| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| We Blew It - P J O'Rourke |
| 2008-11-09 |
| We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it's been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn't have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You'd urge your daughter to date Rosie O'Donnell before you'd put troops ashore in such a place. Since the early 1980s I've been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev. Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun. The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil. Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we'd forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces. Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world's rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we've been doing of that lately.) If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest. ********** And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama. Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's statement: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.' " Ask a Katrina survivor. Read the whole thing. |
| Posted by:Glenmore |
| #17 The trouble with the Republican platform is that 1) spending like a drunken Kennedy, 2) building a huge bloated bureaucracy, 3) endemic political corruption, and 4) support of a smothering Nanny-state is already the platform of the other party. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-11-09 20:35 |
| #16 Well, the Katrina problem in large measure was a local debacle, since aid starts there, not at the Federal Government level. |
| Posted by: Hammerhead 2008-11-09 19:47 |
| #15 My Congressman is John J. Duncan, Jr. He voted against the bailout. I wrote to him several times concerning my opinions about not passing the bailout plan. He wrote back to me and stated the following: "I want to explain to you why I voted against the Treasury Department's bailout plan. There really was no good choice. It was going to be bad if we did it and bad if we did not, but I thought it would be better in the long run not to adopt the socialist approach." He would be another good, honest, principled man to include in the list of people that adhere to our Constitution and tries to represent constituents. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-11-09 17:30 |
| #14 And as for first principles...what Broadhead & Thad McCotter said is a damn good place to start. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-11-09 16:11 |
| #13 Here's another good guy who'll be a force in the future GOP. He did vote for the first bailout, but told his (angry) consitituents that he did so because the financial meltdown put us in uncharted territory & that he didn't want to be part of causing a general economic collapse because of ideological purity. For those of us here at the Burg who might doubt his free-market credentials, here's the Wall Street Journal's take: ...there were many Republicans who for years aided and abetted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet this week ran for political cover. Mr. Ryan is among the former. As early as 2000 he was warning in House hearings that Fan and Fred were rushing into subprime loans and mortgage-backed securities, growing and concentrating their risk, and putting taxpayers on the hook. He's so vociferously called for more supervision that he was once stalked by a Fannie Mae lobbyist. In 2002 he co-sponsored legislation that would have put these beasts under SEC accounting standards. Fan and Fred, and their congressional enablers, killed it in committee. In 2005 he signed on to a bill that would have subjected the giants to modest reform. The Fan-Fred alliance speared it in the Senate. In 2007, Mr. Ryan opposed a proposal by Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer to gut systemic risk protections for the duo. It passed 383 to 36, with 162 Republicans voting for the companies. Many were the same members who this week thought it too politically risky to stabilize a market rocked by the very Fan-Fred privileges they granted. The congressman was no fan of Mr. Paulson's plan, and initially rallied conservatives around a rival approach. When it became clear that the administration's approach was the only thing going, he spearheaded negotiations to rid it of its worst liberal elements and to include more taxpayer protections. As credit spreads widened, he said he also realized this was a "Herbert Hoover moment, where he sat by and let a Wall Street crash turn into a Great Depression . . . There are times when free-markets stop and rational thinking goes out the window. It then isn't enough to be a laissez-faire conservative and let Rome burn . . . This bill is not perfect, but doing nothing is far worse than passing this bill." Regrettably, Ryan decided not to go after Boehner's Minority Leader post because he was worried about the effect the job's demands might have on his family. Hopefully he'll still put himself forward as a major leadership figure in the very near future. Between this guy, Bobby Jindal, Sarah and the raft of Iraq/Afghanistan vets I hope will be recruited as Trunk candidates in '10 and later, I think we're in better shape than it might appear right now. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-11-09 16:09 |
| #12 I hope my own, Duncan D. Hunter, continues his father's priorities. If he lives up to his campaign promises, he will |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-09 15:38 |
| #11 He fought the bailout and voted no on it every time. He's also in a congressional rock band "the 2nd Amendments" - plays lead guitar. Yeah, for a politician he's a good guy. One of the few out of my shitbagged home state. Hopefully, him, Jindal, Palin, Jim DeMint, Steele & Cantor (I'm not too sure of Cantor) can bring the party back to Reaganism and more importantly back to being in step w/the founder's intent of the U.S. Const. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-11-09 15:25 |
| #10 a good man with good basic principles |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-09 15:21 |
| #9 I like Thad McCotter. I watched him during the bailout hearings. He made a lot of sense. Those are good principles for anyone to live by BH. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-11-09 15:19 |
| #8 What are the Republican Party's principles that will be employed to meet and surmount these challenges? We have five enduring principles: 1. Our liberty is from God not the government. 2. Our sovereignty rests in our souls not the soil. 3. Our security is through strength not surrender. 4. Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector. 5. Our truths are self-evident not relative. the above is from my Rep in MI - Thad McCotter |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-11-09 15:10 |
| #7 I was looking for a set of principles that set liberals apart from conservatives. Two that O'Rourke did mention were: 1. Less government meddling and intrusion in personal lives, and 2. A bedrock principle of conservatism is fiscal responsibility. I don't know, were there others? In the current bailout culture, I don't see either of these principles being followed by either party. Following these two principles would be a good start. It sounds more like the Libertarian ideal. Conservatism, if it is worthwhile and has something to offer will, hopefully emerge as such. Somewhere, in my searchings, I came across a set of conservative principles that were enumerated and posted on the internet. I don't recall where. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-11-09 14:39 |
| #6 good call, Ricky |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-09 13:24 |
| #5 I dunno...while I agree with many of O'Rourke's specifics as to how we wound up at this low point, I disagree with his basic thesis that "conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths." The very fact that those of us on the right side of the aisle are even having these conversations is a GOOD sign. What happened in the past when liberals got clobbered? They screeched about the menace of "big money in politics", whined about "vast right-wing conspiracies" and "right-wing noise machines", caterwauled about dark conspiracies of vote-stealing, fascist oppression and even murder (see Wellstone, Paul). Never once did the entire liberal movement take a collective time-out and start asking itself "okay, what's our core philosophy, how do we get back to it from here and how do we get the public to agree and believe?" That collective time-out - and yes, that's going to mean some time in the wilderness - is going to be an absolute necessity for conservatism to regain both its theoretical and practical groundings. But if we do it right (bad pun fully intended), the trek in the woods should be a successful one, and maybe even a relatively short one. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-11-09 13:12 |
| #4 I read the whole thing--think I will go attach the garden hose to the exhaust and run it into the window (just kidding)--the article just compounded my depression. I'm still looking for the pony in the room full of horse$hit. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-11-09 13:12 |
| #3 Title fixed.... |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-11-09 10:56 |
| #2 Very droll... |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-11-09 10:41 |
| #1 Blew, not Blwe (whatever that is). Wake up, eyes. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-11-09 08:52 |