Coming Soon to an Election Near You

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Thu, 2008-01-10 12:17

A quote from Mick Hume at spiked-online, 9 January 2008

Never before has so heated an electoral contest appeared to turn on so little – the competing images of Barack smiling with his young daughters or Hillary weeping on camera. Once again, America is setting new standards in the politics of personality and identity. But it will be coming soon to an election near you.

The decline of ideologies and the emptying out of political life across the West has often been called the ‘Americanisation’ of politics. Now we may be witnessing the next stage in the rise of the anti-political personality politician. But there is no cause for the usual conceited British sneering about the showbiz ‘razzmatazz’ of the US contest. At least Americans get to elect their head of state. And the sense of excitement and energy being given off by supposedly ‘apathetic’ American voters has no equivalent over here.

That point will not have been lost on the equally isolated political class in the UK, casting envious glances at those American rallies and turn-outs. The search will no doubt be on for ‘the British Obama’. The Conservatives have high hopes that young David Cameron might play that role, but he still seems too much of a posh boy to many. Meanwhile New Labour strategists and contenders are already starting to look beyond tired old Hillary, sorry, Gordon Brown to find the next fresh young thing.

Well Mitt won Michigan,

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-16 07:18.

Well Mitt won Michigan, native son that he is.  So did Hillary.  I hope she wins the nomination.  I think any Republican can beat her.

 

 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

On a lighter note...

Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 05:15.

Samuel L. Jackson, that's right, the American actor, has a blog.  Here's a link to his take on Oprah endorsing Obama...

Be prepared for the potty mouth, but I have to admit, he's hilarious and spot on!

http://www.newsgroper.com/samuel-l-jackson/2007/12/10/oprahian-candidate/#more-3148

 

 

 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@Atheling

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-01-12 01:29.

Sorry if you took that as a personal snub,it was not intended as such.I put the question to marcfrans in response to his "Recommendations #2" post.

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 01:36.

Yeah, I'm really miffed! Just kidding! No worries, I didn't take it that way at all. I should have put a smiley face after my comment.

Here: :)

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Recommendations # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-01-12 00:29.

@ Atheling

Indeed we do disagree on the gun issue, at least in general rethorical terms.  I am not sure if we would disagree if one were to define the issue more in terms of practical (and sensible) regulations of 'gun control'.

1) I certainly agree with Jefferson that any serious nation needs a "standing army".  That does not obviate the need for sensible gun control for  individuals.

2) I disagree with you that the US government "fears its own citizenry".  I see no concrete evidence of that.  On the contrary, I know that many dictators fear their own people, precisely because these people are oppressed.  In the US, the people are not oppressed. Sometimes they are somewhat confused, but not oppressed.  They can and DO change their government at regular intervals.  And they will continue to do so at regular intervals, as long as they manage to preserve genuine freedom of political speech.  This means that the education system needs careful attention to ensure inculcation of 'constitutional' (as opposed to ideological) values.

3)  An individual cannot protect his or her "liberty" (in a political sense) with arms.  A society, a nation, certainly can and MUST do so.  An individual can only protect himself with guns from criminals (mostly, and often only to a limited extent).  An individual canNOT protect himself with guns against society at large (in the form of the police and the judiciary).  To think otherwise is self-delusion, perhaps fed by the NRA or some such 'special interest' group.

4) I do not think that the comparison with the 'animal kingdom' is a valid one.  Human society distinguishes itself from the animal kingdom precisely by the establishment of the 'rule of law' as opposed to rule by "teeth and claws".  But, I would agree with you that when humans (cultures) are incapable of establishing genuine 'rule of law', and instead have 'rule of men', that the distinction with the animal kingdom becomes pretty hard to discern.

5) The reference to Japan intrigues me. I doubt that it is a "documented fact" that private guns in America stopped Japan from invading.  I suspect that this is an opinion, for which there might well exist some limited documentary 'evidence', just like there is documentary evidence for many other possible contra-opinions.  It is the sort of thing for which the word "fact" is not appropriate.

6) Most of the country examples you cite have nothing to do with the issue of what is proper gun control in a democratic society.  Obviously, totalitarian governments will try to control guns, but it does not follow that private gun ownership could have prevented any of the abuses you cite.  For example, it seems ludicrous to think that private guns could have prevented the persecution of jews during the nazi period. 

7)  We AGREE that there should be a presumption in the law that private individuals should be allowed to defend themselves, including with guns (not normally with bazookas).  We also agree that such presumption COULD (not necessarily under all circumstances) lead to greater security of individuals (against criminals, not against the police or the 'army' of the state).  But it does NOT follow that ALL individuals should be allowed to walk around EVERYWHERE with ANY weapons.  So, sensible democracies will 'regulate' private ownership of weaponry.  Such regulation should, ideally, be governed by democratic procedures and by common sense.  Like everything else.

"That does not obviate the

Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 04:20.

"That does not obviate the need for sensible gun control for individuals."

Okay, please describe what kind of "gun control" you advocate.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@marcfrans

Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 01:15.

"The reference to Japan intrigues me. I doubt that it is a "documented fact" that private guns in America stopped Japan from invading. I suspect that this is an opinion, for which there might well exist some limited documentary 'evidence', just like there is documentary evidence for many other possible contra-opinions. It is the sort of thing for which the word "fact" is not appropriate."

You've never heard of General Yamamoto's comment?

"You cannot invade the United States mainland. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass".*

Correction: Whoops, that should read "Admiral Yamamoto"

*at that time 50% of American households were gun owners.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Recommendations # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-01-11 23:40.

@ David D.

 

1) I agree that "fidelity to the Constitution" is crucial, But I also believe that such fidelity is to some degree a matter of interpretation.  Obviously, honest interpretation is not the same thing as a dishonest one.  But, you cannot deny the reality of the need for interpretation.  That 's precisely why the founding fathers created a Supreme Court.  If there were no need for interpretation, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.  People understood that in the 18th century.  It would be profoundly disturbing if they did no longer do so in the 21st.

2) The Second Amendment is part of the law, and I am NOT questioning its validity.  The argument here revolves around what is meant by the "gun issue".   I do not think that fine legal distinctions about how to interpret the Second Amendment are of great importance in the current election.

3) I do not think that "gun ownership is the last guarantee against tyranny".  One could just as well argue that gun ownership is the first guarantee of (some degree of) anarchy.   I believe that the Second Amendment is 'rooted' in the natural need (and right) for (of) self-defense.  But INDIVIDUAL ownership of weapons cannot do anything against societal forces (or movements) that might lead to "tyranny".  Pakistan and the Congo are full of private guns, but have surely seen a lot of tyranny.  Individual guns were of little use to farmers when large groups of 'soldiers' descended upon them during the American civil war, etc... No, the "last guarantee against tyranny" is an INFORMED citizenry and one that remains inspired by MORAL VALUES.  Because, only when citizens in large numbers are prepared to do their civic duties and act to safeguard democratic institutions and values, will such institutions and values prevail over time.   This has nothing to do with whether Joe Smoe is keeping a gun under his bed.  For example, if the population were to keep on re-electing a Democratic Congress (over a long period of time) that would undermine freedom of political speech - just like has been happening in Europe - then your democracy will slowly ebb away and group-think will follow.  Your individual gun will provide no protection from such societal currents. Ultimately this is a matter of education and of 'morals', not of guns.

4) If you pre-judge that you do "not need" to read Hanson (on McCain), then that is your loss (in terms of lesser information). I am not saying that you have to like McCain, but I am saying that it is better to be an informed voter rather than an uninformed one.

5) I believe that Ron Paul is "deducated", but also that he is a "crackpot".  We are not going to settle this is here. I do hope that you did take note of his response in last nights' debate (on Fox) in South Carolina to a question about the behavior and 'conspiracy' beliefs of many of his followers.  His answer was predictable, but it was also an 'irresponsible' one for any politician to give.  If one cannot condemn MANIFEST crackpot-behavior of (some) 'friends and followers', one does not deserve to lead a nation.  It proves that one is not a leader, but rather that one is a sectarian 'relativist'.  

RE: MarcFrans and "Recommendations #3"

Submitted by David_D on Sat, 2008-01-12 02:39.

1. Fidelity to the Constitution is "to some degree a matter of interpretation". However, the degree of interpretation cannot be to make "up" become "down". This is a document written in fairly plain language and is easily understood even after 200 years.

The Supreme Court was never specifically given the power to interpret constitutionality. They assumed that power early on and the other branches accepted it.

2. The "gun issue" does revolve around the "fine legal distinctions about how to interpret the Second Amendment". In fact a case is before the Supreme Court right now. The 2d Amendment is one of the simplest to understand with ample historical discourse from its authors.

3. You wrote: 'I do not think that "gun ownership is the last guarantee against tyranny"... '. While you may not believe that, that belief is shared by a significant number of Americans, namely that: "gun ownership is the last guarantee against tyranny." Gun ownership is vigorously defended and is specifically mentioned in the majority of the State constitutions, as well.

4. Not reading Hanson's article on McCain is a "loss" well worth taking. Instead, see:
The Real McCain Record

5. Like I said. The minor candidates often bring important issues to light that would otherwise be ignored in a campaign. That is why Ron Paul is necessary.

Re: recommendations #3

Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 00:48.

@marcfrans:

"I do not think that "gun ownership is the last guarantee against tyranny"."

It certainly was the case in the American Revolutionary War. Had not the colonists owned arms they would not have been able to break the yoke of British tyranny.

"Pakistan and the Congo are full of private guns, but have surely seen a lot of tyranny."

But their governments are corrupt to begin with! Comparing the US government to those of Asia or Africa is not valid - the governments of the West - particularly after the Enlightenment - are (or I should say "were") markedly different in temperament because of the Christian foundation of the West. You yourself used this argument in another thread when discussing Gandhi's "non violent" success against the British government. You know that if he contended against the Soviets or the Nazis (or any non-Western government) the story would have ended differently.

"Individual guns were of little use to farmers when large groups of 'soldiers' descended upon them during the American civil war, etc..."

And what happened? Did the soldiers slaughter all the farmers? Indeed not! Still, it gave them a fighting chance - which is better than none at all. I would rather take my chances and have a gun to defend myself than be completely disarmed.

"No, the "last guarantee against tyranny" is an INFORMED citizenrynand one that remains inspired by MORAL VALUES."

Well, my friend, I disagree. The INFORMED and MORAL citizenry is the FIRST GUARANTEE. An armed citizenry is the LAST GUARANTEE. I would also venture to say that the American soldier would have no stomach for wholesale killing of American citizens who are in revolt against government tyranny. Indeed, he may end up joining the citizens if it ever came to that pass. Believe, me, I have had discussions like this with American soldiers of today.

Our allegiance is to the Constitution, not the US government, and if the government betrays the people, our system is set up so that the people can overthrow the government and replace it. Hopefully we can do it peacefully, but if not, we will and can and MUST resort to arms. We know it. The US government knows it. And the rest of the world knows it.

Do you deny that the US government is afraid of its citizenry? Or that it must act transparently in its actions and accountability to the people? I will not deny that there are problems and issues facing us, however, I will also staunchly defend the fact that nowhere in the world today is there a system of government that is set up as successfully as this one, where the people have a means to protect their rights down to the most basic level: "Get out of my house and off my property" - lock and load.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Curveball # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-01-11 17:19.

@ Atlanticist

In the past I did not "have to" vote for a Democrat in order to want to vote for a 'Democrat'.  For example, in the primeries for 2004, I would have voted for Joe Lieberman.  But, given what materialised in the end (Kerry/Edwards versus Bush/Cheney), how could a sensible atlanticist 'lover of western civilisation' vote for the Democrats?

Beyond that, I would be a fool to let a "fox" in my chicken coop, and I am beginning to understand (belatedly) why Kappert is not answering your sensible questions. He is not the only 'befuddled' one!  

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2008-01-11 18:46.

Why don't you ask me that question???

Personally, if I had to vote for a Democrat, I would have voted for Harry Truman. After all, if dead people can vote for the living (see dirty Democrat tricks), why can't the living vote for the dead?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Recommendations #2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-01-11 16:16.

I follow the humoristic "old fox" (i.e. Atlanticist911) and stick - at least for the moment - to Romney and McCain (even though they do not like each other).  Of course, traveller's preference of Giuliani/Thompson is not bad, compared with other alternatives.....

@ David D

Aren't you asking for the impossible, i.e. someone who would agree with you on every single issue?  Many of these issues have 2 or more sensible 'sides' to them.  I also think that one should try to prioritise and rank issues by importance.  For example, the gun issue may be a "real-button issue", but it is not an important one and your characterisation of Giuliani's position on that seems unfair and too simplistic.  Also, follow Atanticist's link to Hansen's article on McCain, to get a more 'holistic' view of him (beyond "pompous ass"). Finally, agreeing with a crackpot like Ron Paul on "domestic issues" (let alone on foreign issues) is not a sign of mental sanity.

@ Atheling

Thanks for introducing me to 'Townhall'.  I had read the great Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post.  I think that his comments on the media's failure to hold Obama accountable for some of his recent nonsensical statements on Iraq/Pakistan were superb.

"Hillary cried, Obama died".  Krauthammer got it from you on the Brussels Journal, who got it from Michele Malkin, who got it from Jesse Jackson, who got if from.....Johny Cochran (you were right).

RE: MarcFrans and "Recommendations #2"

Submitted by David_D on Fri, 2008-01-11 20:46.

"Aren't you asking for the impossible, i.e. someone who would agree with you on every single issue?"

I don't expect to find a candidate that I can agree with on every issue. I do think it important that the candidate show fidelity to the Constitution.
---

Many of these issues have 2 or more sensible 'sides' to them... For example, the gun issue may be a "real-button issue", but it is not an important one and your characterisation of Giuliani's position on that seems unfair and too simplistic.

In the United States this is a serious issue and reflects one's belief in Liberty. Every elected official - at every government level - throughout the United States gives an oath to support the US Constitution. So, by undermining the liberties restated in the Constitution, they are perjuring their solemn oaths. (I am a former military officer and recently elected town commissioner [town council member])

Gun ownership by the people is the last guarantee against tyranny. This is understood throughout the US, outside of the major cities.
---

Also, follow Atanticist's link to Hansen's article on McCain, to get a more 'holistic' view of him (beyond "pompous ass").

No need to. I've seen and read of McCain on and off the campaign trail for several years. He keeps running on his courage and bravery in battle of 30+ years past. None of his politics since gives me any cause to vote for him.
---

Finally, agreeing with a crackpot like Ron Paul on "domestic issues" (let alone on foreign issues) is not a sign of mental sanity.

I disagree. Ron Paul is not a "crackpot". He is a brilliant and dedicated scholar of the Constitution. Unfortunately, that is not enough. Candidates like Ron Paul are important because they are able to bring into the open important issues. He will not win the nomination but will have an effect on this year's politics.

Re: Recommendations #2

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2008-01-11 19:39.

@marcfrans:

"For example, the gun issue may be a "real-button issue", but it is not an important one..."

Oh boy, I have to vehemently disagree on that one:

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

No other government in the world fears its own citizenry like the United States government, and for good reason it should remain so.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

How can one protect one's right to ANY liberty if one cannot bear arms?

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

Note that after the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech, that the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. It is a basic liberty of ALL creatures to have the right to protect themselves from harm. Animals have teeth and claws. Why deny man his own?

Secondly, during WWII, it is a documented fact that the Imperial government in Japan weighed the dangers against an invasion on US soil and decided NOT to because they realized that "behind every blade of grass is an armed American citizen".

Every tyrannical form of government first disarms its people. Look at Europe. What have the EU to fear from its citizenry? Nothing!

Note:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-------------- ----------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
Since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Au stralia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Re: recommendation

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2008-01-11 18:42.

@marcfrans:

Krauthammer is one of my favorites. I suppose social engineers like "Cinnamon" would have recommended euthanasia for him, since he suffers from being wheelchair bound and leads a completely "sad and useless" life. /sarc.

His reference to Obama as "Chauncey Gardiner" really made me laugh out loud. But then perhaps the humor would have escaped many if they hadn't the benefit of "Being There".

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"Hillary Cried, Obama Died"

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2008-01-11 06:58.

This from the usually brilliant Charles Krauthammer at Townhall:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/01/11/finding_the_unscripted_turning_point

 

WASHINGTON -- Was it the tears in the New Hampshire coffee shop? Whenever there is a political upset, everyone looks for the unscripted incident, the I-paid-for-this-microphone moment that can account for it. Hillary Clinton's improbable victory in New Hampshire is being widely attributed to her rare display of emotion when asked how she was holding up. This "Hillary cried, Obama died" story line is satisfying, but it overlooks an earlier moment played to a national television audience of 9 million that was even more revealing.

 

 

 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

The Choice is difficult

Submitted by David_D on Fri, 2008-01-11 05:50.

It seems more a matter of which candidate is the least worst, if that makes any sense. I'm certainly not planing to vote for Clinton or Obama, or any Democrat. Any of the Republicans is better than the Democrats.

But the Republican candidates aren't great, either. Senator McCain has proven he doesn't support the Constitution: he sponsored "campaign finance reform" legislation which undermines 1st Amendment freedom of speech. He's also a pompous ass. I'm not sure I like Rudy Guiliani. He has executive ability, but has shown himself to be anti-gun; a real hot-button issue. Romney and Huckleberry do not inspire confidence. Fred Thompson is a possible. I like some of Ron Paul's view on domestic issues, but I think he misses the mark on foreign issues. I liked Alan Keyes, but he won't make it to the finish line.

This election is important, but the choices seem mediocre.

To David D. Re. Thompson

Submitted by Taurus689 on Wed, 2008-01-16 06:14.

David,
I agree to the max. Fred isn't pretty, he isn't charismatic and he doesn't do well explaining his program in the three minutes allowed in those stupid dabates. I've gone to his website and I like what he says. Unfortunately the American people generally can't pay attention long enough to give the guy a fair evaluation. I suspect that people who like Fred are probably Baseball fans as well.
America has become conditioned to the sound bites from spot ads that have characterized elections lately and too many votes are cast based on those often erroneous "disinfomercials".
He is the only true conservative out there. Perhaps he should utilize his very attractive wife more effectively. She would certainly be an attention magnet. Sadly that's the way things work these days

@ David D.

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-01-11 10:36.

I don't think there is a better ticket than Guilliani/Thompson. It's not perfect because it really doesn't solve the biggest problem now: the US is in dire need of a great communicator from the right who can pass the message, something Bush was incapable of.
Anyway it seems the best team now as far as I can see.

Do they care?

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-01-10 17:26.

The Conservatives with David Cameron simply have a Brown the Lessor to offer. A while back Cameron served up the same hackneyed Nanny State swill as his vision of the future.  There is little to distinguish the two parties, but, that has been story throughout the EU, no real choices. 

Question, do today's thoroughly socialized and lobotomized Brits even care that they are English speaking sheeple on the EU plantation of soft totalitarianism?