Embracing The Coming Polarity Shift In American Politics

During moments of great challenge to America it has always been the American people who have stood up, remained strong, persevered, and gone forward in America - not our elites, or pundits. That's a myth perpetuated by a convenience demanded for the need of a concise and manageable historical narrative. Today's headlines reflect how this is happening today. But you must look at them in scope, not particular. The conventional wisdom is about to be stood on its head, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Conventional wisdom is for conventional times. These are not those.

Here's one perfect example of that. And I'll offer a few more below. With no disrespect, I bet you think Newt Gingrich is a leader, one who might help us navigate difficult times. But who is leading whom here? Credit Gingrich for having the intelligence to jump on a bandwagon, but don't fool yourself into believing he is leading anything right now. Our current leadership has failed and continues to fail across the board. And that's why Americans are stepping up - and out.

NEWT GINGRICH jumps on the Tea Party protest bandwagon.

Today two solid writers tell us where the pundit class they belong to is. They are accurately chronicling events. But they are doing it from just one slight step behind the moment, as that's all even the best of pundits can do. They are, by nature, observers, not actors. David Warren at RCP:

The message of the polls is that he had better start selling his policies harder, because they are showing signs of not going over very well. Moreover, the unpolled elites, including those within the Democratic Party, have started to ask questions aloud about whether their man is competent; and as we know from painful history, such uncertainties from an elite tend to "trickle down."

Wrong! True, the concise History written for the library shelf would give you that impression. So I understand what Warren is writing. But does that CW jibe with a Gingrich "jumping on a bandwagon?" No, it does not.

Also, I understand VDH's points here, but he's simply observing and commenting upon the top of the proverbial old growth forest and missing the sprouting up of thousands of new trees that will over shadow the old growth as it eventually comes tumbling down.

Why are so many Americans so depressed about things these days? It is perhaps not just the economy.

Is America depressed, despondent, giving up? Well, the America of Lexington, Ky and Ridgefield, CT certainly isn't that today. Just take a look. And the same can be said for Orlando, FL, too.

These are challenging times for us, true. And large parts of America continue to feel stuck and confused. But they are waking up. You need to look down and across to understand the real strength of America - not up. That's especially so as the current administration seems incapable and un- or ill-prepared to offer much genuine leadership at all. But that's okay.

It has always been the people as a whole and a force that has made America great in our rather inconvenient history, not the leaders who have and will eventually emerge as convenient bookmarkers so that scholars can write new History books one day.

The phrase "Power to the People" has existed as little more than a Leftist chant for decades in America. That does not mean it contains no truth. And the truth of a strong and capable America that has always overcome its obstacles is there - in its people. You only have to look around, eventually shake yourself from your stupor to join it and jump on the bandwagon if you want to make it real.

And even if you don't, it remains a bit of still clumsy American History being written that will eventually sweep you up. The American Spirit, not our leaders, has a way of doing that throughout our history. And it's about to do it, again.

America has a great challenge. And power is beginning to experience a polarity shift away from the so-called powerful back to the people, as has always been the case throughout our run. Who the American people permit to lead them and thus "make History" is an argument for another day.

Comments

[Lala]

Watch Megyn Kelly take on the Acorn idiot, see Dennis Miller, Neil, Buchanan, etc.

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=627

[anon]

Sorry Dan, you are deluding yourself. Obama has only been in office 2 months and his approval rating is still well over 50%. The American Spirit you are waxing poetic about is turning into a random mob out to get The Rich and The Bankers.

[Jake]

Do not tell me those random drops in approval points are a delusion? Sigh... I was just getting ready to wax poetic about the fury of the justly accused....in a mere two months. Imagine: From God to Jesus in just two months.

[rrpjr]

Excellent, accurate and appreciated. Obama was never the true "change" at all; he is only the final refinement of what is wrong (with a dangerous twist). The real change is coming.

[DaveinPhoenix]

I agree rrpjr, and additionally,

real change will need to deal with a nation which has a negative net worth of $59 trillion (including promised future social security and medicare spending - but not including unfunded pension liabilities). Federal, State, and Local government spending now accounts for 45% of our economy - as compared to 12% in 1929. So, we've gone from 88% of our economy controlled by the private sector, to 55% (from 1929 'till present). Our standard of living is dropping. Friendly and unfriendly foreign governments now own 50% of our debt. At what point do we realize that our national debt is now a possible national security problem ? And at what point do we stop arguing about bonuses and start the largest Conservative media campaign in American history to face $59 trillion in obligations ? Real change will be required to solve this problem with solutions.

I'm about as Conservative as a person can get, and am sickened by the present administration and congress. My only fear is that Conservatives will be swept into office in the next couple of election cycles - without solutions to ending this gigantic government run economy. My fear is that winning political battles may continue to be more important than reversing the 20th century bankruptcy of America.

[Toads]

There is no polarity shift. The 'tea party' protests are filled with conservatives/libertarians that are a shrinking percentage of the population.

Aside from 1 or 2 anecdotes, the tea-party protesters are 99.9% white.

Blacks always vote 90% Democrat, and in Obama's case, 96% Democrat. Hispanics voted 70% for Obama, and they are growing rapidly in number. Give Amnesty to a few million illegals, 80-90% of those vote Democrat, and the GOP ceases to exist.

There is no polarity shift. We are already very close to the point where 50% will blindly vote Democrat no matter what.

[Dan]

Congress needs to be wiped clean, by sit in or by fire.

The Wall Street/DC axis has picked the upper middle and middle class clean.

[Toads]

Again, there is no polarity shift.

What we are seeing is merely the manifestation of two irreversible trends :
1) Whites and Asians are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Blacks vote 90-95% Democrat and Hispanics 70% Democrat. Despite Hispanics being 40% of California's population, there is not a single Hispanic Republican politician in California. Not one.
2) The proportion of single, unmarried women is growing in relation to married women with kids. Such women want the government to be their man, and just voted 70% for Obama.

Both 1) and 2) create a large block of people who will vote Democrat no matter what. Blacks and Hispanics want to punish the white man, and single urban women want to punish all married families. They believe that the Democrat party helps them reach these goals, and they are correct.

There is no polarity shift. We merely are seeing the first stages of the fact that people likely to favor small government and free enterprise, who are white and Asian married professional people, are now below critical mass.

[SamIam]

The AIG protesters that were being sold by the media as widespread and huge were small and 99% ACORN and union stooges complete with professionally made signs.

I seriously think the entire outrage was anticipated and even planned for to enable the confiscatory bill which would be a springboard for similar compensation limits affecting even executives in companies who took zero TARP money. There is a group of very smart manipulators behind the scene and behind Obama.

[AST]

From your blog to God's ears. I'm hoping that VDH only thinks "so many Americans [are] so depressed about things these days" because he's viewing things from Stanford's campus.

The last time conservatives took back the Congress it was because of Democrats overplaying their hand, but also because they had a contract that they stood behind.
The trouble was that those who had honor kept their word to serve for a limited time and then return to private life. Too many of the dishonorable ones stayed on.

Ultimately, however, it's the people who get the government they deserve, and those who deserve better get sucked down with the majority unless they make sure they are the majority.

I don't trust the RNC to do this for us. I'm encouraged by these Tea Parties, but I'm not sure how well they translate into votes. Maybe they need to start holding them outside television stations.

[Ag80]

I'm sure they're are others, but Rep. Jeb Hensarling is one Repub who will fight. Listen to him and other conservatives like him.

And no, I don't work for him or even know him. We did go to the same university.

Regardless, from what I've seen, he's on the right track.

[Harry Bergeron]

Hey, Toads,
I invented Google so that ignorance could be easily cured.
Abel Maldonado represents the 15th District in the California Senate.
He's a Republican, and a pretty conservative one, at that.

[peter jackson]

Freedom still has it's majority in America: half or more of Republicans, one third of Democrats, two thirds of independents and virtually all Libertarians will support a Freedom First political agenda. The problem now is that within the context of our current politics and the party system that drive them, Freedom First isn't one of the choices available to us. Currently our choices are Social Justice First or Public Order/Social Morality First. Freedom will have to become one of our political choices before it can become a political outcomes.

[rrr]

If we allow that Toad's not a single . . . was hyperbole, you've created the typical lefty error of harping on a single oversold point and therefore discrediting the whole argument. This works well for children and trolls but otherwise makes people appear foolish. His basic point is that significant groups of people are going to vote overwhelmingly democratic no matter what. You have to answer the main point, not pee on one of the supporting arguments (though finding a whopping ONE is merely a tinkle and seems to imply you don't understand his point. I think the protests are a good idea but nothing will change until the people have the will to throw the bums out. Since the dems are garnering supermajorities of entire groups by stealing your money, throwing the bums out is not going to happen.

I've never felt so disillusioned about the direction of this country in my entire life.

Wait, I better not say entire. Harry will Google something and find one instance where I was more disillusioned and conclude from that that I'm the happiest person in the world! (see how it works?)

Answer arguments. Don't act like a lefty. Explain, given what toad outlined, why we're not toast. I think we are.

[rrpjr]

Harry -- good effort, but sadly there's no easy cure.

[Mark J. Goluskin]

Harry, sorry but Abel Maldonaldo is NOT any conservative. It was HIS vote that put the abomination known as the current California state budget, tax increases and all, into law. In fact there is an effort to RECALL Sen. Maldonaldo because of is selling his soul for 30 pieces of silver. As far as the demographic argument to claim the Democrats will win from now on, BULL! Heard all the same when William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was elected in 1992. Two years later, voila! The GOP rose to power, took congress and the majority of statehouses. When the people get angry, they throw the bums out. And we shall see it once again in 2010.

[Toads]

Abel Maldonado. OK, ONE Hispanic politician relative to at least 20 Democrats across the CA State Senate, 53 House Seats, two Senate Seats, the Governor, Liet Governor, and about 30 Mayors.

Harry Bergson has no sense of proportion, and had to search really hard to find even ONE Hispanic Republican in the CA state senate.

My point is proven even more strongly.

[Toads]

"Freedom still has it's majority in America: half or more of Republicans, one third of Democrats, two thirds of independents and virtually all Libertarians will support a Freedom First political agenda."

Well, 70% of whites, 30% of Hispanics, and 10% of Blacks will support a freedom-first, free-market, pro-entrepreneurship agenda. Guess which direction the demographic trends are taking us.

[unseen]

Toads :

How soon people forget. Blacks up until the civil rights bill voted almost always republician. they were with the party of lincoln from the end of the civil war to the 1960's. There is nothing that says they will continue to vote democratic just because they have in the past. Same for the Lation's. They vote democratic now because it is in their best interest to do so. Not for any special reason. Once the Latino population assimilates into Americian culture and more become middle class and upper middle class there self interest will require them to vote rep. Again you assume that Latino's and blacks will continue to vote for one party over the other no matter what. This has not been shown by history. throw in the fact that latino's are social conservatives by nature due to their high church going and you can make plausibly arguments on how and why Latino's will switch to the other party if it becomes attractive.

[Steve in MT]

The most amazing aspect of America is that for 220 years, we have managed to prosper just fine, in spite of the efforts of our so called "leaders." But alas, Brutus, the fault lies not in Washington, but within ourselves. We have ceded authority to common criminals who were unable to hold up a liquor store, so they ran for office based on good hair and polling data that tells them what to say.
We need to conduct a self examination and find those of us who are normal people and are willing to take 2, 4, or even 6 years out of their lives for the good of the country and then return home, having served, to resume their normal lives.
Cincinnatus, where are you? Probably right next door if we looked.

[rickl]

The root of the matter is that our country has gone from a Constitutional Republic to a very nearly pure democracy. The Founders, from their study of history, knew very well that democracy led to mob rule. We are starting to see that now.

The only cure is to reintroduce restrictions on who gets to vote. The notion that a person collecting a welfare check gets the same vote as a business owner is outrageous. I think that originally, only property owners could vote. Or we could bring back poll taxes and literacy tests. (That would require repealing the 24th Amendment.) The sad history is that those were often used in the south in a discriminatory manner to prevent blacks from voting. But there is nothing inherently wrong with them, as long as they are applied fairly and across the board. A "literacy test" doesn't have to be complicated. Even a simple question like "What are the three branches of government?" could weed out millions of imbeciles who have no business voting.

Or maybe we could try Robert A. Heinlein's idea of only allowing those who have served in the military to vote.

I also advocate repealing the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate was created to represent the states' interests, and Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote.

One thing is certain: If we don't do something along these lines, we are truly doomed.

[ic]

anon: The American Spirit you are waxing poetic about is turning into a random mob out to get The Rich and The Bankers.

As a matter of fact, the random mobs are from ACORN, the CommunityOrganizer-in-Chief's baby.

"A group called “the Connecticut Working Families Party” planned to bus around people to visit AIG offices and their officials’ homes....It turns out that CWFP is yet another dummy group for ACORN."

http://moelane.com/2009/03/21/the-great-cwfp-aig-intimidation-run-round-up/

[whiskey]

Toads is correct.

Most women are now single, that is a dramatic shift from recent times. The Census Bureau had a release on that a few months ago IIRC. And yes, Single Women voted 70-29 for Obama. That's about in line with the Single Women's vote for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, and Mondale. True, Obama by being the "Alpha Male" got the percentage about 5 points higher than average, but he's well within historical ranges for that group.

What changed?

MOST women are now single.

Also, if the US White Population had remained in the same proportion as 1990, McCain would have WON by about 6 percentage points. There's been enough demographic analysis on this.

Everyone knows this, from Rove to Axelrod to Shrum to well, most political analysts . Demographics is destiny. You might see a slight incremental change, here and there, based on candidates being exceptionally bad or good, or external events, but most people vote according to their membership in demographic segments.

Blacks, Hispanics, and Women vote Democratic overwhelmingly, for sound social, economic, and political reasons. They will NEVER vote Republican in appreciable numbers and the Tea Parties are a big waste of time.

The Tea Parties will never be covered in the Press, except to call them "racist," and will have no effect on the voting, since Obama and Dems plan to import roughly 40 million Mexicans (Mexico's population, around 100 million, 40% of whom in a recent poll expressed desire to emigrate illegally to the US). Yes in a recession. It locks in permanent Democratic majorities. Just as Single women, Yuppies, and Blacks along with Hispanics form the Democratic core constituency.

Single women want a huge welfare state to replace husbands, for child care and other expenses, and want approval of their choices. They want fewer prisons, since their male children are at enhance risk of criminal behavior. They want normalization of single motherhood, and preference over straight white men (affirmative action).

Blacks too will ALWAYS vote Democratic. Shelby Steele explained this: it allows them to ignore the failure/fall of Black Culture (from Louis Armstrong and Otis Redding to Snoop Dogg in two generations), gives them preferential treatment, allows constant grievance theater and critically Black shakedown leaders acting on Guilty White Men, and the sense of racial solidarity sticking it to "Whitey." That will NEVER change in our lifetimes. All Republicans offer is individual rights and freedom, and that's just not competitive with racial solidarity. Blacks of course are now 71% illegitimate births, compared to 28% for Non-Hispanic Whites and 51% for Hispanics.

So Hispanics are no different from Blacks and White Single Mothers in demanding much welfare, acceptance of or celebration of single motherhood, and low criminal penalties to enable their sons to succeed (since everyone knows well that single motherhood is the single greatest predictor of criminal activity).

Moreover, Hispanics under Dems are instantly qualified for preferential treatment over Whites with Affirmative Action. That's a HUGE boon and one Republicans cannot match socially, culturally, or critically, economically.

This is a hard truth to swallow. But group identity matters to most people over everything else. What do you think National Council of La Raza is about? It's "the Race" (in Spanish) and speaks specifically to Mexico's Mestizo conception of a universal and superior race. It excludes Whites. And Blacks and Asians for that matter. All groups EXCEPT Whites practice racial exclusion and group identity politics. This is a fact. Republicans will NEVER win Single White Women, Blacks, or Hispanics.

Any path to victory must be predicated on the reality of group identity politics and the simple truth that the Democratic Welfare State exists to PUNISH White Working and Middle Class men, and married women, and reward single White women, Blacks, and Hispanics. Mostly by transferring resources from the former to the latter, and policies that specifically "forbid" White participation in the Welfare state excepting single mothers.

Exhibit A: Robert Reich saying in Congressional Testimony before Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters that his top priority was to make sure NO White Men got any stimulus money, ESPECIALLY construction workers and professional White men.

[bertie]

Either the author and I have more faith in the American people than most of the people commenting or we're just cock-eyed optimists but I agree there is a real chance the American people will say no to this insanity.

I don't have population data and voting predictions, just a sense that when something is blatantly wrong, a majority of the people get it and will vote according.

I'm hoping that in 2010 there will be a significant number of people who are ready to vote against all incumbents.

[Toads]

whisky is correct.

America is lost. The 'tea parties' are merely the exercise of a group that is now in a permanent minority.

Time to begin the process of finding a suitable job and relocating to one of the Asian countries.

[Toads]

If getting a driver's license, and getting US citizenship requires a test, then voting should require a test.

Unfortunately, Democrats will never let this pass, since it would decimate their base of the dumbest possible people.

Requiring a simple test in order to be a registered voter would destroy leftism in an instant. Instead, America is going to be destroyed by leftism.

[flicka47]

Lord,aren't you a bunch of Gloomy Guses tonite. I come over here occasionally because you guys are usually a little more positive.Tonite I guess you are holding a wake!

If you don't like what is happening,then get out and DO something about it!
I am currently on about 5 different message boards every day with hundreds of people who can barely figure out their email(and they are not all white or male).But they are more than willing to learn and want to do something.There are a lot of people in this country that are just flat unhappy about what is happening,but they don't necessarily know how to articulate what needs to be changed.

You guys do.Many of you have spent years on these blogs honing a conservative message.So go out and find the folks that need help giving voice to what is wrong,and how they want it to change.They need leaders.

Do it.

Find your message and say it loud and often. Those folks need your help,and they will in turn help you to get the message out.
Nobody is going to do it for you,if you want to save the US as we know it, it is up to all of us.

[Koblog]

There's always the John Galt option.

The whole Dem plan assumes the relatively few productive Americans who remain will continue to work under increasingly onerous tax burdens.

In addition to open protest, minimizing taxable output can lead to further inflation and ensuing despair, inserting a monkey wrench into Utopian Dem plans.

We forget just how bad it was, and how hopeless inflation seemed, under the few months of James Earl Carter's failed regime. 1979 was a long time ago. We forget.

As dark as it was, the Reagan dawn came and with it prosperity for twenty-five years, until we actually believed that prosperity was a natural right and would continue regardless of Utopian fantasies.

Nothing brings an end to Utopian fantasies like debased money and evaporated futures.

[CptNerd]

One simple rule: no representation without taxation. Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. If you don't pay income tax, you don't get to pick the people who spend your tax money (and your childrens', and your grandchildrens', etc)

[george]

It would be a better article if you would cite one example of the American people taking the lead - there must be many - name one or three.

[CaptainVictory]

The best way to make everyone more content is to restore states' rights, but this will never happen.

So here's a thought experiment: What if we split the nation in an orderly fashion -- more or less blue states and red states. Two or more separate but allied nations, each free to pursue its own policies (tax and otherwise). Why not?

[Toads]

"Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. If you don't pay income tax, you don't get to pick the people who spend your tax money (and your childrens', and your grandchildrens', etc)"

Fat chance getting that law passed now that almost half of Americans will vote Democrat no matter what (see earlier comments).

"As dark as it was, the Reagan dawn came and with it prosperity for twenty-five years,"

That won't happen this time. In 1980, whites were a larger percentage of the population. WW2 and Korea vets were still alive and kicking. Many more women were married than single and slutty.

The Reagan dawn will never happen again. 2004 was the last chance to right the direction. We missed that chance.

"If you don't like what is happening,then get out and DO something about it!"

I am. Within the next couple of years, I will be relocating to India, China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan, and taking my $200K+ income with me. Why should I be robbed by the stupidity of blacks, single urban women, and Hispanics?

A generation ago, people worked at one employer, and lived in one town, their whole career. There were even 'company towns'. Now, people change cities and employers (and spouses!) all the time. Why is a country any different? If this country is no longer attractive, treat it like an uninteresting employer or city, and leave it.

If people can leave Cleveland and leave GM to move to a thriving city and exciting employer, why not change the country too? This is the 21st century, after all.

[Dan Riehl]

"cite one example of the American people taking the lead"

Take some History courses - did Lincoln start the abolitionist movement? No. Did Greeley start the move West? No.

Prison reform? Citizen led. From goldrushes to mountain men? Citizen driven. Dorothea Dix - citizen. Temperance, prohibition repeal? Citizen driven.

But you're an American, right? Take some time to learn your nation's history - might do you some good.

[Elizabeth Bennet]

All that is needed is a few good journalists to go after George Soros's involvement in this financial crisis...Show the nefarious organizations that received this money.

There has to be a few good men who want book deals.

[peter jackson]

It's a mistake to make political extrapolations based on one set of political choices and then use that extrapolation to project the outcome of a wholly different set of political choices. Toads' projections are only plausible if the Republican party continues to support legislating morality over protecting individual liberty.

[Todd]

"As dark as it was, the Reagan dawn came and with it prosperity for twenty-five years,"
-------------------
Much of that prosperity was artificial as much of it was built upon borrowed money in the government, corporate and consumer sectors. A chief tenet of Reaganomics was borrowing and spending - the government set the tone, and corporations and consumers followed suit. The fact that nothing truly awful economically happened because of the dependency on leverage led people to believe that living on debt was perfectly fine. Dick Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Hell, I can sure have one hell of a party for many years if I can keep spending money like a drunken sailor and only have to pay the monthly minimum on my credit card balance, too. Until the credit card company yanks my credit line. That's the metaphor for this country.

[mark l.]

"Much of that prosperity was artificial as much of it was built upon borrowed money in the government"

reagan tamped down inflation and unemployment-at a far lower price tag than obama has put forth. the % of debt to gdp, reagan v. obama, isn't even close.

[mark l.]

one other point, concerning corporations and bipartisanship under reagan...
Bill Bradley(a democrat) wrote the 1986 legistlation, for reagan, on corporate tax reform.

" The fact that nothing truly awful economically happened because of the dependency on leverage led people to believe that living on debt was perfectly fine."
I see two dots being connected, and have only you word, that this represents a picture of anything.

[Tennwriter]

I hope Dan is right.

A polarity shift would need to be something that excites a broad spectrum of the People. Toad has a point, and so one has to ask how do we get from "I'm defending my pocketbook" to "I'm implementing broad-based conservatism for a generation."?

We have to convince Blacks, Hispanics and Single White Women to join in.

The Tea Parties show what can be accomplished with enthusiasm and unity. No doubt most of those out there are social conservatives who are choosing to protest one specific bit of liberal insanity.

It offers a way forward, but its primarily defensive. How do we go on the offense? Use the enthused base to reach Blacks, Hispanics, and Single Women.

Standard Conservatism is the answer, and reminding single issue Fiscal Conservatives that the economy is not the whole of Conservatism is part of it. I'm for the NRA, and Homeschooling, and FIRE, and the Border Fence, but Conservatism is larger than any of these pressure groups like the Fiscons.

If we cannot reach the Black populace with a moral arguement, and we cannot explain to the Single Women that what they really want is to be married to a good man in a fair relationship then we might as well give up now. Tea Parties are a brilliant defense, but that is not enough.

[wilky]

"Much of that prosperity was artificial as much of it was built upon borrowed money in the government, corporate and consumer sectors. A chief tenet of Reaganomics was borrowing and spending - the government set the tone, and corporations and consumers followed suit. The fact that nothing truly awful economically happened because of the dependency on leverage led people to believe that living on debt was perfectly fine. Dick Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.""

Maybe the republican congress in the 90's had something to do with Cheneys quip. As every democrat will tell you when Clinton left office the budget was balanced. Look, there's nothing wrong with leverage. It's the key to building wealth, but there's leverage and then there is LEVERAGE. I don't think Obama understands leverage at all, or he'd be cutting back on his HUGE plans.

[Todd]

reagan tamped down inflation and unemployment-at a far lower price tag than obama has put forth. the % of debt to gdp, reagan v. obama, isn't even close.
-----------
No Mark, Paul Volcker was the man at the Fed who smashed inflation, and with it unemployment as interest rates tumbled. And, Paul Volcker was appointed Fed chief by Jimmy Carter, not Ronald Reagan. Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy grow, but the man responsible for crushing inflation was Volcker.
The thing about Reagan, to his great credit, is he was a pragmatist and did fear deficits running out of control, and took action(tax hikes) to address fiscal irresponsibility. His precedent was ignored by future supply-siders, setting the stage for enormous financial leverage in all sectors of the economy.

[Todd]

Maybe the republican congress in the 90's had something to do with Cheneys quip. As every democrat will tell you when Clinton left office the budget was balanced. Look, there's nothing wrong with leverage. It's the key to building wealth, but there's leverage and then there is LEVERAGE. I don't think Obama understands leverage at all, or he'd be cutting back on his HUGE plans.

Posted by: wilky | Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 05:07 PM
----------------
I agree with you, wilky. Nothing wrong with leverage per se, however there is great danger in over reliance on leverage. Neither party has shown any acuity in realizing the danger of leverage. Obama is grasping at straws and it's fiscal recklessness of the highest order that can only be appreciated by those who applauded the fiscal recklessness of the Bush Administration.

[Kev]

"We need to conduct a self examination and find those of us who are normal people and are willing to take 2, 4, or even 6 years out of their lives for the good of the country and then return home, having served, to resume their normal lives."

Agreed. Term limits for *all* in the federal government, bureaucrats included; the Founders never meant for there to be "career politicians," and you see where it's gotten us. Returning to citzen-legislators who actually have some experience in the productive class (and will return to it when their service--and I do mean *service*, not the self-service which masquerades for such today--is completed) is our way out of the current mess.

So how do we get there? I'd rather not see it come down to force, though a lot of these people won't cede power very willingly, and we may not have time to do it via the ballot box.

Suggestions?

[Comrades in Massachusetts]

.

[Comrades in Massachusetts]

Tea Parties are simply temporary "unrest". There is no unifying political element. By 2010; Tea Party participants will be resigned to the "new order". The media will guarantee it.

As a nation, less than 50% income pay taxes. These "electoral renters" have no stake in governance other than a sense of entitlement. They are the political base of Democrats that asks their party's elected officials to provide more government benefits/payments. Since they don't pay taxes they don't care about cost.

The GOP's political base asks their elected officials to reduce spending and taxes, since most of the GOP's base pays taxes. Elected GOP officials neither reduce spending nor show fiscal restraint.

When your guy is doing the job, he gets re-elected (Democrat) and is sent campaign money. If he's not doing his job, he gets no campaign money and he's out (GOP).

My only question is since the Democrats get it, why doesn't the GOP?