Politics

The Daily Beast Falls Under The Santorum Spell

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Rick Santorum

–

Oh dear. The good people over at The Daily Beast have heeded the call of the Pied Piper of Pennsylvania and endorsed the never-gonna-happen pro-manufacturing-rennaissance mirage offered up by Rick “Blue Collar” Santorum.

Of course, they are at pains to distance themselves from his more extreme social policy positions, and they get that out of the way at the beginning:

“There’s a lot not to like about Rick Santorum on the social-issues front. He’s an anti-abortion absolutist, no fan of gay rights, and possesses politics so influenced by faith that even contraception remains controversial in his mind.”

But after this, and a couple of disclaimers about the effect of such a manufacturing policy on the budget deficit, they are all praise:

“But at least the man is making a bold proposal that attempts to address an issue that has helped destroy the jobs that used to enable families to get on the first rung of the ladder out of poverty. Rather than simply having products designed in the U.S.A. and then produced overseas, an added incentive to make things in America could help tip the scales back in favor of American manufacturing. It might help make a real dent in our half-trillion-dollar trade imbalance with China and other countries.”

Okay, firstly: future manufacturing jobs will be more highly skilled and require a greater level of education or prior training than many of those displaced by the decline in manufacturing currently have. They aren’t going to get these jobs, if employers bother to create them in the US at all, despite a big tax giveaway. Those jobs that don’t require this higher level of skill won’t offer a rung on the ladder out of poverty any more than an entry-level job in the service sector.

Secondly: What if I write and distribute an awesome piece of new software? What business is it of the government to tell me that my work isn’t as worthy as that of someone else who opened a factory or a sawmill? Are we supposed to pick winners now, based on perceived societal good? The Daily Beast seems to lean to the left somewhat so I can understand them espousing this argument, though I vehemently disagree with it.

But my point remains: a Republican – especially one who rails about government handouts to individuals and bailouts to Wall Street and Detroit – has no business espousing policies to favour one segment of the economy over the other. I mean, that’s European/Soviet style planned-economy socialism, right?

Ed Miliband Therapy

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

When life is getting you down, or if you are just having a slow day in the office, there are few geeky political pleasures as sweet as listening to Ed Miliband being systematically destroyed by BBC Radio 4 listeners on a recent phone-in show:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9126362/Callers-maul-Ed-Miliband-during-BBC-radio-phone-in.html

I think my favourite is the one where the guy pretty much flat-out states that Ed Miliband is incompetent, and says in a voice dripping with pity “I don’t mean to be cruel, but it’s such an important job that you are doing, and I don’t think you can do it”, and Ed responds “we obviously have a difference of view about that”.

Does anyone actually believe that Ed Miliband will lead the Labour party to victory in the next election?

A Disservice To Our Military

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

British Prime Minister David Cameron (C)

–

The Daily Telegraph’s Con Coughlin writes today about the terrible incident in Afghanistan where a US soldier went on the rampage in an Afghan village, killing sixteen civilians, including a number of children.

I read the piece with interest, but the author makes a couple of throwaway comments that I found quite disrespectful. At one point Coughlin writes:

“We all know that soldiers, without the proper training and discipline, can easily degenerate into a murderous rabble that terrorises the local population. We have seen this happen hundreds of times in Africa where armies are no different from the militias who rape, murder and loot at will.”

This is unnecessarily harsh language to use with respect to the armed forces. Are there countless cases where this has happened in various conflicts around the world, yes. But to suggest that the only thing separating the British or American armies from being a ruthless militia with no morals is essentially a PowerPoint presentation on coping under stress is rather glib. He then follows this up with the following:

“After six British soldiers were murdered last week in southern Afghanistan when they were blown up by one of the Taliban’s roadside bombs, it is easy to imagine the murderous thoughts of revenge their fellow soldiers are today feeling towards the Taliban. But the reason they don’t pick up their guns and walk into the neighbouring village and massacre every Afghan they can find is the strict training they receive before they are deployed.”

Excuse me? I’m sure that the fellow soldiers mentioned here are full of many feelings of sadness and anger following the deaths of their colleagues, but I would submit to Con Coughlin that as well as the fact that they received strict training before they were deployed, another reason that they don’t “pick up their guns and walk into the neighbouring village and massacre every Afghan they can find” is because they are decent human beings with the intelligence to understand not only that the general civilian population was not responsible for the deaths of their comrades, but that to do so would make them no better than the forces that they are fighting. To say otherwise, and to suggest that there is little to separate the vast majority of soldiers who are decent and brave individuals from the deranged Staff Sergeant who perpetrated this massacre is not only wrong, but frankly offensive too.

I also don’t think I am imagining things when I detect undertones of class-based superiority from the author, that maybe he views the British soldiers as slightly dim and uneducated, less capable of reason than the average, middle-class Telegraph reader, and therefore in need of this strict training to ensure that their baser, more violent instincts do not come to the fore under stressful circumstances.

It amazes me to observe the difference in tone in terms of how the armed forces are talked about in Britain compared to the United States. Such an article would never have been written by a commentator in the United States, where even President Obama’s apology to the Afghan people for the accidental burning of the Koran by US forces was met with strong criticism, so above reproach is the US military to some on the right.

Honestly, I don’t believe that either country has it quite right. In the United States, I admire how serving soldiers and veterans are acknowledged and given respect in public places such as airports (where they are allowed to stay in USO club lounges while they wait to board their flights) and sports games, where they are frequently applauded before the game. However, sometimes I feel that the almost-worship of the armed forces goes too far, with all returning soldiers being labelled “heroes” whether or not they have seen active combat.

In Britain, on the other hand, I don’t think that we do nearly enough to acknowledge the contribution that our military servicemen and women make for our country, projecting our nation’s force to implement our foreign policy objectives. Hence we see serving soliders being refused permission to stay at an hotel because of an unbelievable “no military” policy, and London’s most sacred war memorial being desecrated by the spoiled, self-entitled son of a rock musician.

But while both of our countries may have some way to go in terms of striking the correct balance in terms of how we view, treat and discuss these topics, I would hope we can all agree that there is a lot more preventing the good men and women of our nations armed forces from becoming mass murdering militias than the training that they receive, important though that may be.

Newt Gingrich’s Path To Victory

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

I didn’t think there was one either, until I saw this footage:

 

Here, Newt Gingrich is waiting to address the AIPAC conference via ABC News satellite feed, and at one point the Happy Man nods off in front of the camera as the previous speaker, Leon Panetta, finishes his remarks.

Sadly, the moment comes eventually when he wakes up and starts delivering his speech. But captured here are at least 50 blissful seconds in which Newt Gingrich doesn’t really do or say anything overly grandiose, pompous, far-fetched, or in any other way further condemn his chances of winning the nomination.

If Sheldon Adelson has not yet turned off the financial life support taps to Mr. Gingrich’s campaign, perhaps this footage can be turned into his next television commercial. All he would need to do is whisper “I’m Newt Gingrich, and I approve this message…” in a voiceover at the end.

Why Santorum Is Wrong On Healthcare… Part 1/5000

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Rick Santorum - Obamacare - ACA - Healthcare Reform

–

There is a small part of me that wants desperately to like Rick Santorum. This is entirely based on the fact that he will stake out a bold, uncompromising position based on his beliefs and defend it to the hilt rather than running away or backpedalling from the position under opposition pressure. That is a rare attribute in a politician and in the US Republican primaries he is matched or exceeded in this regard only by fellow candidate Ron Paul.

The small part of me that admires Santorum, however, is vastly outweighed by the rest of me, which is aghast at his riffs on the separation of church and state, on women’s healthcare, on contraception, on economic policy and his naive or callously cynical pledge (depending on how you view him) to bring about a manufacturing renaissance in America by tweaking the tax code a bit and drilling for more oil (domestic oil production is, of course, higher now under Obama than it was under Bush):

Furthermore, I am becoming increasingly convinced that Santorum is being given far too much praise for being an “honest politician”, when there is an increasing pile of evidence from his campaign speeches to suggest otherwise. By all means praise him for saying things that ignite his party’s base, and not backing down in the face of liberal objections, that’s one thing. But when you are standing in front of friendly crowds who more or less share your worldview and policy positions, that is not so hard to do.

If he really were honest though, he would avoid saying things like this, as quoted by the Jeffrey Anderson and Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard today:

“The reason that .  .  . I ultimately decided to get into this race was .  .  . one particular issue that to me breaks the camel’s back with respect to liberty in this country—and that is the issue of Obamacare. .  .  . [A] little less than 50 percent of the people in this country [now] depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit, to help provide for them. After Obamacare, it will not be less than 50 percent. It will be 100 percent. Now every single American will be looking to the federal government, not to their neighbor, not to their church, not .  .  . to the community .  .  . [but] to those in charge, to those who now say to you that they are the allocator and creator of rights in America. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the beginning of the end of freedom in America.”

You know what, Rick? You hate ObamaCare, and that’s fine. I mean, you haven’t proposed any detailed alternative solution to deal with the problems of the uninsured, or the rate of healthcare inflation (and as I said before, medical malpractice lawsuit reform and cross-state selling of insurance nibbles at the edges rather than fixing the problem), so let’s just assume that you believe 30 million uninsured to be a price worth paying to preserve the “liberty” that once existed in America, but which disappeared in a puff of smoke once the Affordable Care Act was signed. That’s fine.

But there are two things in the above extract from Santorum’s “victory” speech on Super Tuesday:

1. The fact that he laments that nearly 50% of Americans depend on some form of federal payment or benefit. Now, I am a fiscal conservative and also believe that this number is rather too high and represents an overexpansion of the federal government. However, Santorum says nothing about Medicare, the ‘socialist, government-run healthcare benefit’ that the grey-haired brigade benefit from, which makes up a substantial portion of that 50%. And why? Because they vote. MedicAid recipients, and those on unemployment or food stamps are less likely to vote, so it’s a lot easier to talk about them when you bash the percentage of Americans who rely on some federal handout.

2. “It will be 100 per cent. Now every American will be looking to the federal government, not to their neighbor, not to their church…” Now this one really has me stumped. I would be grateful if Santorum supporters could point me to the exact parts of the Affordable Care Act (and yes, I have the PDF downloaded on my computer) where extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people means that everyone – everyone –  is now beholden to the federal government. Unless parts of the bill were written in invisible ink, I saw nothing that says that government is taking over the means of healthcare delivery (hospitals) or health insurance (insurance companies). So say for example that I work in finance and have health insurance through my company, and have done for years. Which part of ObamaCare is going to cause me to spurn my current coverage and go running to nourish myself at the teat of the federal government?

Rick Santorum: There is nothing honest about you when you propogate arguments such as these. Like most other Republicans at the moment, you have decided to go along with the doomsday hyperbole and fear-mongering that has sadly become a feature of the GOP’s position on healthcare reform, rather than engaging and crititicising it on true conservative principles. This has been very effective for your party, and I understand why you have made it the lynchpin of your presidential candidacy. But it does not make you an honest man.