Well Nancy Pelosi and her friends are overjoyed – higher minimum wage levels, more government spending, especially on education and heath care (buy stock in the stem cell companies that the Democrats intend to increase subsidies to) – and an end to the timid Republican experiments in choice in schools, medical care and in pension accounts, more regulations (and efforts at world regulations – such as Barney Frank’s dream of a world government financial services regulator) and all the rest of it. And I do not expect President Bush to veto much (Captain Veto he is not – this is not the Administration of President Ford and William Simon).
Turning to the election itself:
It looks like an odd combination of some Fox people thinking a Senator was too old and tired and the Libertarian party have handed the United States Senate to the Democrats.
Conrad Burns looks like he has lost by a few hundred votes – he was denounced on Fox (on the O’R. Factor) as “too old and tired” to have any hope of victory. And the Libertarian candidate (Mr Jones) got 3% of vote in Montana (my guess is that some of those voters would have gone Republican, some stayed home, and just about none gone Democrat).
So one Fox News prediction, that the Libertarians would act as spoilers this time round, has been proved correct.
However, the Republicans deserved to lose. Their ‘compassionate conservatism’ (i.e. be soft on spending and wink at Pork) finally irritated the base so much that they stayed home. And Mr Foley did not exactly help either – Democrats may be ‘cool’ with man-boy stuff (Congressman Frank got away with the under-age male prostitution that operated from his home, and another Democrat got away with sex with House page years ago), but Republican voters are not cool with it. Perhaps these voters are ‘bigots’ but that is just a fact of life.
The money of Mr. Soros and others could be counted on (via various front organizations) to bring out the Democrat vote (and finance adverts – such as the tissue of lies that destroyed JD Hayworth in Arizona).
And John McCain’s ‘Campaign Finance Reform’ sometimes meant that some Republicans found themselves outspent (because spending by the leftist groups did not count as spending by their opponents).
And yes virtually all the newspapers and mainstream television acted as part of the Democratic party (Arizona was a good example of this in the House races).
But even where the Republicans had a friendly newspaper they lost – both seats in New Hampshire in spite of the ‘Manchester Union Leader’.
“It was the war stupid”
The voters are quite happy to use force overseas in order to (for example) kill or capture O.B.L. – but they are (for better or worse) not prepared to spend money and blood on some ‘War for Democracy’ in Iraq or anywhere else.
The neo-cons coming out just before the elections and sneering at President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as morons for the conduct of the war that they, the neo-cons, demanded was also unhelpful (and disgusting). Supposedly the war would have been fine if ‘smart people’ had been in charge – yes right. As I am part Jewish myself I will resist a Mel Gibson moment about the neo-cons – the sooner these backstabbers are forgotten the better. Oddly enough, although I was against the judgement to go into Iraq, I am now in favour of continuing the war (yes I know that is easy for me to say I will not be in combat), on the same grounds that I would have advised against the United States going into World War One (which killed more than one hundred thousand Americans), but would have been against pulling out till victory had been achieved.
Of course, I will admit, getting rid of the smiles on the faces of the ‘smart people’ is also a factor (even though this is in contradiction to my belief that they should be forgotten).
Still why do I say that this is the ‘last great victory’ of the left in the United States.
Firstly because the war will not be a factor again – in Iraq at least in will be won or lost before the next election and will not be a factor (at least not a negative factor). If the war is won then President Bush is vindicated (and he will campaign for the Republican candidate), and if it is lost the Republicans can nominate someone who had nothing to do with the war (voters forget fast – as soon as the killing is off the TV screens voters will start to forget).
Secondly because the Republicans have finally wised up to the fact that the ‘old media’ is still a force. True even where there was a friendly newspaper (such as in New Hampshire) the Republicans still lost – but the media matter, for every person who gets their news from the internet (and there is a lot of leftist stuff on the internet anyway) ten people get their news (and entertainment) from the television (and only a minority are watching Fox – successful though it is).
A lot of rich Republicans are finally going to put their money where their mouth is and start buying newspapers or setting up rival ones – in short it is back to the 19th century (before the ‘new’ or ‘objective scientific’ journalism of the Progressive era) where newspapers will openly become representatives of different points of view. With television and radio the struggle will continue – but if the Democrats do not manage to destroy Fox and the other non-leftist outlets (by threats of “investigations”) they will be stronger in 2008 than in 2006 – the mainstream networks are going to get into financial trouble.
Television will (unless the Democrats in Congress use government power) break a lot better for the Republicans in future and I have an odd feeling that Mr. Soros is going to get into financial trouble – I do not think he will buying any more elections.
Also wealthy (and non wealthy) Republicans are going to finally follow the example of Mr Soros and the other leftist rich and set up organizations (using the new media of the internet) that get round the campaign finance laws (there has been some of that already – but there is going to be a lot more).
Oddly enough Britain may actually help Republicans in future. The United Kingdom is due for economic decline over the next few years (I know people do not believe me – but wait and see) the tax-and-spend situation is worse in Britain than in the United States and the credit-money bubble is bigger (have a look at the money supply stats sometime).
Social Democratic ‘New Labour’ Britain is going to become a good warning against statism – and Republicans in the United States will use it (just as they did in 1946 and in 1952).
And, of course, any recession in the United States can be blamed on the Democrat Congress – for example its minimum wage increases which will increase unemployment, as will the State minimum wage law increases that the Democrats used to get their voters to the Polls this time – that is a trick they will not be able to play next time.
Another trick that the Democrats will not be able to play is ‘stem cells’ – the Republicans have finally worked out (too late) that this is just another form of ‘corporate welfare’. Big corporations in California were behind the drive for bigger taxpayer subsidies for stem cell work.
Rather than attacking ill Hollywood celebs, the Republicans will attack these subsidy seeking corporations in future. Just as those Republicans interested in abortion have finally noticed (again too late) that late term abortionists finance the political campaigns against them.
Do not attack single mothers (or whatever) – attack (if you must attack someone) the rich people who finance the pro abortion campaigns (out of their own financial interest – see the Kansas example).
Lastly, and most importantly, where Republicans really do support limited government… they win.
Take the example of Nevada. The Republican candidate for Governor had the media against him, he had a minimum wage law level increase on the ballot (which brought out the leftist voters) and he was smeared as a rapist late on in the campaign.
And he won anyway. Why? He won because he was a long term anti-big-government campaigner (he did not just think of it at election time), people knew what he was and supported him – in spite of the media, the smears and the biggest pro-Democrat year I can remember.
This is because most voters really do support limited government. That is what will really sink the Democrats in the long term – the Republicans can return to being a limited government party, but big government is what the Democrats are, they can not change.
And even if they could change from being a big government party they would no longer be ‘leftists’ (at least as that term is now defined) so this would remain the last great leftist victory in the United States.
So, Paul. What’s stopping you from enlisting in the Army?
No recruiting offices in Northamptonshire?
If you’re so certain that “we” must “win” in Iraq, put your arse on the line.
“I’m trapped on Gilligan’s Island, but I’m not paying ANY INCOME TAX!”
the Republicans can return to being a limited government party, but big government is what the Democrats are, they can not change.
I don’t think the Republicans can, because a very large part of their support base want them to continue to interfere in people’s private lives for ‘moral’ reasons. And, Republicans are just as dependent on pork as anyone else.
Regardless of taxes going up or down, we live in an age where people think the government should promote virtue and prevent vice. The US doesn’t have it as bad as the UK, but things will get worse before they get better.
Mary, that is perhaps one of the most inane comments I have seen here in a while.
Firstly, no one is forced to join the military in Britain, so anyone sent to Iraq by Her Majesty’s Government cannot say they were an unwilling conscript. When you take the Shilling, you know what you are letting yourself in for. I spent much of my life in the profession of arms but I have never felt the use of military force should anything but a matter for civilian political will and have never thought less of people for whom the idea of a military life is unappealing.
Secondly, Paul pays from the war via his taxes and unlike members of the volunteer military in Iraq who get to choose their careers, Paul is not offered a choice on paying his taxes to fund Britain’s wars, so he is hardly a disinterested party who is not entitled to views on how his tax money gets spent.
“I don’t think the Republicans can, because a very large part of their support base want them to continue to interfere in people’s private lives for ‘moral’ reasons.”
Don’t believe the hype. The ‘Religious Right’ is a handy boogeyman for the Democratic party, but it’s influence is overblown. The RR is a significant minority, but it’s still a minority.
“Lastly, and most importantly, where Republicans really do support limited government… they win.”
I wish that had been true in California, where McClintock barely was edged out by Garamendi for the Lt. Governor race. Meanwhile, Arnold won by a landslide… but it wasn’t on a “limited government” agenda.
Your shot at the “neocons” is unjustified. Their criticisms of Bush were generally thoughtful and mainly quite mild. There was no sneering. Their only mistake was to trust the editors of Vanity Fair, who promised not to publish before the elections. Instead VF issued a Web hit-piece based on a few out-of-context quotes that was obviously intended to harm Republican prospects.
I can see your not a fan of the ‘neo-cons’ Paul, but I’m sure you’ld agree that they should be part of the debate on the merits and conduct of the Iraq war.
In fact they were interviewed by David Rose for an article due to appear in January and stipulated that no out-of-context quotes were to appear before the election.
Vanity Fair stiched them up and you can read their reactions here
I think VF’s action will make a reasoned debate on the war more difficult and has already hurt Rose’s credibility, and I also think that this action more merits the description disgusting.
Sorry, Jack. “Paying Taxes” doesn’t count.
If Paul is so sure that we must win that war to preserve civilization, then it is his duty, his obligation, to pick up arms and fight them “over there” before they come “over here”.
And if he so objects to paying taxes, then he should withold them. Indeed, he should take up arms and when the State comes to enforce their taking ways upon his purse, he should shoot them.
Worked for us here in Her Majesty’s Former Colonies in the New World.
You know, that whole “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” business. It was in all the papers.
And if taxes being used badly so offends you, then you all have every reason to oppose the war and to seek the indictments of all concerned in fomenting the war.
Do you think it’s ONLY American dollars being stolen by Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, et al. They’re also hoovering up the £.s.p. with both hands.
“I’m trapped on Gilligan’s Island, but I’m not paying any INCOME TAX!”
What a spectacular idiotarian MAR is … first a reference to Paul being “so sure that we must win that war to preserve civilization” when he says nothing of the kind, followed by a self-contradictory order to take up arms against a country that is allied to the USA, then the obligatory reference to Haliburton et al…
Shouldn’t her post have ended with “Death to ChimpyMcBushitlerHaliburtonZionazi NOBLOODFOROOOOIIIILLLLLLL!!!!!” – you know, just to be consistent?
Mary Any Rand – Sorry, but your reasoning makes no sense. The troops are overwhelmingly in favor of this war and if the pro-war civilians are to be kept out of it, I don’t see what gives the anti-war civilians any moral standing to comment. It’s not their skin on the line either. At best, you’re advocating starship troopers governance whether you realize it or not.
In this war, the wordsmith is probably at greater risk than anytime in the past few centuries because there is no front line. A few ill-chosen words or acts and you start getting assassination teams discussing where on the list you should be placed.
As somebody who has had his work denounced (a long time ago and by different enemies) on national TV in a faraway country, I can assure you it is remarkably easy to get in that position. One can do it in your underwear in your bedroom. Fortunately, I never got picked to be the object lesson, unlike poor Prof. Culianu.
I apologize about Richard P. and Ken A. that Vanity Fair quoted – I assumed (it seems falsely) that if they had been misquoted (and I read the quotes second hand on in the “Sunday Telegraph” from cover, but also on Fox) that they would have been all over Fox saying that Vanity Fair were lying scum bags (which is what I would have done). However, I have seen Bill C. (of the Weekly Standard) comming out with stuff that was not acceptable (from a man who demanded war in the first place).
As for “thoughtful” stuff. The first casualty of any battle is the plan, which is part of why I was against going into Iraq in the first place – although as I was brought up with stories about Iraq (from a family friend I knew as Uncle Bill) I never believed this stuff about how the locals are lovely people and it is just Saddam and his henchmen who are a problem.
The idea that the problem is that Donald Rumsfeld made X mistake (such as “not enough boots on the ground”) is not true.
On M.A. Rand’s point: Well I am glad you think that I am young fit person – I am neither, the military would not have me.
Pity really as I am looking for work right now (I am living on savings I earned as a security guard).
You see, sometimes people are not quite as you think they are. I am a middle aged man who has been in a hospital a couple of times because I have breathing problem (although this breathing problem may solve my other problems at some point).
On government spending the problem (contrary to what is often said) is not Pork – the problem is the Welfare State, or what Americans call the “entitlement programs”.
Since Bob Kerry of Nebraska left the Senate I am not aware of any Democrats who are really interested in dealing with this.
The President mentioned the entitlement programs again today (during the best part of an hour he spent answering questions from a group of his sworn enemies), one can (indeed I have) attack President Bush for his lack of effort on the area of entitlements (indeed making them even worse in some ways) – but he is correct in saying that every year this is left the problem with Social Security and the rest of them gets harder to deal with.
Some Republicans are willing to try and roll some of this stuff back (via making individual, commercial and cooperative activity less difficult in the areas of education, sickness and old age), but I doubt the Democrats even see a problem with the Welfare State.
Congressman Frank got away with the under-age male prostitution that operated from his home
This is an absolute lie. Wikipedia, citing Media Matters, which cites the Boston Globe and the House Ethics Committee Report:
“In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male prostitute that Rep. Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted a prostitution ring from Frank’s apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year, and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee, after learning of Gobie’s activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.” (emphasis mine)
More here.
Don’t you think right-wingers are in enough trouble for their lies? Why compound the problem?
I understand, of course, your desperate flailing. Anything respectable about conservatism is long gone: all the talk about family, communities, institutions, received wisdom, etc. is long gone, replaced with hysterical hatred and fear and unquenchable bloodlust.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population suitably alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, almost all of them, imaginary.” H.L. Mencken
– Josh
Promising the whole country that you want to eliminate the safety net for the unemployed usually doesn’t win votes. So yes, during a war that is being spun in a negative light already, trying to take away the leftists favorite special interest group would probably make things worse for Bush.
Hey, that’s a new excuse – Democrats won because their supporters are “‘cool’ with man-boy stuff”! It sure is fun to see Republicans and their apologists driven utterly deranged by bitterness.
It must also be fun to lack reading comprehension skills.
The Bipartisans have long had it in their power to keep independent and third-party candidates from throwing elections to unpopular, plurality-only candidates. They tried doing this for many decades by rigging the election laws in their favor, in a slowly-losing cause.
All they’d need to do would be to set up some sort of preferential voting system. Proxy voting (sort of as in the Electoral College; easiest to implement), 2-way IRV, runoffs — almost anything would do the trick.
Funny how this is so slow in coming. In MA the Republican party tried to keep out the competition, on a lazy, protectionist impulse that has served them so poorly for so long, they’re headed to oblivion in a decade. I suppose that much the same thing is going on elsewhere, motivationally.
The title to the post says it all…
This is truly the lefts’ last hurrah at power (in the US) because they’re ideas are obsolete. They might as well make the best of it.
the House voted to reprimand Frank
Um… isn’t that what he said?
Someone from Britain describing the US Democrats as “leftists” strikes me as bizarre. We should be lucky if we had any prospect of an administration only as leftist as that. “Statist” might stick, but it could stick nearly as easily to the Republicans.
No evidence is offered for the assertion this might be their last victory. All you do is point to some tactical opportunities for their opponents. (Britain is no more relevant that North Korea to this, perhaps less. How many American voters know Tony Blair is a socialist dictator?) A lot of people have voted for them. What demographic or political shifts are going permanently to outnumber the Democrats?
guy,
While not their last victory as big ‘D’ Democrats, it is probably the last victory for either party that has much of any ideology in it. I think from this point on, it will probably be an ‘us = good, them = bad’ indistinguishability.
This probably was the last victory for anything resembling ideology. From now on, it will be an auction to see who can buy the most voters out of the total revenue.
Just think of the quote that Perry uses for a tagline –
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else
– Frederic Bastiat
Guy I defined what I meant by “leftist” at the end of the article (O.K. I should have done so at the start – and mentioned that once Bastiat sat on the left and so on).
As for the Democrats – well you do not know much about them.
For example, Mrs Clinton (regarded as a mainstream Democrat) has never really given up her dream of government control of health care – much further than the N.H.S. (which still allows people to buy health care totally outside the system). Her non television speeches (to Hollywood trash and other such) also contain lots of ultra statist stuff. The lady has some real ideals (as opposed to just being a machine politician – which is the sterotype of Democrats, and is true of some of them), the trouble is that they are evil ones.
Of course there are interesting Democrats (the Governors of New Mexico and Tennessee spring to mind) – but they are not going to be in control of Congress.
As for Wild Pegasus:
Listen Josh – quoting Wickipedia (or official “investigations”) will not cut it . You remind me of the man who tried to prove to me that Mr Soros caused the collapse of the Soviet empire – even though his mega bucks were made when Britain was forced out of the E.R.M. (although he was already a very wealthy man before this – he was not mega wealthy), which was AFTER the Soviet empire went down.
No doubt there is also a Wickipedia article (no I have not looked) saying that the Soviets only decided to go into Hungary after the British and French went into Suez – after all that is what the Soviet files say. The fact these files were often “revised” (1984 Ministry of Truth style) passes a lot of historians by (I heard two “leading historians” come out with this crap about the Hungary-Suez link only a few weeks ago – on the B.B.C. of course).
Barney Frank did not “befriend” the male prositute – he had sex with him.
And if you really think he did not know what sort of business was being run from his property – well there is a nice bridge near the Tower of London I would like to sell you.
I do not tell lies Josh – especially when another Democrat had sex with a House page (rather than sending him e.mails) and continued to be reelected (again and again).
Face it “you left wingers” (for want of a better term) clearly do not care about Congressmen having sex with under age boys (as long as the Congressmen are Democrats).
Nor have you replied to my point about Barney Frank’s dream of creating a world financial services regulator (part of the old leftist dream of world government – see “Philip Dru: Administrator” by President Wilson’s friend and “other self” Colonel E.M. House, and no it was not a limited state government, or see President Wilson’s own words if you prefer – lots of nice collectivist stuff remains from when he was an academic).
The real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans show shame when they are found out (they fall to bits). Democrats (of the “progressive” sort – not of other types) tend not to care that they have done wrong (perhaps they do not even accept that there are such things as “right” and “wrong” – after all the leading thinkers in academia are relativists these days) – which is why they tend to survive.
It is a sort of hideous strength.
As for the Democrats – well you do not know much about them.
I know enough actual Democrats, of the East and West Coast liberal varieties, to have formed an opinion as to the gaps between rhetoric and reality, posturing and policy. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, strikes me as an almost unknowable beast. (Likewise the Republican one.)
Midwesterner,
I’m prepared to believe that might be a metastable state. But politics is never ended. Unless a new force arises, both Republicans and Democrats will in time pick up some new ideology (or -ies, since they don’t seem to ba happy with only one each).
The voting record of the leading Democrats (not just their speeches) on taxes, spending and regulations is a matter of public record Guy. Pity that you seem to know so little about it – however, I expect you know more than you imply.
Saying black is white is a good way to cause an argument, and that does not really mean that the speaker (or in this case writer) really believes that black is white.
However, I agree that “the Democratic party” (and the Republican one) can not be understood as seperate from the people in them – I apologize for the careless way I wrote about them.
As for “new ideology”, I suspect we agree that there are no such things as new ideologies (most ideas are very old indeed – for example there is little in free market ideas that would have come as a shock to Sir Dudley North in the 17th century, or to some scholastic thinkers centuries before him, or even [I suspect] to the Lycrophon who is attacked by Aristotle), although I fully agree that human beings can change their ideas over time.
For example, as a child I was strongly in favour of the “war on drugs”. I still regard drug abuse as disgusting, but I neither believe that government laws can prevent it (at a cost that is acceptable), or even that government has a right to try and prevent people using drugs.
However, people do not often change their basic political outlook after the age of about 30.
I do not see Nancy P. and the other leading Democrats turning away from their support for ever more government spending, taxes and regulations.
Although I have to accept that such a thing is possible.
As for politicians (of both parties) being corrupt – I fully agree that many are (to some extent) but even the most corrupt politician is often to some extent influenced by ideas.
That is why I am not happy with “leftists” for want of a better word (such as the British government people) who have become “realists” (i.e. corrupt). If a person rejects collectivism (repents) I am happy – but if a person just becomes corrupt then their old ideals will still be there (if only in the backs of their minds) and their actions will be influenced by their ideas (they will not just act on the basis of “what gets us the most votes” or “who is paying us the biggest bribes” – it might be better if they did).
Of course some politicians seem never to have believed in anything (Mr Cameron springs to mind) – but Nancy and co are not really like that. They have principles, it is just that they are bad principles.