A one Mr. Rudolph Giuliani?
Or perhaps, a Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
The similarities are obvious from this article from the Economist describing Mr. Ahmadinejad's rise to power:
And in 2005 presidential elections produced an unexpected victory for Mr Ahmadinejad, then a little-known former mayor of Tehran.
An article dated yesterday from AlterNet discussesalarming trends in conservative American thinking.
The following made my short list of favorite quotes:
"Do you have a child back in England?" she asks. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."
"Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get."
Ward Connerly is the only black person in the National Review posse, a 67-year-old Louisiana-born businessman, best known for leading conservative campaigns against affirmative action for black people. Earlier, I heard him saying the Republican Party has been "too preoccupied with… not ticking off the blacks", and a cooing white couple wandered away smiling, "If he can say it, we can say it."
Dinesh D'Souza announced as we entered Mexican seas what he calls "D'Souza's law of immigration": " The quality of an immigrant is inversely proportional to the distance travelled to get to the United States."
In other words: Latinos suck.
"The civilised countries should invade all the oil-owning places in the Middle East and run them properly. We won't take the money ourselves, but we'll manage it so the money isn't going to terrorists."
"Couldn't they just do experiments on Muslim stem-cells?" I ask. " Hey - that's a great idea!"
My thoughts on the value of a multi-party system are in the post immediately preceding this one. However, an interesting question remains...
Can coalitions be thought of functioning as a "third party?"
For some information on coalitions, check yellow dog democrat history, including some humorous descriptions of different flavors of dems, as well as the Blue Dog Coalition official page and wiki article. It might be fun to check out a direct comparison as well.
I think the simplest answer to my question is "no, because coalitions are too small and too unknown to have the required effects." Coalitions don't seem to receive much special media attention, nor do citizens generally describe themselves in terms of coalitions.
Well, I will. I think I could, maybe, be a considered a sort-of-blue-dog-dem. How's that for straddling the fence?
Anyone know of similar republican coalitions?
Any well-connected reader might have noticed third-party candidate news during the last election, and I'm sure it will come up again. With movies like Man of the Year becoming more popular, the ideas of third parties and general political change are enjoyed by most of the public.
Train of thought:
A classic assault on law, using flawed logic and hoity-toity assertions. I'm beginning to grow tired of thinking-games and baseless declarations; perhaps I'll adopt a more scientific approach in my own philosophy.
According to Political Compass I am truly a fence straddler.
But first, a pause for my quote of the day:
"Evolution explains changes in life, creation explains its origin." -- Some lackluster presidential "candidate," himself straddling the fence.
Not only am I reassuringly only slightly right (as an economist should be) but I'm nestled snugly between libertarianism and fascism. Now that's what I call rational!
Wall Street also posted today in their "Informed Reader" section a short blurb about heterodox economists.
"The so-called heterodox economists question some of Adam Smith's conclusions that "markets, private property and minimal government will achieve maximum welfare," says heterodox economist David Ruccio of the University of Notre Dame. Beyond that, heterodox economists have a wide variety of positions, ranging from those who question whether humans are as rational as neoclassical economists assume to those who argue that an unequal distribution of power affects how markets work."
The article goes on to describe how their research is ignored, their ideas are gaining momentum, social mores are changing, &c. which leads me to believe that these are, in fact, the missing link--liberal economists.
But, does this logic force conservatism into the mainstream?
Quite an interesting article today from the WSJ (click on title to view article for seven days). From the article:
"Kirk identified six elements that make the conservative mind: belief in a transcendent order that "rules society as well as conscience"; attachment to "the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence" as against the routinizing and leveling forces of modern society; the assumption that "civilized society requires orders and classes"; the conviction that "freedom and property are closely linked"; faith in custom and convention and consequently a "distrust of the 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs"; and a wariness of innovation coupled with a recognition that "prudent innovation is the means of social preservation." The leading role in this mix that Kirk attaches to religion marks him as a social conservative; his insistence that religion provides the indispensable ground for individual liberty marks him as a modern conservative."
A poem by REH, whose insights are refreshingly liberal and always well-thought-out. Rational opinions, if you will.
============
There once was a loudmouth called Newt,
who treated his wife like a brute.
When cancer her struck,
he passed on the buck,
to laymen at church, ain't it cute!
Rex
This time of year my mind always wanders to the income tax. I just want to collect a few short thoughts, and comments are welcome.
A flat tax disproportionately burdens the poor. Yes, the percentages are the same, but who can more afford the flat 10 or 15 percent? The person making six figures, not the one below the poverty line. The distinguishing factor here is how we define subsistence.
That's why our income tax is called a progressive tax.
And it's a pain to file. But without withholding, the people put most at risk of defaulting on their tax bill, otherwise productive members of society if by meager means, would be thrown into debtor's prison. Or jail, I guess we don't have debtors prison anymore. Without withholdings, the poorest members of society would not receive an injection of "unexpected income" and people of modest means would be hit with an "unexpected debt" that may be hard to pay.
Don't mess with something if it ain't broke.
