Archive | Pragmatism must trump [Republican] theory RSS feed for this section

Orator v. Doer: Where is the Beef? Or, why is Obama’s A+ speech failing?

27 Feb

President Obama’s first speech to a joint-session of Congress was judged by both friend and foe as a masterpiece; and so it was: An oratorical jewel!

But, when the audience was asked to act, not just to assess; to put its money where their mouths are; they did, big sell-offs in the stock market! An A+ presentation followed by a D- measured performance.

The American public which at one time, in not-too-distant past, would invest on strength, and promises, now seems to require deeds, beyond words in order to take action. President Obama was elected on strength of his words, and was given a short-fuse, at the end of which his performance would be measured on concrete results, the end of the fuse is now in sight, its operational life is probably no longer than ninety days.

President Obama, perhaps the greatest orator in the history of the human race, must prove that he is a doer, not only a great speaker. Just following President Clinton’s advice regarding the adaptation of a more optimistic tone, does not work; measurable action by President Obama is needed before a required public acceptance can be earned, in other words, Mr. President: Where is the beef?

Neither pure socialism, nor pure capitalism [can] exist; why the outcry about Obama’s “virtual”-socialism?

19 Feb


Prologue:                                                                                                                                Those interested in the topic of this blog which deals with the facts that Capitalism, as is Socialism, in their pure states, cannot survive within sovereign human societies, should also avail themselves of:               

This blog, Part II: Why is it not possible for either purs Socialism or pure Capitalism to survive?


Pure Capitalism means anarchy, while pure Socialism means Chaos!

The issue: Since neither pure socialism, nor pure capitalism [can] exist; why the outcry about Obama’s [virtual]-socialism? The outcry about what many spoke-persons for US conservatives label: European Socialism?

Conservative media voices, such as Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, Ingel, Coulter, to name a few, keep telling their audiences that socialism never worked. What they fail to tell their audiences is that neither did capitalism. As a matter of fact, one cannot identify an economic system that endured without including socialistic elements, or without undergoing major changes, throughout the history of civilization.

Some economies have been around and prospered for a few years, they were (a few still are) generally a hybrid operations adopting principals from one system or another, when it deemed advisable. There are a number of capitalistic countries (such as Canada, and perhaps Sweden) that boast national, or socialistic health care systems. Their systems may not be perfect, but they are clearly not inferior the the US system, and they do not leave out tens of millions of their citizen without any health resources.

United States capitalism, the great success, that it appeared to be from time to time, had major failures (such as the great dipression, and the situation we are in today;) that notwithstanding, it also deploys socialistic elements to simply allow it to function. Labor unions, the small amount of income re-distribution in the tax code, and welfare, are but three examples, there are many more, none are necessarily destructive items to degrade capitalism, to the contrary, they usually enhance the way economies operate.

Conservatives should not fear Obama for socialistic elements that he may introduce in his policies; if they chose to criticize the President, they should do so on the merit of each item they don’t like, not because they could attach the socialism label to it!

Republican meltdown: Terminology and semantics replace reality — prophesizing doomsday; the O’Reilley, Ingle, Hannity, Beck, et al, factor!

7 Feb

 Some of the Republican pundits, those who act as unofficial but pragmatic voices of the Republican party, like to use the following words for replacing reality: Capitalism, liberalism, socialism (that include government give-aways,)  communism, fascism, etc., those pundits; the words deal with a black-and-white world, in spite of the fact that everything in our world is really gray, there are no actual black-and-whites in our universe.   prophecising

The most current political issue, the upcoming legislation dealing with a stimulus package, was criticized by Republicans for being a spending rather than a stimulation effort.  President Obama took that issue away from the Republicans by suggesting on his own that that stimulus is synanomous with spending regarding the present situation.

Sean Hannity, a loud conservative voice, but usually without much meat, would like to have the stimulus package be called a give-away package and based on that terminology identify it is socialism. Hannitymaintainsthat for people who do not pay taxes now, to receive Federal help is socialistic give-away.  Hannity simply leaves out the fact that most of those who do not pay taxes, paid taxes at one time or another throughout their lives. Hannity leaves out the retired elderly who paid a significant amount of tax, or those who were recently laid-off because of the eight years George W. Bush pure capitalistic policies.

These Republican pundits, as well as many of others, have a serious issue with Liberalism. Without exception these Conservatives voices insist that anything that can be labelled liberal is bad; they do not seem to realize what the term means.

Before getting into the true meaning of liberalism and how it plays in the American political environment, let me deal with a review of the United States system, and the level of it [historical] success.

The United States is a two hundred and some thirty year old (or rather YOUNG) Capitalistic Representative Democracy; there are no other examples that it can learn from, as it is a pioneer that must learn from its own mistakes and successes. Recent days economic experiences including two very alarming examples, situations under the two least effective presidents of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush. A quick overview these two examples suggest that failing economy is not the domain of either the two leading parties of the United States.

Those who complain about present approaches because “past history” suggests that these approaches would not “do the job,” do not have enough historical samples on which to build a valid case. Those who use terms such as socialism, communism, and capitalism, to determine the level of success any given system is likely to have. The main reason for none of these terms to serve is measuring sticks has to do with the fact that each ans every one of them is not a pure system; they are all hybrids borrowing elements from one another.

Some of the fear tactics that Republican pundits are using verge on the ridiculous. For example, Glenn Back speaking to Laura Inglesif the Federal government takes ownership of private institutions, such as banks it could end up like Nazi Germany because, as Glenn Beck aptly put it, Nazi Germany referred to itself as National Socialism — innocent and quite simple terminology turned into an alarming signal the the Obama Democratic Administration is leading towars socialism, which could lead to Nazism.

Since there are not any democratic systems in the world with ehough history to use as examples of a political system with some, any, kind of an economic syatem. Some samples of similar situation, such as Great Britains, a capitalistic system that has a great number of socialistic elements, such as health care. Israel, another capitalistic democracy that has socialistic health system, and has a very dominent labor union, a significant socialistic part of the whole system.

Republican spokes persons should look at individual cases, not confuse political with economic systems, and stay away from sensationalism unless they have sound foundation for alarm.  For example, even the United States capitalism is utilizing socialistic element, while even the purest socialistic systems, such as Cuba, and Russia have capitalistic elements.  The terms that apply to political systems should also be avoided ubless one realize that none are pure as are the terms. The term democracy, for example, must be qualifies. The United States, for example, has a representative (Jeffersonian) democracy, a system in which people vote for others to represent them and vote finally for office holdewrs. There are popular democracies where each vote counts towards the election of officials, and therre are demoncratic-republics, etc.

 Obama’s stimulus package is not perfect, but it should serve to make up for some of George W. Bush Administration’s with its ill concievedtaxcuts, unregulated (and greedy) financial system, and generally an economic system that allowed for uncontrolled acesses. The Obama package will not cause the United States to become socialistic sociaty, it will not bring about a revolution, even though Thomas Jefferson thought that it would be good to have a revolution every few years, and it will not cause the United States to move towards Nazism. 

The stimulus package may be liberal, the rallying cry of radical Republicans such as O’Reilly, Hannity, and others. Hannity keeps waving a sign Li-er-al when making refernces to statements someone of whom he (Hannity), does not approve. These Republic pundits may help their cause by taking the time to truly understand what the term liberal stands for. A liberal is someone who is receptive to change, it is someone with an open mind.  And after the terrible eight years of George W. Bush, who does not believe that a change is in order?

The Republicans keep using Reagan economy as a sample of one wants to follow. These Republicans have a very convenient memory, they don’t seem to remember that towards the end ofc Reagan’s administration the economy was failing and even David Stockman, the architect of Reagan’s tricke-down economics that it was failing.

Waked up [Republican] pundits, the conservative, tax-cutting economics of George W> Bush put the United States in the second worse economic  position in its history; why don’t you admit that it is time to beliberal and accept the fact the change, a drastic change, is need.  You are allowed, actually, you are welcomed, to be critical, be the loyal opposition, if you will, but don’t criticize elements of governing because they fit your terminology of the unacceptable; accept the fact that your terminology is not precise, it is not gospel!

In closing, this is not to suggest that the stimulus bill is a good bill, or that Republican legislator should not voice opposition, and perhaps try to change some of the bill content; this article is simply designed to suggest that those pundits who sit on the sidelines should get away from rhetoric’s, from theoretical truth; and let those in the legislator do their jobs.