Rebane's Ruminations
August 2012
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

A recurring theme on RR has been debating the fundamental asymmetry giving rise to the polarization between conservatives embracing liberty and free market capitalism, and liberals embracing big government socialism.  The Great Divide is one foci of the debate about how to resolve this asymmetry.  The nearby graphic communicates the essence of this resolution, and drives liberals into apoplexy as these pages have witnessed.  But it doesn’t have to end that way.  Just a thought.

Asymmetry
[Addendum]  Bob Crabb’s series of ‘Yes We Con’ essays on the Republican lovefest (aka convention) in Tampa highlights the polarizing truth of my little statement above.  Now before going further, Bob is a friend and a man whose work (both graphic and lexicographic) I admire.  While doing his best to cast a gimlet eye on both parties, according my compass, Bob still steers his ship of slate a bit left of center.

This assessment is apparent in his recounting of the recent damp days in Tampa.  There Bob’s reportage again percolates the notions that the conservatives and their Republican flag bearers are basically evil in thought and deed, and out to do the little guy in along every aspect of life – his job, his health, his education, …, and, here’s where it get a bit gritty, also his opportunity to better himself, his family, or his situation.

The Left, on the other hand, is just a bunch of good-hearted, ecologically sensitive, bureaucratic bunglers with deep souls who do their best to deliver social justice within a tough and rapacious environment ruled by rule-breaking capitalism.  But they are learning, and if we give them just one more chance, they will get it right and there will be happy dancing in the streets.

This then is the middle ground in which we are invited to gather for the great journey ‘forward’.  But it turns out that the so-called middle ground today is inhabited almost entirely by expatriates from the Left who have been shocked by the realities that their more devoutly radical brethren have delivered.  They recall being true believers themselves before they saw their dreams turn into dysfunction, and then decided to quietly emigrate to a land of no clear ideology.  There they would remain in that everlasting political calm, looking at both sides, and periodically clucking their tongues at what now from their new vantage appeares as the polarized extremes.

It turns out that the problem with these middle roaders is they ended their journey a little too soon – they never reached the middle, because it was hard to completely cast off those delightful, simple, and pure certitudes that first clarified a complex world to young minds.  Some of those wonderful tenets, or at least their echoes, must surely still hold – let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and all that.  And so they came to homestead a patch of ideologically barren turf where they sit today and sarcastically judge the quick and the dead, and issue their plaintive calls for the rest of us to join them.

What these self-declared middle roaders fail to see is that they have neither old nor new solutions to attract, let alone bind, the collectivists and the classical liberals.  There is no there there. They stopped where the ground is still slippery and still slopes to the Left.

Posted in , ,

81 responses to “The Big Asymmetry (Addended)”

  1. TomKenworth Avatar

    Rove is trying to drive the RepublicAN ELEPHANTS ACROSS

    Like

  2. TomKenworth Avatar

    the alps. Good luck!

    Like

  3. Steven Frisch Avatar

    I’m looking back at my original comment on this thread:
    “Funny, I know more than a few good, “real Americans”, who were labor union members, Democrats, and liberals, who fought for this country, were wounded for this country, and sacrificed for this country. Members of my own family lost their lives fighting fascism, or were wounded or served in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I think they would be disgusted with the idea that a fellow veteran says they could not exist without conservatives fighting for them. They’ve proved that they are quite capable of and willing to fight for their country all by themselves.
    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 01 September 2012 at 09:07 AM
    and realizing that George never actually answered the key point–that Americans of all persuasions fought, sacrificed and died for this country, and to endorse the idea embodied in the photo he posted is fundamentally disrespectful and insulting to all of those people.

    Like

  4. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    SteveF thanks for proving my points in opposition to yours. I knew you would come through.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF 856am – Indeed all of us can “really have it both ways”. In the realworld trust, like many other things, is conditional. It is simplistic to require that ‘trust government in one thing, trust them in everything else’. Therefore I stand with my 845am.
    re your 1146am – what is there about my 1155am that you don’t understand? You again confuse two separate, distinct, and independent (aka orthogonal) notions, namely 1) ideologies of people who were conscripted and answered the call to fight in a country’s wars, and 2) their tenets which may or not support a country’s ability to project power through a strong military. Hence, there is nothing disrespectful to veterans of any stripe in the presented proposition.
    Conservatives, even ‘old and addled’, can easily tell that such notions require and deserve separate treatment in order to pursue a rational discussion. Perhaps younger men already had the acquisition of those skills excised from their public educations, along with the ability to understand meanings of words like ‘conspiracy’, which they unthinkingly accuse us older ones of labeling another topic of interest, Agenda21 (please excuse the divergence of topic here, but there is a connecting thread in the requirement to understand the nature of relationships in both areas, cf your comment at Russ Steele’s).

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    From SteveF’s early critism of my PAX USA, he said this,
    “Congressional declarations spell out what actions are authorized as part of the war.”
    So then he gave us all the War Resolution for WW2 and guess what, nothing spelled out! So you readers get to see up close how a liberal mind works or deosn’t depending on your perspective.
    I think SteveF for once again making my points for me.

    Like

  7. TomKenworth Avatar

    There’s a difference between a deliberately planned attack by the USA on another country, and an immediate response to an unplanned attack on our soil. A huge difference, Todd, take note.

    Like

  8. Steven Frisch Avatar

    Hey Todd, you bonehead, where in the War Declarations did it say that Habeous Corpus or Posse Commitatus were suspended? IT DID NOT. Thus the declarations gave the executive branch exactly the power that it stated, the power to wage war CONSISTENT with US LAW.
    This is what it authorized: use all of the resources of the United States government and its naval and military forces to defeat Japan.
    What do they have to? List all the laws that stay in force every time they Declare.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    A refereed comment here. Please remember that you are commenting on RR, and not on some other site where appellations like ‘bonehead’ are common currency. Here, if more civil discourse eludes, then at least attempt something like ‘calcified cranium’ in its stead.

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar

    “There’s a difference between a deliberately planned attack by the USA on another country, and an immediate response to an unplanned attack on our soil.” Keachie/”TomKenworth”
    Let’s not forget Obama’s decision to bomb Libya without Congressional approval or an attack on US soil or forces.

    Like

  11. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Bonehead here. So you state there has to be a list of, well hewre are your words again SteveF,
    “Congressional declarations spell out what actions are authorized as part of the war.”
    and yet there is no list at all in the War Resolution you supply. If you are unable to grasp the point you should try night school. You were trying to make fun f the PAX USA I wrote and it has truly backfired on you. What a hoot.
    I don’t see the listed item of incarcerating al those Japanes on the Resolution. I don’t see the right to deny habeus corpus. Now did I say it slowly enough t show you youy are somply wrong on your posts here or are you the real calcified cranium inhabitng the place?

    Like

  12. Steven Frisch Avatar

    If you are too stupid to figure it out that’s not my problem.
    I think I completely demolished your PAX USA comment…for anyone but the usual suspects here.

    Like

  13. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    SteveF, I have bested you and you just can’t take it. But, being a rent seeker makes you feel superior it appears.

    Like

  14. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Why not a similar reprimand for Todd using “disgrace to the flag”?

    Like

  15. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 824pm – I thought ‘disgrace to the flag’ was a cut above ‘bonehead’ – what do you think? But SteveF’ use of “usual suspects here” is acceptable in my book. Thoughts?

    Like

  16. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    PaulE, what does it take for you to disagree with a person who trashes their own country? It seems you are too sensitive for the truth. But I guess namesalling by a liberal of a conservative suits you OK.

    Like

  17. Steven Frisch Avatar

    You know why Paul—they can call us un-American– but we get reprimanded for pointing out Todd’s clear hard headedness.
    So we have a group of militarists who would not trust our country enough to have them plan a transit system or plan for our future energy needs, but would trust them enough to fight clandestine wars around the world, go to war in Iran or order secret assassinations.
    In short, we trust our government to kill but not to plan.

    Like

  18. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    SteveF, that is the lamest thing you have said in at leatst a day. No planning? Isn’t that what you nd SBC do exclusively with the millions you get from the taxpayers? My goodness, we have almost as many plans as the USSR and Mao had with their “five year” plans we all grew up hearing about. Mao still attacked us in Korea and the Politburo still used other countries as proxies in wars against free people. But liberals like you would have our leaders sit around a campfire singing kumbaya while the Red Army overran the planet I guess.

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    StevenF 456am – who/where are the “militarists” who oppose plans for a transit system or future energy needs? Don’t know whether you’re in high dudgeon hyperbole mode here, or are preambling for making the case for those assertions.

    Like

  20. Steven Frisch Avatar

    I am merely pointing out the inherent inconsistency of the position that one would trust the government to wage war without congressional approval but not trust them to plan a regional transit system. If the government is incompetent, as you assert, it is incompetent in both instances.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    StevenF 837am – You apparently see the skills, resources, objectives, and sense of urgency for military actions (e.g. waging war) and planning a transit system as being birds of a feather as long as they involve government. I’m not able to make that connection.
    And judging government to be incompetent in, say, planning a transit system (which I do) vs approving a plan for such from the private sector, doesn’t automatically make it incompetent in the military sphere. But history does overflow with examples of military failures imposed by the dictates of distant politicians.
    Military matters per se are the sum and stuff of governments, where transit systems are not. Also, a nation’s military soon becomes a meritocracy (giving it a unique level of competency in that institution), or its government is overthrown (if idiot sons of the elite are promoted into command). America’s military is perhaps the best example of such meritocracy in recent history. So whether the military fights under executive order or with Congressional approval makes little difference on the outcome.
    In a republic we have made it a requirement for extended military operations to be congressionally approved. And that worked out well before forces could move rapidly, communications became instantaneous, and we were not members of international clubs like the UN and NATO. Now, by treaty, we have to fight to achieve such clubs’ objectives, and have decided it is in our national interest to do so. And ever since Korea, such club wars have not required Congress to declare or commit us to war, but merely nod approval (or at least not protest too loudly), when we committed our forces. So now it is what it is.
    A question I would ask – ‘should we continue these club wars?’ or ‘should we resign from all such clubs and become the unencumbered hegemon explicitly looking out for our own interests without longer term commitments to the security of other countries?’
    I hope somewhere along the way here we gave up equating our government’s military actions with its planning of transit systems.

    Like

  22. Paul Emery Avatar

    But George, how can we avoid such wars such as the invasion of Iraq, which was not about national defense but was lobbied effectively as make work for government contractors and the securing of resources for private companies by invading a sovereign country that posed no serious military threat? Is there anything in the Constitution that justifies over 1000 permanent US military bases overseas?
    http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1154am – I’m not sure that we can avoid wars “such as the invasion of Iraq”. Through the rear view mirror, it seems like a bad decision. But at the time we had a dictator who had already invaded a neighbor, fought a ten year war with another neighbor, and was generally a threat to reliable and low cost world energy prices (you can do with WMDs what you will, but Israel did have to shut down Saddam’s nuclear weapons facility once already, and there was no indication that Saddam would not try again).
    I think our presidents will continue to be burdened with such decisions forever. Wait until China starts pushing its near-abroad influence to the outer islands that surround its sea approaches.
    The only Constitutional support for overseas bases is through the executive branch deciding their necessity for securing the country. Congress in its ‘advice and consent’ function can shut them down instantly any time that they decide not to fund them.
    Do I detect again that our “private companies” are America’s built in enemies? We know they game the system, and they are a hell of lot smarter than the doofus bureaucrats who regulate them. But that’s another topic.

    Like

  24. Paul Emery Avatar

    “generally a threat to reliable and low cost world energy prices”
    Can you show me where that reason for was presented to the Congress and the American people?
    Israel shut down Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981, over 20 years before our invasion. There was no credible information they were rebuilding it except for contrived intelligence after the fact. The photo’s displayed by Colin Powell were instantly discredited and never shown to be valid.

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1228pm – I know of no public argument for that, although there might have been. However, I’ll bet the farm that in back room conversations Congress deliberated that reason, and that explains a lot of how they behaved in their public support of the 2003 invasion.
    To think that Saddam would not have restarted (continued?) his nuclear weapons program, given what arch-enemy Iran was doing, strains my credibility beyond repair. As we have already agreed in these discussions, we live in two very distinct universes.

    Like

  26. TomKenworth Avatar

    I see you are not fond of having Republican draft dodgers pointed out.

    Like

  27. George Rebane Avatar

    TomK 239pm – No Doug, I’m not fond of little pissy matches, especially when they’re off topic. You want to start a conversation about draft dodgers? write a piece on it and I’ll post it, and we’ll take it from there.

    Like

  28. Gregory Avatar

    “I am merely pointing out the inherent inconsistency of the position that one would trust the government to wage war without congressional approval but not trust them to plan a regional transit system. If the government is incompetent, as you assert, it is incompetent in both instances.”
    The Frisch POV seems to be if government is competent to wage war, which is a power granted by the Constitution, it must be competent to design, build, maintain and operate a high speed rail system.
    Our armed forces have shown various levels of competence since 1776 but the cream has risen to the top and failures have tended to be from the political side where the hardest decisions have to be made.
    The state of California has shown somewhat less competence than that in the past 50 years and rather than cream, it’s a cesspool model where the biggest chunks rise to the top.

    Like

  29. Gregory Avatar

    Someday we should bring our boys home from foreign lands. Unless the Germans are agin getting antsy about France and Poland, or Japan is fixing to invade the Phillipines, it might be safe to withdraw from our WWII strongholds.

    Like

  30. Steven Frisch Avatar

    No Greg, my point of view is that if someone like George does not trust the government to plan a regional transit system (I did not mention high speed rail) then they should not trust them enough to engage in war without a declaration from Congress. It is fundamentally inconsistent to say government is usually incompetent, except when I agree with them.

    Like

  31. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Greg, his logic is totally dopey. Not worth your breath.

    Like

Leave a comment