I have to hand it to James Carville. At least he had the courage to admit in his new article for the Financial Times – Democrats need to learn the blame game – that he was the author of 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation , a book that came out last March. Looking at it ten short months later, Carville’s tome was as ill-timed as NYTBR editor Sam Tanenhaus’ The Death of Conservatism.
Oh, well, quickie political books are a tad treacherous. [Note to self: Think more long term.]
Of course, that’s about the only sensible thing Carville does in his article, which he wrote on vacation in the Seychelles during the Massachusetts election, but seems as if it’s coming from Alpha Centauri – meaning that his thesis is wildly out of date, as if beamed in from space light years ago. It’s an argument for Blaming Bush, of all things, something that even Barack Obama has begun to avoid, after months of trying, because it’s so obviously and completely self-destructive.
Why? It’s too easy to know the truth now. When someone like Carville (or his opponent) bloviates on a cable network you can check what he was saying instantly on the Internet. Two minutes on Google would tell you there’s plenty of blame for the economic meltdown for Republicans and Democrats (hello, Fannie and Freddie!), something Carville wants to pin entirely on Bush, which is utter, brain dead partisan nonsense. We all know that and to say otherwise is insulting and – sorry, James – real boring. That dog won’t hunt anymore.
But Carville has a worse problem. As everyone knows, liberalism depends on government spending and … we don’t have any money! In fact, as again we all know from two minutes on the Internet, we’re in hock to the Chinese up to our necks. Yes, yes, I know, they are co-dependent with us, but if we keep spending at current rates (or anything like them), the whole system will go tilt on both ends. We could be in a situation that will make 1933 look like 1993. And printing money only makes things worse. Read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man, a brilliant history of the Great Depression, if you don’t believe me.
So liberals are in a kind of Catch-22. That’s why The Tea Party Movement is in the ascendancy. Maybe you don’t like to hear it but, trust me, they are just as smart as you are and, moreover, have the honesty to tell the simple truth: We’re broke. That’s why health care and cap-and-trade (larceny anyway) are going down the tubes. And that’s why former schoolboy marxists like me are flirting with libertarianism. Sorry, James, but the liberal thing we grew up with has become just so square. It’s the squares who are hip now. And speaking of the Tea Party Movement, this “tea bagger” joke is just not funny at all. Not even a giggle. Can’t you and your buddy Begala come up with something better? Something not quite as overtly sexist. Why don’t you ask the South Park guys? They’re cool. They’re edgy and they take no prisoners. Maybe they can come up with something for you… Oh,wait. I think they’re libertarians.
– the Troll King.
Now mind you, I’m not a sharp political insider, but… remember how all those Tea Party folks turned up in Washington DC and ALL OVER THE USA, in towns large and small… with handmade signs… and there was total disinterest on the part of the Politicians (Republicans as well as Democrats), not to speak of the “MSM”?
And, (hey, I’m not THAT smart but), didn’t any of those genius’s notice that those folks are all of VOTING AGE??? That they WILL TURN UP ON VOTING DAY??? That, after this summer of sneering from the Elect, they will turn up earlier, and GET INVOLVED at the local political level and… hey… become “POLITICAL”.
It’s really all about stupid. Real Stupid.
Roger, I loved that “schoolboy marxist”. That’s what we all were when we were 18-20 years old. In those days, most of us became wiser by the time we were 30. The others, like Ayers, stayed stuck on stupid, a term that seems to be getting a lot of play on PJM tonight.
That’s exactly what we have in the White House now: a sophomoric retro-communist administration, so euphoric in the success of its its Alinsky inspired scam that it truly regards itself as invincible. Just wait for confirmation on Wednesday.
“40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation” and “The Death of Conservatism”?
LM>strike>FAO!
Dream big, James. Egg meet face. *whoosh*
Yaknow, there is some sort of warped, karmic hilarity in the fact that the moment when the Leftists finally seized their Acorn sullied paws on the ultimate political power appointments… America, she is flat broke and running on fumes (extra charge for the re$idual carbon, do not pass go, do not collect 200 carbon credits).
Carville’s detachment from the process is not specific to “calling it in” from the Seychelles. It seems each one of his appearances can be more likened to that of an aging PGA tour pro, not wanting to go to the senior tour yet, but more often than not struggling to make the Friday cut.
He’s still capable of flourishes of wit, but as time goes by you begin to see his magic moment was the Clinton presidency. He’s always been far better with shooting the arrows than aiming.
What I want to know is whether it’s possible to default selectively on the treasury debt we owe to various foreign governments. Could we, for example, pick a quarrel with the chinese and just default on the debt we owned them, while assuring everyone else that of course they’ll get paid as planned. Or maybe we want to put pressure on the Arabs to act more reasonable in the mideast. Using debt owed to others as a foreign policy weapon — perhaps the ultimate in soft power…
Great article, but one nit in reference to the following statement — “his thesis is wildly out of date, as if beamed in from space light years ago”. Light years do not measure time, they are a measure of distance, namely, the distance light travels in one year. Make another mistake like this and you will be at serious risk of being named chairman of the IPCC. Regards.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t rely on Carville to pick the GOP nominee conservatives should support in 2012? A year ago he was so smart. What happened? Maybe watching too many Married with Children marathons. I hear James is contemplating managing Kelly Bundy’s run for the Burris Senate seat in IL. Rumor has it there are a few problems, Kelly wants to run in the GOP primary. She wants to sit next to Scott.
Let me put my tin foil hat on to suggest that mr.carville maybe giving Bambi bad advice to set the stage for a Hillary challange. I see black helicopters hovering over Hope AK.
What the spendthrift, thieving liberals cannot understand is that unrestrained spending results in life under a dictator who will suppress the resulting violence and disorder.
6. D. Ch.:
What I want to know is whether it’s possible to default selectively on the treasury debt we owe to various foreign governments. Could we, for example, pick a quarrel with the chinese and just default on the debt we owned them, while assuring everyone else that of course they’ll get paid as planned. Or maybe we want to put pressure on the Arabs to act more reasonable in the mideast. Using debt owed to others as a foreign policy weapon — perhaps the ultimate in soft power
If you default on debt owed the Chinese, do not expect to go to the Chinese the next year with hat in hand. IOW, defaulting on debt does no good if spending is not curtailed.Another consequence of default is that the dollar would crash, raising the cost of imports.
“Make another mistake like this and you will be at serious risk of being named chairman of the IPCC.”
I’ll take that job, Rob. It seems very lucrative. (And I bet they pay healthinsurance.)
11. Gringo:
A nice international crisis, like a serious quarrel with the chinese, would make government cost-cutting more politically palatable and also maybe harness patriotic sentiments to encourage more internal US buying of government bonds (like war bonds during WWII). The crash of the dollar would, arguably, make US goods cheaper abroad while it made fuel costs more expensive — and the dollar might not crash. If a new cold war starts with the chinese, and you’re a non-US, non-chinese investor, would you rather hold dollars, or yuan, while you waited to see who came out on top? Remember, the chinese government and its national banks would be insolvent while the US refused payments on the bonds, making those bonds obviously worthless. If the chinese backed down and we resumed their bond payments (having cut non-military government outlays during the national emergency) then our government’s financial position would be much stronger. Really, as long as we have a military strong enough to keep the chinese from marching into the Washington and demanding payment, defaulting on **just** the chinese debt looks like a possible winning strategy. (Better stock up on oil for the US military before putting this ploy into operation, however, just in case the dollar crashes hard enough to make it prohibitively expensive for the pentagon to buy fuel.) By the way, this sort of international quarrel need not be consciously planned by US politicians — getting angry is a natural response to stress, and directing anger overseas is a natural way to go in the face of political weakness at home. Have you noticed that the Vietnam war was ramped up by Kennedy after he barely won the 1960 election, and the Iraq war was begun by Bush after he barely won the 2000 election? If I were a foreign government, I would lower my international profile as much as possible after every close presidential election …
4th para, last line should read: “That dog don’t hunt no more”.
The Forgotten Man is required reading for anyone who wants to know what happened in 1933 that killed the economy until 1940. I wish Amity or someone with her talent would write about the 1920 depression that lasted only one year. Note how the Wikipedia entry ends.
Austrian School economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War. Historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding’s laissez-faire economic policies during the 1920/21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery.[11] Woods argued that, as there existed massive distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally massive “correction” to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time economic environment.
No one remembers that recession because it was over quickly. Why ? Maybe because Harding and Coolidge did the right thing.
I really like it when you get angry about something. Brilliant!
I don’t believe that James Carville believes what he saying. My guess is that behind closed doors—he is despondent and very frustrated. Carville knows that Barack Obama is out of his depth and unable to be another Bill Clinton. It’s just not in the cards. In back of his mind, if not even consciously, Carville knows that the Democrats are in deep trouble. Obama is not a real leader.
It is foolish to argue that Barack Obama merely needs to reword his previous statements. Bringing back David Plouffe into the inner circle will do next to nothing. It may even make things worse. Purple and red state voters are not bratty little children requiring better parenting methods. On the contrary, they usually have precise and well thought out reasons for opposing Obama’s policies.
re: D Ch #6 and #13
By what moral or legal principle do you justify the renunciation of US debt to China (or anyone else)?
You seem to be childishly advocating simple theft.
They lent the money in good faith and we will continue to pay the interest on the debt ad infinitum. (I can’t imagine when we will ever actually pay down the debt).
#18 DGT: “They lend the money in good faith…”
Not true! We buy products from China, we pay in US dollars. Classic Seller/Buyer relationship. China does not have to accept our dollars for goods sold, they could demand other currencies. They take the risk just like any seller/buyer relationship.
I agree with #17. Carville is smarter than he looks. He knows this is a disaster. On the other hand, after November 2, there will be lots of good business opportunity as the Democrats abandon Axelrod, et all.
#19 hstad
You seem to be confusing the trade deficit we have with respect to China and the US debt held by China.
When China gets US dollars in exchange for goods, they can do several things with it including spending it on US goods (or that of other countries), investing it in the US (or elsewhere), store it in some way, or they can lend it.
When they lend to the US, they do so by buying US treasury bonds–just as you or I can do. They(and we)have every right to expect that these obligations will be paid back. Traditionally, this has been a very safe investment and should remain that way.
If we don’t like the chinese or other foreigners to own US debt, we should balance our federal budget–or better yet, run a surplus and begin paying down the debt. That is what serious and responsible people do.
Repudiation of national debt (or monetizing it out of existence) is the province of third world pissant jokes for countries.
DGT @ 21:
Defaulting on treasury bonds is a Very Bad Idea for another reason… if the government defaults on those, it will be extremely hard to convince people to purchase them in the future, thus crippling our ability to finance our debt.
Continual and excessive deficit spending is usually a Bad Thing, but sometimes it is useful or even necessary to do it for a short time, and defaulting on bonds would make that a lot more difficult. Therefore, it should be avoided at all costs.
Roger–”but we are broke…” Excellent. Whether individual, family, family business, larger enterprise, bank, state, or sovereign country, the math never changes, simple addition and subtraction, inexorable. If the inflows are greater than the outflows, good, that is the process of saving measured over time, and that is the foundation process upon which economic expansion and prosperity rests. If the inflows are less than the outflows, bad, collapse, and bankruptcy loom.
If as an individual or enterprise, or country you have a positive cash flow which is provable, you will be able to make a promise which a court will enforce, namely the promise to repay your borrowing with interest. With that promise, a commercial bank in the US will create new money and put a deposit in your checking acoount. You can then go buy a car and the economy will expand by one car. But if you operate on a negative cash flow you are doomed, and the economy will contract, and unemployment will soar. Very simple, albeit, an unpleasant and truly inconvenient truth.
People think that FDR and Keynes and WWII ended the depression. Total nonsense, a superficial analysis which appeals to liberals. What really happened is that people went into a massive saving mode BECAUSE of the war. (I am old enough to remember my mother’s victory garden which she operated with her friends.) After the war, people emerged with the accumulated savings of several years. Viola, positive net cash flow, and accumulated savings in the bank. And, thus those folks were able credibly to promise to repay. They borrowed. Money supply expanded. And the economy expanded. Expanding economy equals more employment.
No doubt folks will want to call me a jerk for making an absolute statement; there is no other way, the numbers are truth, as long as 4+4 = 8, it will be so.
BTW, how long is your football field? 100 yards idiot. Ok, what if I cut one inch off of your yardstick each year for five years. How long will your football field be when you measure it with your mutilated yardstick? What if your yardstick is a US dollar after BHO is finished? Measure your house, and Nancy Pelosi will tax you on the gain./
Roger, you are on a roll. Keep it up. Palmer Hinsdale
Re: The Great Depression.
It might be well to point out that the DJIA did not recover it’s pre-Crash high until Nov 1954!
The only thing that WW-2 did was to find employment for a lot of people. The subsequent savings was due to the fact that because of war-time restrictions on production and commerce, there was damn little available to buy on the civilian market.