Republican politicians stink. This is because real Republicans don’t go into politics. We have a life…
Democrats, on the other hand, are brilliant politicians. And I mean that as a vicious slur.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 3rd, 2015 |
 16 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Precisely, Politics at level we are in Nation State can only be Socialist. Any non-Socialist politician has to be anti-politics, has to destroy Politics = destroy large parts of State spending and regulation.
Politics is the art of the promotion, maintenance and reward of failure, and the punishment of success. One who can succeed has no need of politics, but the envious need politics as a means to organise and justify their taking of that which is not their own.
And that welcome but sadly scarce sight, an honest and decent Argentinian intervening in politics.
Wanting to be a politician should probably disqualify you from being one.
Some Republican Governors have done a good job (in the face of opposition for the education system, media, and even the courts)
They have cut taxes, balanced the budget, reduced regulation, rolled back “Collective Bargaining” (as the late W.H. Hutt pointed out, this is GOVERNMENT IMPOSED system – it did not evolve naturally) and so on.
However, there is little the Federal Congress can do – if faced with a determined collectivist President.
People were spoilt by the Bill Clinton years.
Bill Clinton was (and is) both a bad man and a collectivist – but he was (and is) a lazy one.
Congress wanted to fight him to get such things as Welfare reform – and he fought them, but only half heartedly (he was, in the end, willing to “make a deal”).
Comrade Barack Obama is no Southern Populist more interested in chasing women (and so on) than in working for the collectivist cause.
Comrade Barack is showing what a determined (and evil – and I use the word “evil” deliberately) President can do.
Comrade Barack Obama is, P.J. O’Rourke would put it, a brilliant politician.
The real test for Republicans will come if they control the Presidency and the Congress.
They have been in that position before (although never with a real, operational, control of both Houses). And past Republican Presidents (including Reagan) were not very competent – the last really competent Republican President was Calvin Coolidge (if one ignores monetary policy – which was not actually in his hands anyway).
I do not think much of the present Republican leaders in the Senate or the House.
They do not inspire confidence – they need to be replaced.
There are good Republican candidates in the field.
Principled Senators such as Rand Paul (Ted Cruz has a similar record – but people are very divided on their position on WHY he does the things he does, is it really principle?).
There are also Republicans in the field who have already achieved things – such as Governor Scott Walker.
Of course if the candidate turns out to be J.E. “Common Core” Bush – then it is time to walk away.
We will know better how things will go after the debate on Thursday.
The sheeple are the problem.
RE: Chip above.
“You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?'”
“Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected.
“It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you,” she said.
The “Southern Flag” was next.
There is kind of an odd confusion of U S politicians with “governing.”
In the realities of being governed (the Federal Administrative State operations) we face, not politicians, but the un-elected: The legislative staffs, the huge phalanx of “administrators” and regulators, plus the creators of regulations and rules that have really become what most refer to as our “laws.” (pace, Laird)
So, from the standpoint of actual “governing” what do the politicians do (or not do) that is so awful? And why do they do it?
To my mind, the worst trend in recent politics is the rising dominance of the professional politician. No one should be seeking elective office as a full-time, lifelong career.
It’s generally a bad sign. Reagan and the two Bushes both had substantial careers outside politics. Nixon, Clinton, and Obama did not.
RRS – as you know the Supreme Court ruled in 1935 that government bureaucrats could NOT just make up “laws” under vague Enabling Statutes.
That Congress could not “contract out” the power of making laws to agencies such as the “National Recovery Agency” (General Johnson’s “Blue Eagle” thugs) under vague statutes such as the “National Industrial Recovery Act”.
However, there was a massive outcry (led by Franklin Roosevelt) against a “horse and buggy” view of the Constitution – i.e. against taking it seriously.
Later Supreme Court judgements quietly buried the 1935 judgement.
So now, yes, government bureaucrat can make “laws” (under vague enabling statutes) as they see fit.
It is (as British Chief Justice Hewart said in his book of 1929) – it is “The New Despotism”.
“Delegated Legislation”, enabling statutes that allow officials, members of the Executive branch to make up rules with the force of law, must be strictly forbidden.
“But that is not compatible with modern government”.
Yes – indeed.
Paul, I’m sure that RRS is well aware of the Supreme Court’s caving in to Roosevelt’s “court-packing” threat in 1935, and the enduring damage that has wrought. But his point (as I understand it) is that regulations are not technically “laws” in the classic definition of that term. I bow to his superior knowledge of that, but nonetheless continue to maintain that since such regulations, by statute and court determination, are accorded “the force of law”, it is a distinction without a (practical) difference.
Salve Laird,
Precisely why your point about the “practical” effect is the important point.
Why and how that has come to be the practical effect offers some chilling insights into how objectives are shaped by motivations; bringing into question how those motivations came to be formed; and, what may be forming to follow.
Sorry Laird but I think the court packing thingy FDR proposed happened after his 1936 reelection.
Still it was a disgraceful episode, all around.
Taylor, sorry for the year discrepancy. That is what comes from doing all this from memory!
RRS, agreed.
Nolo Contendere