Hillary Clinton's 'empathize' versus King Abdullah's 'Third-World War' statements.

Two contrasting opinions on foreign policy expressed, one quite astute and succinct while the other is naive and pandering. You decide which one is which. 

The second video...

I am sure most people would be on the same page as to which video fit which category.

However...there are a few things to add.

First is that while Abdullah speaks truth about the threat ISIS poses and the actions which should be taken in regards to their aggression, he is speaking in the context of the Middle East and specifically Jordan. ISIS in its present form poses no existential threat towards the United States. Of course this fact is no reason not to be pro-active, nor turn a blind eye to ISIS.

Hug Offensive

On Hillary Clinton...well, what can you really say??? This is one of the more inane statements expressed in the foreign policy realm I have heard in some time. Vicariously feel and envisage the enemies' emotional state so we can understand their point of view and reach out to them? Sigh...

It's wondering that with the amount of history and the huge number of tyrants and oppressive regimes known to the human consciousness, to hear our potential leaders and intellectuals utter such nonsense is mind-blowing. Subsequently when dealing with organizations such as ISIS et al extreme violence and unadulterated savagery--in the Maori sense--seems an appropriate course of strategy. Not making our center of gravity some neo-Freudian Einfühlung based hug-fest with a bunch of murderous, depraived, psychopaths. This isn't policy or "smart power" it's disaster.

Now we know that the average Occupier might buy into this frayed end of reasoning. After all, who knows more about foreign policy than a recent unemployed graduate from Skidmore with a gender studies degree under their belt? But...Hillary Clinton? No, HRC doesn't buy into this poppycock, but she is politically savvy enough to know that the average Progressive is naive enough to believe it. Consequently she is fully invested in trying to prove her Proggie bona fides by engaging in the most ridiculous of statements to gain the Democratic base's support for 2016.

Whichever political camp you might fall into or whatever your view on foreign policy we all must agree projecting this naive viewpoint, even just to score political points with your base, is dangerous. The precedent it sets vocalizes our potential leaders' willingness to seemingly capitulate to our worst enemies' perspectives. And that no matter how you slice it is alarming.

Continue reading ...

Progressives Lost the Election and Their Ideas Caused It.

Throughout my years of political investigation I have come across puff pieces, produced by both Republicans and Democrats, that stretch, bend, and twist data in order to illustrate the positive impact of their policies on the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, honestly scrutinizing hard data and exploring the consequence of policies, positive or negative, seems to be a practice lost on political demagogues and zealots. For sure this latest article from the Atlantic's Richard V. Reeves--designed to soothe the souls of Progressives after their mid-term loss--falls into the aforementioned vein.

Progressives, these days, are a gloomy bunch, and it's not just because of the outcomes of last week's election. As they see it, there's much to be gloomy about: Poverty levels are stuck, they say, with little improvements made in recent decades. What's more, according to the standard progressive line, income inequality is soaring, and back to levels last seen in the roaring '20s. And, to top it all off, middle class incomes are flat, or even falling. 

But here's the thing: Each of these claims is a significant overstatement. In fact: Progressives have every reason to be celebrating right now. Why? Because by and large, things aren't so bad as progressives claim, and the reason things aren't so bad is because progressive policies are working...

The first point emphasized by Mr. Reeves is that "Poverty is Down."  Here is his chart--with some emphasis I have added--that he uses to correlate the drop in poverty from 1965 until present day.

The Atlantic, Progressives Lost the Election, but Their Ideas Are Winning, 2014.
Illustration modified by Politics and Critical Thinking.

I have taken the liberty to add some lines which shows the boom/bust cycle, aka recessions, to this chart. As you will notice there is a distinct rise in poverty which correlates to these recessions officially beginning, or right before, and a relatively substantial drop after they abate.  The two exceptions are the 1990-91 recession and the Great Recession in which the poverty rates actually rose or are continuing to rise.

Why is this important? What drove and does drive poverty reduction is not the usage of government programs such as wealth transfers and tax credits; it is job creation. When the boom cycle starts, jobs flourish, people become employed, make better wages, get promoted, etc. and are removed from the poverty rolls. What wealth transfers and tax credits accomplish is keeping already poverty ridden people from sinking lower, which is a good and moral thing to accomplish. It, however, does not push them off of poverty and when these policies are left to their own devices they cause stagnation. There is no no chance for upward mobility or opportunity.

Again...progressive policies have NOT kept forty million people out of poverty, what these policies do is keep people from falling further down. As stated before it is job destruction which has the propensity of putting people there and hence it's job creation which keeps them off. This is the most basic of economic thought and fact and will not change no matter how you parse it.

Next Mr. Reeves tackles inequality.

Inequality: Mostly in Check 

One of the staple progressive mantras is that income inequality is soaring, with the minority at the top vacuuming up most of the national income. But the picture is much more complex, and more positive, than that. Critically, the most dramatic figures for inequality are generated by looking at "market income"—i.e. before any taxes and transfers. 

Between 2000 and 2010, the biggest gains in real after-tax income were actually at the bottom of the ladder: 

The maintenance of incomes at the bottom of distribution is the result of strenuous government efforts to mitigate the effects of inequality, especially by cutting taxes and/or providing tax credits to lower-income Americans. Without this government action, inequality almost certainly would have risen quite sharply in the bottom 90 percent.

One thing often overlooked by Progressives about income inequality is that inequality is not the problem per se but a symptom of a deeper problem; "wage stagnation." Simply put this can be explained as a ratio between the cost-of-living:purchasing power. In terms of wage stagnation this ratio can be expressed as living expenses rise, wages, which among other factors, determine purchasing power, stay at a fixed point; neither rising nor decreasing.

Then it must be the riches' fault? Not exactly, income generation versus wealth generation are two different phenomena. Income generation can be explained as "earned compensation for performing a service, selling goods or property." Whereas wealth generation "having enough of said money and valuable possessions to preserve your current lifestyle without having to work to do." This is done through savings, investment and then return, and lowering debt. Many of the upper one economic quintiles do not live off of income, but rather returns on investments. (Consequently this is why it is ultimately ridiculous to call for raising the income tax on these people, since most of their wealth is generated through other means besides income.) Lower wages are a not a consequence of the upper one percenters stealing a part of the pie from the lower quintiles. While there is no denying that a minority has a larger share of the "pie" than most, they did not acquire this through theft of wages from the lower economic quintiles. That would be an impossibility since the "pie" is always contracting or expanding.

Therefore, if there are companies to invest in and people have capital available to invest in them, and these firms are successful, there will be a return larger than the primary investment.  Hence you will see the rich accruing more profit and the gap growing between them and the persons who rely on income--which is stagnant for the most part--for their living.

So what can we do about it? Well...Mr. Reeves hit on a small right-wing mantra which can help, but is not the sole solution, tax cuts/tax credits. Particularly, tax cuts allow for a small and incremental amount of money to be returned to workers which allows them to either expand their month to month purchasing power, increase savings, pay down debt, or invest as they see fit. Tax credits will allow for them to possibly acquire a negative tax burden and receive a lump sum in the form of a tax return which they can apply as well.

But as already mentioned...these are hardly Progressive ideas. In fact the idea tax cuts opposes the progressive philosophy since it takes away from the funding mechanisms, i.e taxes, which make government run safety nets possible. Tax-cuts and to a lesser degree tax credits are more of a right-wing function and perception.

In conclusion...progressive philosophies and their impact are usually grossly overstated. While they have provided us with a more humane way of dealing with poverty they are stagnating, stifling, and expensive. They are mechanisms to be used when adequate or necessary, but should be returned to the tool shed when they are no longer applicable. Becoming solely reliant on these ideas as our nation's philosophical cornerstone will generate nothing more than a dependance class, truly and 99% versus the 1% society. 

Continue reading ...

The Foreign Policy Initiative's Open Letter to President Obama

While my prime penchant is politics, my first and foremost love of its sub-categories is anything economic. This is because it is what truly greases the tracks of government and is the fuel for its engine. Nevertheless, my second love, under the vast umbrella of anything politic, is foreign policy. With that being said, here is an interesting letter written to the President from The Foreign Policy Initiative.

This is brought to you by way of an old bloggin' buddy to whom I have not linked in a VERY long time. The jingoistic, colorful, sexily written, and un-apologetically hawkish GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD

July 1, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

You have stated your intention to forge a positive relationship between the United States and Russia. We write on the eve of your summit meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev to express our belief that such a relationship requires a commitment by both countries to democracy and human rights and to urge you to reiterate that these values, which you have called universal, are inextricably linked to humane behavior at home and responsible behavior abroad. Furthermore, we ask you to meet with human rights, civil society, labor and opposition political party leaders while you are in Moscow.

Since Vladimir Putin became President in 2000, Russia has been on a downward spiral away from the democratic and economic reforms made in the 1990’s after the collapse of communism. Human rights activists, opposition political party leaders, lawyers and journalists are targets of brutal, even deadly attacks. Freedoms of speech and the media are increasingly limited by the state and the Kremlin has asserted growing authority over the economy, especially the energy sector.

We urge you to challenge Russian leaders about the lack of political and economic freedom in Russia. In your Cairo speech you stated that the freedom of speech, the ability to choose one's own government and way of life, the rule of law and transparency “are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” Moreover you noted the connection between democracy and security, asserting that “governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure." This principle gained even more salience as Russia's invasion of Georgia last year revealed the lengths to which it will go to assert a sphere of influence in the region.

For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope to those behind the Iron Curtain who longed for their freedom. As you stated in Prague, after the Iron Curtain was lifted “freedom spread like flowing water. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st.”

As you go forward, we hope that you will maintain a clear-eyed assessment of Russia’s intentions and keep the above principles in mind in order to ensure that the effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations does not come at the expense of the Russian people or Russia's neighbors.

What I find absolutely astounding in this intriguing letter is the list of people who have signed it. I have long talked about the lack of differences that modern day progressives and neo-conservatives share on matters of foreign policy. I coincidentally found a smattering of evidence to back this up.

This is nothing conspiratorial, just an observation that it is difficult sometimes to tell these two supposedly different political philosophies apart. A few of the signatories of this letter illustrate my point.

Larry Cox-Executive Director of Amnesty International USA

Morton H. Halperin-Senior Vice President and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress

Gare A. Smith-Presently employed at Foley-Hoag LLP (Foley Hoag is one of many large law firms providing counsel to the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.)and deals with Human Rights Impact Assessments and country-specific due diligence regarding the risks associated with social and environmental issues.

Leon Wieseltier-Literary editor for the highly progressive magazine The New Republic

R. James Woolsey, Jr.-Evidently a neo-conservative Democrat, whatever that is.

Stephen Rickard-Executive director of the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC) and a member of the Board of Directors. (Assumption being made on this gentleman due to the mission statement of the OSPC and his involvement with Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

As I stated above, this is nothing conspiratorial, just a point of interest that some of the people whom they have co-signed this with are unabashedly hawkish neoconservatives with strong ties to the Bush Administration. Just strange company for these "progressives" and "liberals" to be keeping considering their political stripes.

Continue reading ...

The GOP Reagan-Conservative Conundrum.

There has been much to do over the path which the GOP should travel in order to make it back into power. Some "moderate republicans" such as Meghan McCain, David Frum, and David Brooks argue that the GOP needs to move further from the right in order to win "big."

Even Nancy Pelosi, Screecher of the House, has put her two cents in on the ailing GOP's problems.

Yahoo News-"I say to Republicans in America, take back your party," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. "The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us though,

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."

Fred Barnes, Fox News contributor, penned an article titled, Be the Party of No for the Weekly Standard. In his article, Barnes, makes the conjecture that the GOP should wear the brand of the"party of no." He provides an interesting trek into politics of the past and provides a badly needed history lesson for our beleaguered Republican strategists.

As he points out, everytime Republicans have faced off against far-left destructive policies they have won.

Weekly Standard-If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.

Let's take this one step further an analyze the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and some components of the Obama victory.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats used a fifty state strategy and made incursions into traditionally GOP held territory. By moving further right, far-right by progressive standards, and running a host of Blue Dogs, or moderate to conservative dems, the liberals were able to retake control of the House.

From the New York Times, October of 2006.

NY Times-In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

From USA Today.

USA Today-Leaders of the 51-member Blue Dog coalition, which helped House Democrats bolster their majority in the 2008 elections, say they want tighter spending controls in exchange for their support of the proposed stimulus.

Some might grab on to the wording of moderate appearing in this article as further proof that moderates are the key to victory. Not so. What this proves is not that the GOP has gone to far to the right that it cannot win elections, it is that the Democrats had gone to far to the left and needed to appear to return to basic conservatism so they could remain viable.

The basic tenets of the Blue Dog coalition which I recognize to be conservative, are considered a "far-right" ideology by most Progressives. Strangely, in three elections, the progressive wing of the democrats has had to rely on the conservative candidates or having a candidate appear as conservative-minded in order to win "big."

From the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

Right now fiscal conservatism is the glue which can bind the fractured GOP. Much like the war against communists did when it brought together classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians under one roof into an impressive coalition. Although important, differences on social issues can be fought out later, now is the time to apply what works. Something us non-Beltway dwelling dullards pointed out months ago.

Finally, Jeb Bush recently stated that it's time for the Republican party to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan and that the GOP should steal the winning strategy used by Democrats in 2008.

He is actually halfway correct about adopting the Democratic strategy. But not about his "leaving Reagan behind" moment, since following Reagan is exactly what the Dems did.

Transcript provided by Open Left of Obama talking about why he admired Ronald Reagan.

Open Left-I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

There are a few more examples of how Obama framed his campaign in a Reaganesque style. This is not to say he matched the Gipper on policy but more on political strategy. However as Scott Rasmussen shows in a November 2008 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Reaganism isn't exactly dead and assisted more in an Obama victory than most realize. Let me list the ways according to Rasmussen.

• Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.



• A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."



• Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive."

If these so-called geniuses running the GOP are ever going to learn one thing it is always model your present fight on situations which have historical relevance. Then adapt accordingly. Consequently, the incompetents are on a quest to reshape the core of the GOP into a progressive model while heavily overlooking the key victories which basic conservatism has brought them. Thus, not adapting but "progressing." Besides anytime Nancy Pelosi is saying, "Hey, be more like us." any person of sane mind should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. I guess these bozos aren't exactly sane.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...