Jeffrey Hart, longtime National Review editor and former speechwriter for both Nixon and Reagan, is feeling the Obama magic.
The “conservatives for Obama” phenomenon is interesting. More here and here.
Category: Politics
-
What’s right with America
Interesting piece by Michael Lind, who I always find thought-provoking. Despite a lot of pessimistic talk, Lind says that long-term trends–with respect to ethnic and racial integration, religious fundamentalism, and the solvency of our entitlement programs–are actually quite positive:
Barring catastrophes, the US in 2050 will be much more racially integrated; will remain culturally and linguistically quite homogeneous; and will be much richer, easily able to afford to pay for social security and decent healthcare. And partly as a result of this unity and prosperity, the US will continue to be a major power, though not a solitary hegemon.
The chief challenges Lind does see are rising healthcare costs and decreasing social mobility. He also doesn’t mention anything about environmental or resource issues, which seem to me to loom just as large as potential big problems. I’m also far more ambivalent (to say the least) about increasing secularization, though Lind does make an interesting argument that the Religious Right is essentially an ethno-political movement of white southerners that has less to do with religion per se than is commonly supposed.
-
What’s next for the world economy?
A pendulum swing away from globalization and toward protectionism?
I still have no idea how (if at all) we reconcile indefinite economic growth with environmental limits while at the same time attending to poverty and inequality. But I am pretty skeptical that “buy more stuff” is a viable long-term solution to our economic woes (never mind our social, personal, and spiritual woes), even though it seems to be at the foundation of all the “economic stimulus” plans on offer.
-
Springtime for militarism
John McCain has some admirable qualities and has taken some good stances in defiance of his party, but Justin Raimondo performs a salutary service in reminding us that McCain’s record on foreign policy has been not only consistently pro-war, but that he has consistently taken the maximally hawkish view on any given conflict (e.g. he wanted not just a bombing campaign in Kosovo, but a ground invasion).
Raimondo also points out the depressing fact that, with Hillary Clinton rising Phoenix-like from the ashes in New Hampshire and Nevada, we’re faced with the prospect of a match up between the two most hawkish candidates from both parties in November and a triumph of the pro-war bipartisan consensus.
-
Clueless economist watch
Steven Landsburg writes in the NYT:
All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?
Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?
Got that? Those plebs ought to be grateful to their betters that they can buy more cheap imported junk from Wal-Mart and not complain about the fact that their new job (assuming they’re lucky enough to have one) pays minimum wage and doesn’t have benefits or health care.
I guess I take this sort of thing a bit personally since the town I grew up in has been on the receiving end of the “creative destruction” of NAFTA and other “free” trade deals. I wonder if it ever occurs to Landsburg that people might find a certain sense of satisfaction and self-worth in having a good job even if it means they pay a bit more for consumer goods. Not to mention a lot of people might prefer health care for their kids to $30 DVD players.
UPDATE: See also Patrick Deneen:
Note that it is unquestioned that what constitutes “winning” is cheap prices and more cheaply produced stuff, not the dignity that comes from work and production or the contributions we might make to our own communities, even at greater cost. Also, the only economic options are either “subsistence” or excess. Not exactly an easy choice, to be honest, but more importantly, not really the only choice.
A Thinking Reed 