might not have been a great president—but he is nowhere near the worst president in American history, as many firmly believe. (At least, so far. It takes at least two decades, and probably more, to get the full measure of a presidency).

Bush’s greatest failure is perceived to be the Iraq War. The wisdom of going into Iraq is certainly debatable—Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and even if he had he simply wasn’t a real threat to America. And Bush mishandled the war—he stuck to his original strategy long after it was clear to nearly everyone else that is wasn’t working. The Iraq War, even if our present success in Iraq continues, will probably be seen as a mistake by future generations.

But not that big a mistake; certainly not large enough to tar a president with the “worst ever” label. The truth is that the Iraq War simply wasn’t that big or important a war. Four thousand American troops have died over nearly seven years. During the Vietnam War, that many men could be lost in a month. And had Bush not embraced the surge and America was forced to withdraw in defeat, the consequences would have been unpleasant (it would have emboldened Muslims around the world), but not that unpleasant—the vast majority of Americans would never have been touched by them. The Iraq War was, perhaps, a mistake—but a relatively minor one.

Another criticism of Bush that is supposed to relegate him to lower echelon of presidents is the alleged loss of U.S. standing around the globe. (Obama is supposed to be the cure for this). It’s true; the U.S. has lost prestige—except in France, which now has a pro-American Prime Minister, and England, whose Prime Minister supported (and supports) the Iraq War (and while Gordon Brown is unpopular, David Cameron, who is probably be the next PM, also supports the Iraq War), and Germany, with pro-American Angela Merkel, and Israel, Kuwait, and Albania, where they love Bush and America, and…really, most of the world doesn’t seem to have much animosity towards America. That seems to be one of those memes which occasionally rise without any real backing in truth.

If one is looking for the worst presidents in American history, it would be wise to look at other presidents than Bush. James Buchanan, for example, did nothing as the Confederate states seceded from the Union, making Abraham Lincoln’s task of fighting the Civil War much harder. Ulysses S. Grant’s Administration was plagued with corruption, and mishandled Reconstruction far worse than Bush mishandled the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussien. Warren Harding’s administration was woefully corrupt, and Harding was dreadfully incompetent. Franklin Roosevelt’s policies may have (actually, it would probably be safe to assert they did) lengthen the Great Depression, and it was only the fortuitous (at least for Roosevelt’s legacy) outbreak of World War II that saved him from being remembered as a disaster. Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and bore responsibility for tens of thousands of American dead. Richard Nixon was a lying crook. Jimmy Carter’s domestic and foreign policies were failures. But since George Bush botched some penny-ante war in the Middle East, he’s one of our worst presidents? To say so is simply politically and historically illiterate.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Sarah Palin is firmly fixed in the minds of millions of Americans as a mindless bimbo. George Bush is supposed to be a helpless idiot. Dick Cheney is Darth Vader; John McCain a dangerous hyperconservative. Republican voters are supposed to be either mouthbreathing, probably racist rednecks or wealthy plutocrats.

These images are so prevalent mostly because of pop culture—Sarah Palin’s “bimbo” status was confirmed by Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impressions, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher push the “Bush is an idiot” meme, and Hollywood almost invariably portrays conservatives unfavorably, while portraying liberals as intelligent and good.

Many, perhaps most, of our opinionmakers see the world the way Hollywood, SNL, et al. see it—conservatives are unsophisticated philistines, while liberals are cultured, with-it bright lights. And this meme spreads—around the globe, and throughout much of America, liberals are considered the good, smart guys, while conservatives are greedy, dumb yokels. It is difficult for many to even imagine that it could be the other way around.

Actually, the liberal view of conservatives is correct, or largely correct. Palin may not be a “bimbo”, but she certainly wasn’t ready (or didn’t appear ready, and appearances were all we had to go on) for the vice presidency. Bush might not be an idiot; Cheney might not be an evil overlord—but they seem to do their best to perpetuate those impressions. And many, many Republicans are mouthbreathing philistines, who are suspicious of learning, join stupid causes, and have little interest in anything that seems to challenge their beliefs.

So liberals are right about conservatives, or at least a fair proportion of them. But they overlook another point—liberals are, as a group, every bit as closed-minded, gullible, and in their own way, provincial as conservatives are.

Most conservatives don’t believe in evolution. Stupid. But most (or at least very many) liberals are firmly convinced that socialism (real socialism, not the watered down kind they have in Europe) has something to teach us; many look at Fidel Castro’s Cuba as something of a noble experiment. Many even have mixed feelings about the Soviet Union—it is difficult to find a liberal who is willing to admit that it was an evil, expansionist empire that threatened Western civilization.

Or to take another example: white guilt. In spite of the fact that institutionalized racism has been dead for nearly half a century, and that millions of welfare dollars have been spent on improving black communities (money, by the way, that I would not grudge, except that it has been mostly ineffective), and that any black who feels discriminated against can sue, virtually all liberals carry a crushing burden of guilt for crimes that they did not commit, and that ended a long time ago. In fact, I’ve had a professor explain that she didn’t identify as white because of white oppression of African-Americans. (Which is, when you think about it, a bit hard on whites with ancestry different from Angelo-Saxon. Polish-Americans, for example, weren’t into racism much).

Between these two ideas (and many others), I think that it is fair to say that liberals display critical thinking skills as poor as those found in any conservative. The Left is just as stupid as the Right—just in a different way.

Liberals pride themselves on their sophistication compared to conservatives. They shouldn’t. Jon Stewart’s job isn’t any different that Rush Limbaugh’s, and his methods aren’t any more cultured. (In fact, I think it safe to say that his act is a bit more juvenile than that found on conservative talk radio). Stewart is considered a Swiftian satirist because he is on the Left; were he a conservative, he would be a racist rabblerouser. Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow aren’t any more intelligent or balanced than their conservative counterparts—liberals only think so because they happen to be liberal. (Of course, the opposite phenomenon can be seen in conservatives; for them, Rush is genius, Olbermann an idiot).

If conservatives are closed-minded idiots, liberals are too—only in a different way. Both sides are rife with stupid theories, appalling gullibility, and absolute closed-mindedness. It simply takes different forms in the competing ideologies.  

Daniel is right about this.  Gimmicks are not good policy; they are tactics.  There may be a time for some tactical gimmicks, but now is not that time.  This is more evidence that Republicans lack any coherent political strategy, so they've been forced to fall back upon tactics.  And as Sun Tzu said, "tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Jon Henke

Crossposted at Right Minds

The economic crisis has brought out the worst in quite a lot of pundits, both Left and Right. Many liberals think that the country needs a two trillion dollar plus bailout, and that Wall Street is fundamentally evil and to blame for this whole mess. Some, such as Michael Moore, even go so far as to advocate full-blown socialism. 

Unfortunately, conservatives are not in a position to criticize, as some of their ideas are every bit as nutty as the very stupidest things the liberals can come up with.

In a December 14 column, Jeff Jacoby proposed completely eliminating all federal taxes for two months—Social Security taxes, income taxes, everything. This scheme caught on—Sean Hannity, Next Gingrich, and Mike Pence, among others, all immediately jumped on board. This plan has become very popular among conservatives.

That’s too bad, because it wouldn’t work. First, the economic irresponsibly of this plan is incredible. The federal budget’s deficit for 2008 is already well over a trillion dollars. Can the government afford to lose a whole sixth of its annual income? Unless the government cuts spending by a sixth (it won’t), the cost of this proposal will only be put off till later. And even if we assume that the plan would stimulate the economy in the short term, it would mean a much higher price in the long run.

Republicans claim to be about fiscal responsibility. Losing a sixth of the nation’s budget (when it is already hard up for money) does not fit that definition.

Anyway, a tax holiday wouldn’t work anyway, for the same reason that stimulus checks don’t. People don’t base their spending habits on the money they have—they base them on the money they are likely to have in the future. So even if Washington did declare a tax holiday, it wouldn’t result in a cornucopia of private spending; instead, consumers would just hoard money for hard times.

Conservatives often complain about unfavorable media coverage portraying them as stupid and economically illiterate. Here’s a suggestion—maybe conservatives should look and see if the media is right. Much of the conservative movement favors an economic plan that is stupid and impractical and wouldn’t work. That doesn’t inspire confidence.

True, the ideas liberals have for the economy aren’t much better. But then, “our ideas might be bad but their plan is even worse” isn’t much of an economic policy.

Crossposted at Right Minds

Stephen Moore recently wrote a Wall Street Journal column comparing our current economic situation to the one described in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Moore writes that “[t]he current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged… [A]s "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls." This article was quite popular in the conservative blogosphere, and echoed what many conservatives feel about the economic condition.

My feelings about Atlas Shrugged are mixed—I hate the book, and consider it a literary enormity advocating an evil and stupid philosophy. Frankly, I can’t imagine how anyone could admire, or even finish, the book. But evidently there are people who can do both, and many people I admire, such as Rush Limbaugh, Charles Murray, and Clarence Thomas, are among then. So, evidently, the book has some value, though I can’t see it.

But whether or not Atlas Shrugged is worth reading, it is not a fifty-year-old prophecy for the present day. What is happening now is not very desirable—but it’s not socialism either. It is something quite different.

Actually, anyone who seriously thinks that what the federal government is doing right now is really socialism shows how little they understand of socialism. According to Wikipedia, socialism is “a set of economic theories advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth.” The federal government is not guilty of any of these things.

There is no government takeover of production, nor of distribution. There is no “egalitarian distribution of wealth” (or at least no more than usual); on the contrary, President-elect Obama is pushing for tax cuts. So most of the conditions for socialism aren’t even close to being met here.

And more importantly, true socialism can be (very) broadly defined as government taking over business. But here, it’s the opposite (or at least very close to it)—business is taking over government.

For years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated under the certain assumption that the federal government would bail them out if necessary, and they were right. All the banks and insurance companies that were bailed out simply asked Washington for the cash—there were few conditions placed upon the money. Even when the federal government partially nationalized nine of the country’s largest banks, the “nationalization” took the form of a massive cash infusion, more a gift than a seizure of assets.

When GM and Chrysler needed money, they jumped aboard the bailout gravy train. Did the government take over these corporations? Did it give them money with strings attached? Did it set rules for the companies to follow? No, it did none of these things. Instead, it forked over thirteen billion dollars essentially unconditionally, even though neither company changed its business habits in the least.

The federal government isn’t taking over private enterprise—if anything, the opposite is true. Big business is taking over, or at least looting, government. The federal government has spent around eight trillion on various bailouts, most of which inject money directly into failing companies. That isn’t socialism.

Of course, just because it isn’t socialism doesn’t mean that it’s desirable. The merger of government and corporations is usually called fascism, but true fascism usually gives the state more influence. (It’s hard to imagine Mussolini, or Franco, simply giving half of their countries GDP to corporations. They would almost certainly demand something in return). A better name, perhaps, would be corporatism, where the government is influenced by large interest groups.  

In Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas represents business, and the book revolves around the ways that business leaders fight against socialism. (If that makes the book sound interesting, it isn’t). But in America in 2009, Atlas isn’t shrugging off socialism’s chains—on the contrary, he’s using them to help support his burden.

Corporatism is no better than socialism, but it is different. (Biggest difference: socialism tries to bolster equality, corporatism tries to help the rich). It might not be much comfort to know that the federal government is embracing corporatism instead of socialism—but it is, I think, important to know the difference.   

Crossposted at Right Minds

Demographic experts predict that by 2043, white people will no longer be a majority in America. (Although they will still be the largest racial segment of the population). The reaction to that fact depends, as with most things, on who you talk to—some, (though not all) conservatives seem to feel as though this is a bad thing, while many (though not all) liberals think that, if anything, this is a positive development, with lots of opportunities for diversity.

The perils of a non white majority America are overblown—Irish, Italians, and Chinese are quite different racially and culturally from the Anglo-Saxon men who originally settled America, but they assimilated, and with the possible (and unfair) exception of the Chinese, now make up a great deal of American culture. In fact, of all the immigrant groups to have come to America, African-Americans are the only one not to have assimilated fully into mainstream culture, and it is possible, even probable, that they would have had it not been for Reconstruction.

Irish and Italians (and others) were, when they first emigrated from the Old World, considered not quite equal to the good patriotic WASPs—after all, they had a different religion, and different language, and different customs. The fear that they wouldn’t assimilate with mainstream America and form their own country within a country was very real.

But, of course, it didn’t happen. All the immigrant groups who have come to the United States so far have assimilated quite well. There is no reason to think that it will be different for immigrants who come here today.

In fact, given the ubiquity of American pop culture around the world, assimilating is even easier. In times past, first-generation immigrants were utterly ignorant of America culture. Now, rice farmers from Thailand idolize Britney Spears. In the past, people came to America ignorant of the culture but wanting the economic opportunity. Now they come for both the culture and the money.

What would a non-white majority America look like? Probably not much different from the way it does now. Hispanics and Indians would probably have become more or less accepted as white, pop culture will probably look much the same, but with a some Mexican and Asian influences, and our Judeo-Christian value system will probably look pretty similar to what we have today. (In fact, it would probably be more conservative if anything, given Mexico’s Catholicism).

The liberal view of immigration, simplified, suggests that immigrants shouldn’t try to assimilate and should keep their original national identity and culture. That hasn’t seemed to have caught on very well among most immigrants—it’s all very well to have an unsullied culture, but it’s not (unless you happen to own an ethnic restaurant) very lucrative. It is mostly white intellectuals who seem to favor this strategy (as opposed to actual immigrants) and it’s hard to see it catching on.

Liberals might mean well, but the one way to guarantee complete white control over America is to discard the melting pot. Even if non-whites outnumber whites, that would only mean a nation in which a large, wealthy elite race controls the government and businesses, while the other races get the scraps. If the liberal vision of a “diverse” America ever comes to pass, it won’t be what they expect it to be.

But in the mean time, there is little to worry about. Our current immigration wave will assimilate, our culture will remain intact (if subtly altered), and our society will look much the same. And when (and if, considering the inherent unreliability of demographic predictions) America no longer has a white majority, America will still be America, and stronger for the new blood.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Right now, Israel is sending ground forces into Gaza in an attempt to root out Hamas. It probably won’t—Hamas is fairly popular in Palestine, and any Israeli collateral damage will serve as a Hamas recruiting tool. (Hamas deserves the blame for the collateral damage—they deliberately position key military centers near civilians, but I doubt that many Palestinians will bother to work that out). But it could cripple Hamas’ guerrilla capabilities, and will ensure that Hamas and Hezbollah realize that they cannot attack Israel without some very unpleasant reprisals. So it’s a good plan. Except in the minds of most liberals. For some inexplicable reason, nearly all of the Left is solidly opposed to any attempt by Israel to defend itself. The Left doesn’t like war, but this is ridiculous. It’s hard to find another conflict with such black and white, good versus evil opponents. Yet liberals almost universally oppose Israel’s war. First, it is worth pointing out that Israel rightfully belongs to the Israelis. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire; when it broke up, Great Britain took over. In 1922, the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” in Palestine. Securing the establishment took a while, what with conflicts with Arab natives of Palestine, and Israel was not created until 1948 with the expiration of the British Mandate. But the land comprising Israel was the property of the Ottomans, then the British—it is not as if conniving Jews stole the land from innocent indigenous Arabs. So if Israel has a right to exist, and is a sovereign country, why isn’t its offensive against Hamas acceptable due to its right to defend itself?  Because Israel’s response to savage, unjustified Palestinian terrorism is “disproportionate.” “Disproportionate,” in this context, can mean anything. It isn’t possible to set a value on human life, and calculating the number of Palestinians Israelis are allowed to kill in retaliation for Islamic terrorism is just stupid. But that doesn’t stop liberals from trying—they reason that since about 500 residents of Gaza have died in the fighting, then Israel (which has lost a measly nine people to Hamas) is acting inappropriately. Okay, 500 to 9 does look a bit uneven. But when one considers that Hamas’ kills are due to deliberate targeting of civilians, and that it would be much higher (Hamas has fired over 500 rockets into Israel over the last two years) if Hamas wasn’t so bad at fighting, and that all of Israel’s collateral damage is unintentional and it attacks only military targets, that number doesn’t look quite so lopsided. And when one considers that Hamas positions military targets among civilians, Israel’s response starts to look downright restrained. Some collateral damage is inevitable in a war, no matter how well planned. Hamas’ human shield strategy is designed to maximize civilian deaths—for every military base hit, Hamas gets a PR coup. In order to protect itself, Israel must kill innocent civilians put in its way by Hamas. But the moral responsibly for those deaths should go to Hamas, not Israel. What is really disproportionate is the response to Israel’s war against terror. According to Wikipedia (which may not be totally accurate but is probably in the right ballpark) over 4200 Palestinians were killed during the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from 2000 to 2006. Over seven thousand people died last year in a civil war in Somalia no one cares about. Even if we assume that Israel’s strikes against Hamas represents a totally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate response to years of attacks, aren’t there more pressing issues in the world? In addition to Somalia’s neglected civil war, there are the massacres in Darfur, China’s routine human rights abuses, and the rampant caste discrimination in India, all of which touch far more innocent people than the squabbles over the Holy Land ever could. Worrying about Israel’s use of force is unnecessary (since Israel is justified in attacking Palestine), and stupid, since there are so many other places that could actually use the concern.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

The Berlin Wall came down in 1989. The USSR broke up in 1991. The Cold War has been over for seventeen years. The US military no longer sees Russia as its chief enemy; the concept of the Second World (the Soviet bloc) is obsolete, and the old diplomacy is dead. The Cold War is over for everyone—except the Democrat and Republican parties.

Both parties foreign policies were forged in the heat of the Cold War, and both made their differing foreign policies the centerpieces of their respective platforms. Then the Cold War ended. But both parties liked their platforms the way there were, and didn’t see any need to change. So now both parties feature foreign policy philosophies that are outdated and a bit ridiculous.

The Right was always implacably opposed to Communism, and recognized it as a existential threat to Liberalism (capital L, of course; the Liberalism of the Enlightenment). They favored an aggressive treatment in an attempt to stamp out Communism wherever it was found; hence an aggressive foreign policy against any nation that looked likely to turn Communist.

When the Cold War ended, conservatives still felt hawkish but didn’t know whom to be hawkish towards. And they started seeing any foreign adversary of America, no matter how insignificant, as a deadly threat to the American way of life.

This is how Saddam Hussein, who in retrospect seems a relatively harmless (at least to us) tyrant, became a frightening menace to America, and why conservatives seek to paint Islamic extremists as a truly existential threat to the West. In reality, Islam is no match for the West, even if it gave them a free hand—Osama bin Laden is the only Islamic leader to have actually done any significant damage, and suicide bombings are simply not an effective way of gaining power. Neither are protests—Europe might give in for a while—but once Muslims start demanding things Europeans want for themselves, suddenly their protests won’t be as effective. It’s almost impossible to see a plausible way that Islam could topple Western culture, and impossible to imagine it defeating the United States.

The Right is probably guilty of creating a paper tiger of Islamic fundamentalism. The Left is guilty of doing its best to make that paper tiger real.

During the Cold War, the Left saw Communism as something of a kindred ideology; far too extreme, but still something that could be reasoned with. That is one reason the Left opposed Vietnam—not so much because it was an unnecessary and strategically stupid war poorly handled (though that was a reason, and perhaps a good one), but because any war against Communism was ipso facto a bad idea. It would be unfair to say that liberals wanted the Communists to win—but they didn’t much want them to lose either.

And when the Cold War ended, they brought that same pacifistic fervor to the post-War world. For liberals, there were very few good reasons to fight a war, and advancing American foreign policy wasn’t one of them (on most occasions). They viewed every foreign conflict with deep suspicion, even though the U.S. was usually (it may even be safe to say always) fighting dangerous dictators who were, apart from any threat they may have presented to the U.S., had it coming.

So now the Left tries to excuse any crimes committed by radical Muslims, and opposes harsh confrontations with Islamic nations. Liberalism (small l) and radical Islam have nothing in common, leaving liberals defending an ideology that they can’t rationally defend. Most of the Left’s sympathy for radical Islam, I suggest, is borne out of an instinctive sympathy for those on the receiving end of American power.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Some random thoughts…

There are a lot of people predicting a long reign of Democrat dominance due to Republican incompetence and corruption. According to this theory, the GOP will become like the Democrats of 2004 and face a long period in the political wilderness. (Of course, the Democrat party rallied quite well after 2004).

They’re wrong, and Rod Blagovich is a perfect example of the reason why. Power corrupts, and the party in power has many more opportunities for corruption. (As well as more members in positions of power). Democrats are just as susceptible to corruption as Republicans are—and controlling the government will give them ample opportunity to prove it.

An essential part, apparently, of any year in review column is a reference to the incredible inspiration to be found in Barack Obama’s election. Maybe it is, for Democrats and people who voted for him, but he hasn’t actually done anything useful yet (he couldn’t; he hasn’t had the opportunity), and his election proves only that a handsome, eloquent man with good media skills can be elected president, which isn’t exactly a transcendental notion. Another essential year in review feature—a mention of Sarah Palin’s foolishness. Like someone who went from being a member of the Wasilla school board to a near Vice President could possibly be a bit lacking upstairs.

Another Palin point—Democrats hate and fear her every bit as much as Republicans hate and fear Hillary. I was talking to some very reasonable and sensible Democrats recently. We found common ground on most issues—until I mentioned that I thought Sarah Palin represented the future of the Republican party. They shuddered at the idea in a way that I had previously only seen during the climax of exceptionally scary horror movies.

Of course, if Palin is the future of the Republican party, that isn’t necessarily a good thing. She has a very annoying populist, Joe Sixpack-wannabe streak which sometimes seems to discount the advantages of education and learning. The intelligentsia don’t have all the answers—but they do have valuable knowledge. Palin is throwing the baby out with the bathwater—the fact that intellectual elites are often wrong doesn’t mean that a simple populist appeal is right.

Some in the RNC are proposing having the Committee publically condemn the bailouts of the economy. A nice thought—but isn’t saying, in effect, that about half the Republican party aren’t “true” Republicans a bit counterproductive? After all, the GOP can’t run only wholly conservative candidates for all offices.

Israel seems to be the only state in the world that doesn’t have the right to defend itself, at least according to many leftists. A whole book, or at least a whole blog post, could be written about this phenomenon, but one point seems especially obvious. Assume for a moment that Israel is what its detractors say it is—a bullying nation with a disproportionate response to any provocation by its enemies. Is that really the biggest problem that faces the world? By any rational measure, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of the anti-Israel part of the Arab world are nasty, violent thugs, and dishonest ones to boot, given that they break nearly every treaty and agreement made. Given the plight of so many totalitarian ruled African countries, China’s and Russia’s civil rights violations, and the social injustice found in India, is there anything Israel could possibly do that could compare?

Happy New Year, everyone!!! 

Crossposted at Right Minds

As the year 2008 draws to a close, many are predicting dire things for the years ahead. This line of thought sees this decade as the final period of American hegemony, and as the end of the world as we know it. The American financial system will collapse, the environment will finally get its revenge for years of abuse, and American military dominance will end. Basically, many believe that America faces a Soviet Union-style bust, in which the U.S. loses its superpower status. Granted, the Soviet Union lost a great deal more than its superpower status, but the idea is the same—in a few decades, America’s role in the world will be fundamentally changed.

Things really don’t look good in the short term. The U.S. faces a recession, and probably a long and difficult one. The job market looks bleak, and much of the American auto industry is, in its present form, ruined. Barack Obama’s best hope for recovery is a massive stimulus package, and if it doesn’t work, and it probably won’t because stimulus packages rarely do, then the road to recovery will be very difficult.

So the short-term doesn’t look good. But the long-term looks, if not good, at least not bad. John McCain was right—the fundamentals—the deepest fundamentals—of our economy, and of our country, are still strong. (Although I doubt that McCain carefully considered the health of America’s economic essentials before making that statement; rather, it was probably an attempt at Churchillian confidence that backfired). 

Before considering the economy, it’s worth disposing of the idea that climate change will ravage the world, at least in the short term. It’s easy to think of awful natural disasters—Katrina, Gustav, California wildfires, drought, blizzards, and tempting to try to explain them away by citing global warming. (If they are caused by global warming, at least we can do something). Maybe they are, to some degree, but the real reason for the devastation probably lies in the fact that our fastest-growing population centers are locating squarely in prime natural disaster zones. Florida (hurricanes), the Southwest (drought), and California (earthquakes and wildfires) have growing populations; North Dakota and Wyoming do not. But if the situations were reversed, the devastation caused by natural disasters would be much less.

The economy looks much more dire than the environment—after all, natural disasters usually happen to someone else, but a bad economy affects everybody. But while the short-term economy will be rocky, it doesn’t look that bad in the long term. Is doesn’t look particularly good either, but there’s no reason to think that America will lose its status as the world’s preeminent economy.

For one thing, who would replace it? China? Their economy is based, in large part, on making stuff for the United States and Europe. And if demand from the United States ceases, where will they sell their products? The Chinese economy is linked to America’s—if we collapse, so do they.

India? It faces the same obstacles as China, except India must also deal with an unfriendly Pakistan, and social unrest.

Europe? It can’t even reproduce itself, and faces massive unemployment and incredible public debt.

The United States has four percent of the world’s population. It consumes 25 percent of the world’s resources. And the world had better hope it keeps doing so, or the world economy will collapse from lack of demand. For better or worse, the United States still controls the destiny of the world economy, and probably will for the foreseeable future.

Two years ago, the U.S. economy was booming with no end in sight. Now it’s not. Such swings are part of free-market capitalism. There is no reason to think that the U.S. can’t recover from this recession.

Armageddon is not near. The economy will recover (probably; nothing is certain in economics), and we will continue to recover from natural disasters. There will, of course, come a time when the American hegemony will fall—but there is nothing to suggest that this is that time.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

On January 9, the 168 RNC members will select the next chairman of the Republican National Committee. It is pretty much universally acknowledged that the Republican party must go in a new direction—the fact that the GOP has fared poorly in the last two elections confirms that notion.  

So it’s a surprise to see that current chairman, Mike Duncan, is running for reelection, and by many accounts even has a decent shot of winning. Duncan wasn’t a total disaster as chairman—but the fact that he has even a prayer of winning reelection is an example of much of what is wrong with the Republican party. His performance as chairman has been nowhere near good enough to justify giving him another term.  

First, the good about Duncan’s tenure: he raised a lot of money. The RNC consistently outraised the DNC, by significant margins. Raising money is one of the RNC’s most important goals, and Duncan deserves credit here.  

Now the bad: during Duncan’s time as chairman, the Republicans were crushed in a disastrous presidential election. In fairness, Duncan didn’t start with a very good hand—the Republican party faced historically low approval ratings, and John McCain wasn’t particularly good as the national face of the party.

But Duncan played his poor hand badly. The Democrat campaign was much more technologically savvy—it used the Internet, networking, and IT to mobilize volunteers. The Republican strategy was much less advanced, and depended on outdated and ineffective (at least compared to the Democrats) techniques.  

Liberals don’t like Republicans because they feel they are out of touch with the country. Many conservatives are angry with the GOP because they feel that the party has abandoned its conservative principles. Duncan didn’t really address either problem—the party elite remained rich white men, while the party’s principles were the kind of watered-down, unconservative principles that angered so much of the base.

As noted, Duncan was not put in a very good situation. But he failed to make anything of his situation, the party is still weak, and needs new leadership.  

There are, fortunately, plenty of strong candidates. Chip Saltsman did an excellent job of catapulting Mike Huckabee into the national spotlight. Saul Azunis did good work in Michigan as head of the Republican party there. And Katon Dawson exhibited competence in South Carolina.

But two of the strongest RNC chair candidates are Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele, two men with strikingly similar political histories. Both spent time as high-ranking state officials (Blackwell was Ohio’s Secretary of State, Steele was Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor), who ran excellent campaigns for higher office (governor and Senator, respectively) but lost in the 2006 Democratic landslide. Both men are telegenic and smart, have good organizational skills, and have strong opinions about the future of the party. And, of course, both men are black, and while that has no bearing on their competence, it does have some symbolic meaning.

Both men have gotten some impressive endorsements—Blackwell was endorsed by Steve Forbes (who, come to think of it, endorsed Rudy Giuliani in the primaries, so his endorsements haven’t always panned out), while Steele got William Bennett. Both men recognize that the party needs a new direction, and either would be a far better choice for RNC chairman than Mike Duncan.

For the record, I would be more than happy with either candidate. I have liked Steele for years, and Blackwell is a very smart guy who happens to come from my state of Ohio. Either would make a very good chairman, and I would whole-heartedly support either one.