StephenKMackSD's Blog

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Can it last? That is the salient question that begs to asked of the latest political crush of Cockeyed Platonist (CP)? Does it have the staying power of true,lasting political fidelity,or will someone come between them? Donald Trump or Michelle Bachmann or even the sedate and respectable Mitch Daniels? The dictates of political pragmatism being his singular guide.The answer awaits the passage of time in The American Political Melodrama. But let us carefully consider a more pressing issue, the seriousness of the Mr. Ryan's budget proposal and the 'courage' and 'initiative' that accompanied its birth, as argued by our thinker. But a more burning question obtrudes itself into this essential debate: CP cannot resist making this about morality rather that politics i.e.'This is an immoral imposition on future generations.' This in a passage on the lifetime contributions of an average working couple: Medicare contributions of $140,000 contrasted with $430,000 of benefits. But a question arises in my mind, as to the interest paid on these lifetime contributions and the totality of all contributions in the aggregate, and the potential for accrual interest,or is this a question of the economic naif? And then in any discussion of Medicare and cost control come the question of 'The Death Panels' no matter how seemingly high minded the rhetorical frame: this a perennial Right Wing shibboleth. For a critique of Mr. Ryan's budget, as to its seriousness and viability, one need turn to Mr. Paul Krugman, in the New York Times, for a cogent,unsparing evaluation. Paul Ryan is CP's political man of the moment, of course, subject to the vagaries of his political sensibility.
As for Mr. Ryan moving us off 'Unreality Island': like most of his fellow Conservative Thinkers and some Liberal Thinkers, CP has yet to even acknowledge the utter failure of the myth of 'The Self-regulating Free Market',in practice, as the cause of the Economic Collapse of 2008. The repeal of Depression Era economic reform legislation was the reason for our current economic crisis and the propagation of the Myth of Austerity as the inescapable answer to that crisis. It is not the political romanticism masquerading as 'Economic Theory'  of Friedman or Hayek, that will dominate this political moment in American life, but the actuality of the effectiveness of Keynesian thought and practice, even in modified form.                     

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-haze-of-humanitarian-imperialism/2011/04/05/AF5EbPrC_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

From his eyrie on a lower elevation of Mount Olympus, looking from his position in terms of distance and ethical/political superiority, The Great Will (TGW) pronounces on subjects of concern. His missive today is titled ‘The haze of humanitarian imperialism’. It seems that TGW has developed a political scruple about Humanitarian Imperialism, in contrast to the bold, ruthless, unapologetic Imperialism of the Bush Restoration. Is it the Humanitarianism that is the crux of his vexation? Certainly the invasion, devastation and brutality of the Iraq invasion or it’s precursor in Afghanistan remain in an intellectual/moral limbo, in this argument against the Libyan intervention? He has perhaps channeled the political/ethical and rhetorical spirit of Orwell, if only as a convenience, of this historical moment. But he does sound a note of caution in regards the words ‘rebels’ and ‘insurgents’ and their meanings in the world of political actualities, surely as cautionary? His use of literary and musical references is his homage to his own cultural breadth. A number of prominent American politicians are the subject of his ire: John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and John McCain and of course, the political weakness of President Obama is of utmost and perennial concern. And a comparison with Jimmy Carter’s ineffectual Iran Mission is telling, but probably of interest only to an ideologue like himself , as argumentative fuel to stoke his low burning fire, in fact, it might even be embers. The last paragraph is a quotation from Calvin Coolidge properly and ideologically garnished for the occasion:

 ‘As Calvin Coolidge, who knew his depth, was leaving the presidency in March 1929, he said, “Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.” Before an administration can do that, it must define its responsibilities and competence with sufficient modesty to acknowledge that some things are not its business.’

Calvin Coolidge left office in March 1929 and on October 29,1929, Black Tuesday occurred ,ushering in The Great Depression. Perhaps President Coolidge should have minded the people’s business!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-ryans-leap-a-rush-of-deficit-demagoguery/2011/04/07/AFUfOXxC_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

Here is The Good Doctor (TGD) attacking  ‘deficit demagoguery’ in defense of the dubious economics of Representative Paul Ryan.  By the accounts of other Conservative thinkers, Cockeyed Platonist and The Great Will, Ryan is the seminal economic thinker and planner of 21^st Century America and the next and future leader of 2012: the man to beat the timid New Democrat presently occupying the White House. But Paul Krugman finds him to be a bit of the usual Conservative economic humbug. TGD mentions in the defense of Ryan’s budget proposal, the welfare reform of President Clinton 1996, but perhaps some more recent statistics would be beneficial as regards childhood poverty in America. Below is a link to a July 2010 article that is revelatory of the actual condition of poor children. But let me first quote from the article:

‘How many children in America live in poverty? It's an important question. According to the federal government, 14 million children in the United States officially live in poverty. That's 19 percent of all children, and what's worse, that number has been on the rise. There are 2.5 million more children living in poverty in America now than in 2000.’

http://news.change.org/stories/the-shocking-statistics-on-child-poverty

Do we need any further exacerbation of the problem, or any inexcusable apologetics for the state of some of our children, and their dire prospects for the future? Or that the ‘Welfare Reform’ of 1996 was pure New Democratic mendacity.  

TGD goes on to defend Mr. Ryan’s plan as ‘classic tax reform’, while others seem absolutely doubtful as to the believability of  his proposal, except as a charade, as pantomime economics, engaged in by a desperate, leaderless Party playing on the real fears of voters: a continuing Republican political trope. The last couple of paragraphs of his essay are worth quoting in full:

‘Ryan’s overall plan tilts at every windmill imaginable, including corporate welfare and agricultural subsidies. The only thing left out is Social Security. Which proves only that Ryan is not completely suicidal.

But the blueprint is brave and profoundly forward-looking. It seeks nothing less than to adapt the currently unsustainable welfare state to the demographic realities of the 21st century. Will it survive the inevitable barrage of mindless, election-driven, 30-second attack ads (see above)? Alternate question: Does Obama have half of Ryan’s courage?

I think not (on both counts). But let’s hope so.’

Not the usual Neo-Conservative bellicosity that TGD puts on display, but in its own way at least as destructive.

 

   

     

To Jumper of South Carolina,
Thank you for your eloquent and moving reply to the Paul Krugman column of April 7,2011' Ludicrous and Cruel'. A great letter, a reminder to us all, of our history of struggle against the inherent feudalism at the center of Conservatism!
Best regards,
StephenKMackSD

Fake Progressive (FP) has become an American Institution with her very popular website, whose origin was a desire to answer to the Right Wing and to elect a Democrat to the Presidency. She has been a decided success but there are questions about her methods, such as her promotion of the idea and practice of something called ‘Citizen Journalists’.  Now, the central concern is that these ‘Citizen Journalists’ provided content for her web site gratis, without pay. But in the face of the astronomical sale price of her site to AOL and her assumption to an executive position: doubt has entered the minds of many of her former supporters and political allies, fueled by FP’s defensive even combative stance, when confronted with the reality of her own behavior and how that helped shape her policies. Is she really a political ally and follower of Milton Friedman? Is FP simply another Empire Builder, a tradition in American Life?  Or are these questions  superfluous; too little, too late?