Who's to blame?
Mahons is essentially correct in his “conservative post-election rage” post. There’s no use crying over spilt milk: McCain has lost and Obama has won, fair and square. And I want to emphasise that phrase again: Fair and Square. After all, it’s not as if the Left made any great hue and cry about GW Bush’s two electoral victories, nor did they sink so low as to accuse him of “stealing the election” (‘Hail to the Thief’, anyone?) so neither should we engage in such low-down tactics, which were not their tactics back in 2000 or 2004, of course..!
Who was it, that once said “All political careers end in failure”? That person spoke an undeniable truth. In my opinion, it’s not so much that Obama won, but that McCain (and republicanism) lost. In other words, it’s not so much that Obama came across as the great saviour of the universe (voters aren’t fools; we don’t expect any such thing of politicians), but more that McCain’s campaign simply came across as tired and unfocussed. McCain simply expected people to just “trust their conservative instincts”, without setting forth his plans in an engaging manner. Obama, meanwhile, stood on a platform of “hope and change”, and while he was careful not to get too deeply drawn into specifics, well…with an opponent like McCain, all he had to do was paint broad brushstrokes, give a vague overall impression of youthfulness, a fresh eye, new ideas.
Heck, the man hasn’t even started yet, there’s another two months to go before he’s even sworn in, so let’s at least wait until the food is cooked and served up, before we start moaning about what it tastes like. Let us instead “peel slowly and see” (as the instruction goes, on the cover of one of my all-time favourite LP records).
Yet, I remain fascinated by this whole political question of “who lost, who won, and more importantly, WHY”, and of how this relates to the times we are living in.
McCain, as I say…well I think that his campaign relied upon his hope that “traditionally conservative Americans” would simply trust in their gut instincts, and in their understanding of what the “GOP” stood for. He didn’t feel the need to restate his platform in any radical way. And I think that was probably a big mistake. After eight years of the GWB administration, an administration that was foundering and (to put it sympathetically) failing to communicate (or to put it scathingly, had lost the plot and no longer even knew what it stood for), it was almost inevitable that it would lose the election.
Now, it has to be said that, after a certain period in office, the electorate will naturally tire of any party in office, and so they’ll vote for the opposition, just for a change. It’s a universal phenomena, probably due to the fact that all politicians are self-serving cretins, and it’s natural and healthy that we should exchange one lot of legalised mafia for another lot, at fairly regular intervals. At least if we keep swapping them round, then no one team has the ability to inflict TOO much harm for too long.
All very well, very mundane and run-of-the-mill stuff. But this time, the so-called “global financial crisis” conveniently kicked off just weeks before the vote, and galvanised politicians across the board into a frenzy of reactionary measures. And I think that their reactions have been particularly interesting and telling.
In terms of left-wing parties such as the Democrats in the USA, and Labour in the UK, the reactions have been predictable enough: Total ignorance of how market economies actually work in practise, and a desire to manipulate and control the markets for their own political ends. What (at first) surprised me was the willingness of the traditional “conservative” parties to go along with these idiotic, interventionist socialist “solutions”. I started thinking about this, and it struck me that the conservative parties seem to be utterly frightened of “calling a spade a spade”. What do I mean by that? Well, when you look at the financial/banking “crisis”, it seems obvious to me that it is not the governments that are at fault, but two distinct parties: (a) greedy private banks, who have lent monies to high-risk groups and then sold those debts on to investment banks, and, more importantly, (b) stupid, greedy consumers who want to “keep up with the neighbours” and who have knowingly borrowed far in excess of their means to repay, because the banks allowed them to do so. I’ve seen this up close and personal, many times, as a practising accountant: The number of clients who want me to report their profits as low as possible for taxation purposes, but then a few months later, when they’re applying for a mortgage which I know very well they can’t afford, it’s a case of “well, can’t you please tweak the figures a bit? Go on, there’s a monkey in it for you”. (I have never given in to such temptations, and so I have lost clients along the way, but unlike those who think only of what they want right now, I have to think long-term).
It seems to me that somehow, we have bred a generation of ignorant consumers who have got used to the idea of living on credit way above their means, and that now the payback time has come, these same people have absolutely no sense that they have only themselves to blame for this mess, but instead they think the government must bail them out of the ruins of their own making. Hence, no politician on any side has the guts to stand up and say “this is your own fault, not ours”, as that would be electoral suicide for them. We’ve bred a welfare-state reliant, “not my fault, guvnor, I blame the guvvamint” bunch of losers. And no politician has the integrity to point the finger of blame directly at their electorate.
Anyway, I’ve got out of the habit of posting on ATW recently, I guess I just wanted to keep my hand in! This has been a rather meandering post, but I hope I’ve given some food for thought.
Tom Tyler
21 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (21)
Glad to see you posting Tom. I hope all is going well with you these days.
When you write: "Mahons is essentially correct in his “conservative post-election rage” post," you are incorrect.
I don't want to belabor the point but there isn't much conservative rage over Obama's win at the moment. This is in Mahon's imagination...and I guess yours as well.
Conservatives never liked McCain. For all intents and purposes, McCain is a Moderate Democrat. Why, I was thinking just the other day that maybe Obama's win was the best thing that could have happened all things considered. I personally feel no rage whatsoever. I feel a little nervous re: our enemies abroad, and for the strength of the economy but for the most part I have a "wait and see" approach to Obama. His win has put paid to the race baiting industry and that is a wonderful thing.
McCain's economic policies might really have lurched the country to the left because everyone would have assumed that the Conservative Republicans were now left of center.
It's still too early to analize -- but there is no "rage" over the loss.
Who was it, that once said “All political careers end in failure”?
Enoch Powell.
>>“All political careers end in failure”?
Enoch Powell.<<
Powell could only say that because he was speaking in the context of a mature democracy, where being a politician is a "career".
Beyond that, he was wrong: there are very many successful political lives in countries emerging from tyranny, occupation or foreign domination (I won't embarrass you lot by mentioning any), even if the politician himself is, for whatever reason, rejected or even killed at an early age.
Tom, I think you neglect too much the many mistakes made by Bush and his cronies. Americans are in general a very decent people; naturally they were in trauma after 9-11, but still the neo-con agenda was in the end far too cynical, unfair and just basically wrong in their eyes. It was inhuman and bred a further inhumanity that brought shame on their country.
Whatever about this result, it will thankfully be a long, long time before the people of the United States make the same mistake again.
"there is no "rage" over the loss."
If that is true it just shows the gap between conservative rhetoric and their true beliefs as measured by their actions, yet again.
All through the campaign we hear that he is palling around with terrorists, or a terrorist himself, supports infanticide, is a marxist, will redistribute wealth, ruin the economy, etc etc.
Now he is elected and the same people are cool with it and not even a teensy bit annoyed.
Right.
Good post Tom! Welcome back to this side of the fence!
Tom -
Americans do believe in their politicians, they are less cynical than us. They don't do policy at all (as I learned here at ATW witnessing an election play out in so much detail), they engage in major league Punch and Judy politics. The same rage over the loss on the right over there was employed throughout the campaign (and by both sides). The campaigns on both sides were steeped in tawdry gossip and pointless mud slinging (ever remember the scene in Blues Brothers where the band play behind a cage barrier?!). It was an horrendous, at times comical, display. Republicans had Palin on the ticket and still lost. Time to move beyond their ludicrous culture wars and get back to small goverment or keep on losing (please do).
Obama - the world is too complicated a place for Noel's prediction to come true. I have often wanted to see the left's reaction when the enormous problems which existed long before 9/11 don't magically disappear now that Bush is gone, much as I thought the man a jerk at the helm of a ship in dire straights. I predict he will put a different spin on some of the same policies. Gitmo, for example, will 'suddenly' take 'a while to close' once he is shown security reports of who is actually in there and gets the low down Bush was privvy to. And Pakistan is next on the list.
Meanwhile hail to the chieftain and all that. I understand they have already stuck up a sign at the Whitehouse "Please do not walk on the water" ;)
Overall, I thought that was one of the best posts on ATW in a while though Tom, if not ever.
take it easy :)
will redistribute wealth, ruin the economy
All said while the global economy nose-dives and during the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history.
Indeed Daytripper. It seems it is getting worse again now, reaching Citigroup and Switzerland.
It was all too much for one indignant shareholder. Leaping to the podium he turned to UBS chairman Marcel Ospel and told him "give back your fat bonus, now".
Mr Ospel declined to return what was rumoured to be a very generous bonus. "Here, just in case you go hungry, I've brought you something to eat," he continued. And reaching into his pocket he produced a string of traditional Swiss sausages and waved them under Mr Ospel's trembling nose.
They have renamed Paradeplatz in Zurich to Piratenplatz, which reminds of this, possibly one of the best headlines ever.
Tom- I agree with plenty of what you say, but I think that you needed to state more forcefully that greedy bankers were perpetrating fiduciary breaches- look at how shareholders are suffering now! The only ones who would have benefited from the short-termism of the bosses would be the bosses and their cronies, plus a very lucky or wary few. The Government's job is to enforce the law. Some of the chairmen an executives should be before a court with all their assets at stake.
The Government is also responsible though- selling gold, undermining pensions, overheating the housing markets through low interest rates and limiting the value of saving and investment. That's Gordon Brown's Government of ending-boom-and-bust in particular! I'd put Gordon in the dock, myself. Bankers do what bankers can. The Govt must enforce the law and exercise responsibility in all its shapes and forms. Yeah, right.
Tom - it is a fairly straightfoward analysis.
Frank.
That article by Dr. Peter Hayes was pretty pertinent indeed.
He might have gone on to mention the fate of one privateer, Sir Walter Raleigh, who was at first flavour of the year, then later beheaded, to appease the Spanish because of some early (EU) treaty or something.
Who's for the chop this time round me hearties?
Tom good post except you missed one point the government not only encouraged the banks to make those faulty loans but insisted they do it so that was the root of the problem.
There is no republican or conservative rage at the left or the Obama administration. As you said Obama won fair and square and to call a spade a spade (which in Obama's case could be labelled a racist statement) Obama is a Marxist and so are the leaders in the house and senate of the majority party. So we know whats coming.
The only anger on the right is focused on the right it is time for an internal purge of the RINOS and middle of the roaders
'it is time for an internal purge of the RINOS and middle of the roaders'
Troll, they are going to purge you right whingers.
The smart conservatives have dumped you, face it, They used you for 8 years or so, but now they see that the 'cultural war' is drawing to its logical conclusion- failure. ( Has abortion disappeared?) They have made and remade their million dollar fortunes, they have pillaged your wealth, and now they are going to have you pay for it for their robbery with a bail-out.
You are no better off.
Pinky abortion is a red herring it does not define the conservative branch. I am pro-choice as are most except the extreme religious right.
I believe it is always a wrong choice but one that I don't have the right to make for an adult woman.
You have a propaganda belief in what capitalism is and how it works.
A system like the US that is primarily based on capitalism with a few buffers thrown in has proven to work.
Socialistic state controlled economies have proven never to work.
The current financial crises is a good example the government forced banks to ignore the rules of capitalism and lend money to bad risks, the end result a collapse that has effected the entire world economy.
That is an example of Marxism at its finest
Get back up to speed Troll, the Sub-Prime debacle was way, way back in the mists of time.
Things have moved on... the Sub Prime was merely an indicator, in the same way that black smoke billowing from your car hood is an indicator that the oil has burnt away, and the engine is about to seize up.
Bernard: "the Sub Prime was merely an indicator"
No. It wasn't just an indicator. The sub-prime market was a major cause. These loans were broken into tranches, bundled, and sold to financial institutions world-wide.
Barney Franks (D) said they were "risk free" because they were guaranteed by the US govt. Like a cancer they spread throughout the financial system. All was well as long as the housing prices continue to climb. When the housing market prices started to drop the borrowers of the sub-primes started to default. And like one big Ponzi scheme, the bottom fell out.
And the fall-out is still going on.
the Sub Prime was merely an indicator, in the same way that black smoke billowing from your car hood is an indicator that the oil has burnt away, and the engine is about to seize up.
Exactly Bernard.
Bernard, here is a good article on the CDS mess, that a friend of mine sent me, earlier in the year.
http://www.safehaven.com/article-9272.htm
Strewth Pinky, that was back in January. It sure took some time to cross the Atlantic!?
Indeed Daytripper. It seems it is getting worse again now, reaching Citigroup and Switzerland.
There is literally no end in sight at the minute. Its 9/11 times the total cost of the derivitave market.
Very good posting Tom, especially the bit about personal responsibility and the unwillingness of politicians to be honest about the irresponsibilties of the electorate.