Perpetual Party Obituaries

Among the more tedious aspects of politics is the rush to pen gleeful post-mortems of the losing party. But two years ago, the GOP was supposed to be doomed, a regional party on its way out like the Federalists of old. Now the Democrats are, in the eyes of the wingnut-sphere, swirling the drain. Here's Roger Simon, prognosticating a nervous breakdown for the donkeys:

the reasons for the Democratic breakdown are infinitely more serious, starting with this little tidbit — Keynesian economics is dead. Giving away money as the route to political success or attempted social justice just isn’t going to work anymore, because there isn’t any money to give away. And it’s only going to get worse as the population ages. The whole justification for the Democratic Party — the welfare state — is one giant Ponzi scheme that makes Madoff seem like a piker.
And everybody knows it. All across the world, from Portugal to Japan, the system is in free fall.

Now, I don't think he's wrong on the subject of Keynesian economics. I think it is "dead", inasmuch as the idea that it's reached its practical limits is becoming widely acceptable. But that doesn't mean dismantling the progressive Leviathan will be a task simple or assured. The beast still has many adherents, who will fight for their place at the public teat.

So no, the idea isn't dead, and it isn't pining for the fjords, either. It's just old, and sick, and in need of hip replacements to survive.

GOP Should Seek Clarity

The DC Examiner:

Often when Washington insiders talk "compromise," they really mean engineering a situation where nobody really has to take a position, or responsibility. In those circumstances, clarity is better served by forcing positions into the open, even if doing so involves confrontation.

Ultimately, it is the people who are going to have to decide what course we take in these troubled waters. Politicians do well when they give people a choice between competing options rather than obfuscate the differences. The question is, do politicians believe they will be rewarded for this?

One of the main reasons for the Democrats' defeat this year was voters' sense that they wouldn't listen -- that they rammed through a predetermined agenda without paying any attention to voters' misgivings, and that they, in fact, seemed to glory in their lack of accountability. (Remember Speaker Nancy Pelosi's parade-with-gavel through the throngs of anti-Obamacare protesters?)
By listening to voters at town hall meetings, Republicans can not only show that they care, they can accomplish something else. They can actually learn something.

They represent us. They ought to give a damn what we think.

Read the whole thing.

Tommorrow.

I feel like Tommorrow means something, and I feel like it doesn't. It seems to me that we have but one final chance to pull back from the abyss, from the slow strangling descent into a New Class-managed Dark Age. On the other hand, even the forlorn hope of Dem-Plosion will result in nothing but the opportunity to slowly slip the Progressive Leviathan's grip. That crazed radical Paul Ryan, the man who's out of his mind, is planning on taking the next 75 years to restore us to fiscal sanity.

Given the high that the Democrats experienced 2 years ago, I don't know how the GOP can claim a mandate for their more radical (and necessary) plans. It might not at all be possible to forestall the utter and complete collapse of legitimacy.

The people are sick of Democrats. They're sick of Republicans, too. They're sick of "independents". They're bone-weary of Congress, the White House, the lobbyists, the activists, bureaucrats, the media. Everyone but the army can go to hell as far as most voters are concerned.

If that keeps up, then some tommorrow down the road, the other shoe will drop.

If the Republicans are an Eternally Barking Dog, Democrats are a Zombie Apocalypse

Frank Fleming rules:

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart. Or, to use Obama’s favorite analogy, you have a car stuck in ditch, so you call the mechanic, but the only tool he brings with him is a sledgehammer. And then he smashes your car to pieces and charges you $100,000 for his service. Finally, he calls you racist for complaining.

 Read the whole thing.

The Once and Future Governor: Ehrlich Rally, Bel Air, MD

I am told that I live in a deeply blue state. The outward evidence for this abounds: our House of Delegates and State Senate has been dominated by Democrats for a long time, controlling almost 3/4 or the lower house and 2/3 of the Senate.

Those Gosh-Darn Republicans Complain Too Much

So says David Halperin, in Time:

His opponents haven't put forth specifics of their own, nor offered genuine compromise, while the media have allowed the right's activists and gabbers to run wild with criticism without furnishing legitimate alternative solutions.

Right. Because back when the Democrats were running against Bush in 2002, 2004, and 2006, they were stuffed with legitimate alternative solutions. And the media certainly didn't let Democratic activists and gabbers run wild without holding their feet to the fire.

Hey, David. This garden slug I just stepped on called for you. He wants his self-awareness back.

Obama Does NOT Have Bush's Reflexes.

At least, judged by this:

 Knowledge is Power!

Personally, I'm suspicious of the fact that the title of the book has not been released. Don't you think if it was a wingnut tome, we'd know it by now?

Best line, in the comments:

It must be a copy of the US Constitution.  He didn't seem to notice it.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has the video.

Who will Reform the Reformers?

The American Interest:

“What are you kids doing down there,” ask the voters, who’ve noticed some banging and crashing in the basement.  “Are you kids writing a Carbon Tax?”

The greens check quickly with the focus groups and pollsters before shouting back up, “No, Mommy, of course not.  We aren’t playing Carbon Tax.  We’re playing Cap and Trade.”

Read the whole thing.

In Fairness to Rand Paul...

...there is a downside to public accommodation laws. They often create a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

How did a civil rights principle meant to aid African Americans and others who suffered grievous discrimination for generations come to protect the “right” of Neo-Nazis to parade their Nazi wardrobes in a privately owned restaurant against the wishes of management? The short answer is that legislation and its interpretation doesn’t develop from a coherent set of moral principles, but instead based on who is able to persuade the legislatures and the courts to adopt the principles they prefer. The principle involved in Alpine Village case appears to be hostility to the rights of private property owners, not “civil rights.”

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Apparently the Libertarians have decided that Rand Paul is insufficiently pure.

The Ultimate Libertarian.

The Essayist #19: Rand Paul is not a Bigot, Just a Dumb Libertarian

In the wake of Rand Paul putting his foot in it, Ace does yeoman's work explaining in exact detail why the 1964 Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were specifically enacted with the purpose of eradicating slavery and duly -- constitutionally -- empowered Congress to pass legislation in furtherance of this purpose. To say such laws are "unconstitutional" is simply in error -- previous to the lawful and constitutional passage of those amendments, such laws would have indeed have been unconstitutional and an unlawful overreach of granted Congressional power.
After their lawful passage, however, Congress did have that authority.

And the reason that Congress decided that it need that authority was because certain states were violating the rights of their citizens, of failing to do the thing governments are created to do. The Constitution thus comes  more fully in line with the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

Peasants in feudal society weren't technically slaves, but they were peons, persons with sharply-curtailed rights and certain obligations (including deference) to their social betters/masters. I think a fair reading of "slavery" includes the idea of "peonage," too. Unless there is some critical constitutional point here to be vindicated, I do not see any defensible purpose in arguing these amendments outlawed slavery but gave full constitutional blessing to regime of enforced peonage.

Precisely. Slavery and peonage are offenses against liberty, that can only be maintained by the use of force. As Governments exist to secure liberties, our government should be willing and able to act against one person's attempt to destroy the liberty of another. Hence, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a necessary and constitutional redress against 400 years of slavery and peonage.

Would it have been better if it was not necessary? Assuredley. Are there things about the way the Civil Rights Act as been used that I consider wrong, and offenses to liberty? Without doubt. But the law, as intended, has no legal or ethical flaw.

Le Scandal Sestak! Quelle Horreur!

The most scandalous thing about the Sestak Scandal is how scandalous it's not. Breathes there a soul so innocent that knows not the utter normality of such quid-pro-quoing? Deals, compromises, offers, this has been the stuff of politics since Sumer. Despite the promises of whatever Candidate of Change we elect every 16 years, it will remain the stuff of politics. That's why wingnuts like myself prefer that politics has as little stuff as possible.

More interesting than the substance of L'Affair Sestak is the fact of it. A Democratic candidate for Senate is publicly accusing a Democratic President of buying him off, before a primary election? Either Sestak hasn't thought this through, or Obama's in a lot more trouble than he's aware.