"Bigotry is bad for business," said Alan Hawse, vice president of information technology company Cypress Semiconductor, in remarks directed at anti-gay Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky. But I've long felt that many (most) politicos in both parties aren't primarily concerned with the general well being. Their energy is focused on themselves and the maximization of their own position and power, and so appeals to bigotry, however hurtful of economic growth, prosperity and dynamism, thus serve their primary interest.
This is evident on the left, too, with anti-globalization and pro-protectionism. Simply terrible policies, economically speaking, that nevertheless appeal to the fears and prejudices of the uninformed.
And as for some religious "leaders" organizing in favor of constitutionally banning same-sex marriage, I can only quote the Bible: "Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites that ye be."
And let's not forgot our very own gay "leaders." In the Times story linked above, catch the quote from HRC's clueless Joe Solmonese, who intones that the amendment is an unwanted distraction when (among other things) "we have an economy barely hanging on." Apparently, he agrees with John Kerry that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, but most Americans see low unemployment, moderate if slowly rising interest rates, low inflation (excepting gas), very solid economic growth and an up stock market as, well, not "barely hanging on."
More. Some commenters defend the
Kerry/Solmonese/Democratic "talking points" line on the economy,
but even the New York Times business section can't abide it. An
April 28 report was headlined "U.S. Economic Growth Continues Its
Rapid Pace; Consumers Are Upbeat," while a companion story reported
that "With unemployment in March at 4.7 percent, the nation is
still adding about 200,000 jobs a month-a fairly robust
pace."
-- Stephen H. Miller
22 Comments for “Their Interests, Not Ours.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Actually, polls indicate that most Americans, while saying they’re better off than four years ago, also perceive the economy as weak.
And why not? Under the Republican Party, the size and scope of government has increased by over 65%, the government is running massive deficits which keep long-term tax rates much higher — a stealth tax increase — and prices continue to rise due to a heavily devalued dollar. . . with food, gas and property prices rushing skywards and average incomes stagnating. Oh, but the government economists insist there’s “no inflation.”
posted by raj on
This is evident on the left, too, with anti-globalization and pro-protectionism. Simply terrible policies, economically speaking, that nevertheless appeal to the fears and prejudices of the uninformed.
More silliness from Stephen Miller, the Alan Greenspan/Milton Friedman of IndeGayForum. Unfortunately for Stephen, what passes for “free trade” in American parlance is little more than free trade in goods and some services (banking, insurance, and so forth). Truly free trade would also include free trade in labor, so that workers could move as easily as goods, and also free trade in the franchise (that is, so that American workers who move from the US to, say Mexico, China, Japan or India could vote in their elections and thereby help determine government policy).
The European Union does it approximately 2/3 correctly. They allow for–indeed require–free movement of labor withing the EU, as well as free movement of goods and services. The one thing that the EU falls short in is that there is no free trade in the franchise.
posted by The Gay Species on
Stephen Miller, once again you confuse balance sheets of America’s corporations for the balance sheet of the nation. If any corporation attempted to operate in the manner of the U.S. government, it would be hauled into bankruptcy court by its creditors. And, because China owns so much of the American debt, no wonder we Americans stand powerless to affect political liberties in that totalitarian regime. China needn’t even threaten, but merely suggest it will “cash in” it holdings of U.S. treasury bonds, and everyone from GWB on down, including gawd, prostrates.
A “disconnect” definitely exists with America’s citizens and it multinational corporations. The corporations, like Exxon, Halliburton, SBC, etc., ask for government assistance, and “today’s” Republicans grant it. $250 BILLION for U.S. oil interests, $250 BILLION for the U.S. highway construction interests, but when it comes to “John and Mary Doe,” they’re lucky if the retirement account they counted on will be available, whether Social Security (after Bush’s gargantuan increase in prescription drug benefits that seems to help pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, but does very little for the average beneficiary) will exist in 20 years.
And what about the national debt? Somebody is going to have to pay this enormous deficit in highfalutin spending under the Republicans (up 45%, compared to LBJ’s Great Society of 36%). Americans may be greedy, but they aren’t stupid. No government can spend like the current crop of Republicans and avoid bankruptcy. John Q. Citizen knows this, because he knows GWB and the Republicans have drastically reduced citizens’ ability to file bankruptcy, but generously allowed corporations to do so. And where does the U.S. government fit into this profligate spending scheme? At the top, of course, which no one believes can be sustained without irreparable harm to everyone.
As a capitalist, a conservative, and a libertarian, it does not take much to find fault with the current government. Bush and his Republicans make Democrat Clinton look draconian and reactionary. This government is “off” the balance sheet; any Wall Street Analyst would declare America bankrupt, if they didn’t reap profits from moving monies from one debtor to another.
Americans sense what is happening, and like any drug-crazed addict, watches the U.S. consume far more than it takes in, play “games” with cultural issues of little importance, while the ship is sinking. Halliburton’s shareholders could not be happier, but those who have lost their jobs to India and the Far East sense America is definitely on the wrong track. It doesn’t take a genius to understand how? It only takes a wingnut “false” issues time enough to camflage the pilfering. While GWB resurrects the anti-gay agenda to appease his right-wing base, and his prayers to the Almighty in thanks for “this” golden opportunity to take America to a war that had no initial or subsequent justification, the “average” American looks at what is happening and despairs. As if NAFTA was not enough, we’ll now allow 12 million illegals into America, because our corporate interests are more important than our cultural heritage. When corporations can trump and trample everything under the sun, it does not take a WASP to see darkness taking over.
Sadly, despite the horrors of this administration, the entrenched Democrats, the ostensible “opposition party,” has little if anything to say. As the ship sinks, they’re committed to the same privileged characters that the Republicans are. After all, when the citizen has been bleached of all his money, where else have the Democrats to look? America, the Enron of the world!
posted by Randy R. on
The economy is in fact doing very well. Unless, of course, you lost your job, and you have to work two minimum wage jobs to make up half your previous earnings.
It’s just like what Tucker Carlson said about health insurance: That everyone in America prefers our health insurance system to that of Canada, which has universal healthcare, to which Bill Maher replied, that if Carlson bothered to ask those in America without insurance which system they would prefer, we can all bet that they would opt for some healthcare coverage than none at all. but in a Tucker world, who cares about those left behind. They simply don’t count!
And that’s why we can say our economy is doing very well. It is doing very well for those who benefit. For those who do not, we simply don’t consider them part of the economy. Pretty clever, no?
posted by Randy R. on
One thing that distresses me, though, is the HRC comment. They tried this failed policy during the elections last year. Whenever Cheryl Jacques was asked on tv to comment about gay marriage or issues of interest to us, she would dodge complelety and say that the American people are more worried about health care and jobs than gay marriage.
It drove me up the wall that she simply would not engage. It was the result of a series of focus groups. After the election, she was hounded our of HRC because of her spectaclularly bad performance. I hope that Joe S. is not following in her footsteps.
The head of the HRC should be talking about gay issues, not the economy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
After the election, she was hounded our of HRC because of her spectaclularly bad performance. I hope that Joe S. is not following in her footsteps.
Joe Solmonese endorsed a supporter of the FMA.
Does that answer your question as to how committed he is?
Better yet, what was so spectacularly bad about Cheryl Jacques? She endorsed a Democrat, didn’t she? Gay issues are irrelevant as long as you do that.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Joe Solmonese endorsed a supporter of the FMA.”
So did North Dallas Thirty.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, I voted for a supporter of the FMA.
I did not give him any money; furthermore, I made it clear in as many words that his attitude towards gays stunk.
There’s a rather marked difference between Solomonese’s giving this person a public endorsement, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and accolades of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” than my voting for Bush.
Besides, you endorsed someone who wants to repeal laws protecting gays against employment discrimination. What’s your point?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Actually, I voted for a supporter of the FMA.”
Same thing. Shilling for, and then voting for, a supporter of the FMA is a form of endorsement.
You should climb off your high horse, before it throws you off.
“you endorsed someone who wants to repeal laws protecting gays against employment discrimination”
Laws against employment discrimination don’t protect gays, as an increasing number of people living in jurisdictions which have them can attest. I stand for their repeal. Of course, Badnarick’s never called for a position similar to mine, in fact, his position was “perhaps such laws are needed in the short term” — another point you’re glossing over in an effort to cover up your shameless partisan mendacity.
Here’s Badnarik’s response to a question about ENDA from gay.com:
“Here’s a test for your philosophy: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Does it make your skin crawl?
As much as it bothers me that we need a law to tell people to treat each other humanely, in this case we probably do. Even with passage of the law, people are going to be fired. It’s difficult to legislate morality. But I suppose there is so much discrimination out there that we have to try to level the playing field.”
Yep, he’s definitely calling for immediate repeal of the law, isn’t he?
Of course, your efforts to compare Badnarik to Bush are as slimy as most of the rest of your politicking. Badnarik policies for gays are unquestionably better than both of the major party candidates, as you well know.
And finally, unlike you, I wouldn’t be sleazy enough to use a “you endorsed a candidate who wants to repeal anti-discrimination laws” as an effort to score points when my candidate believes they’re superflous. I’m more honest than that, you should try it sometime.
Libertarians live to keep the two old parties honest. You can count on me to do so, actively, in this forum, no matter how much it bothers you. 🙂
posted by raj on
Same thing. Shilling for, and then voting for, a supporter of the FMA is a form of endorsement.
Pretty much. I doubt that anyone dragged NDXXX to the polling place and chained him (or her) to the booth until he (or she) rendered his (or her) ballot. It isn’t required that one fill out a ballot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One should only fail to vote in an election, raj, if one is willing to accept without reservation that either of the candidates in question is an equally-good choice.
That was not the case in the 2004 election cycle.
Meanwhile, to NL’s comment:
And finally, unlike you, I wouldn’t be sleazy enough to use a “you endorsed a candidate who wants to repeal anti-discrimination laws” as an effort to score points when my candidate believes they’re superflous.
LOL….actually, your initial response to me was a sleazy effort to score points using my exercise of my civic duty. You just didn’t expect that I would return fire with fire and, in the process, expose the fact that Badnarik is a Kerry-esque poseur, telling a gay audience one thing and flip-flopping when he’s in front of others. I guarantee you he wasn’t saying that when the party platform was written.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“your initial response to me was a sleazy effort to score points using my exercise of my civic duty.”
You have a civic duty to shill for the Bush Administration on Internet web sites?
My, I learn something new about the thought processes of neoconservatives every day. 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“I guarantee you he wasn’t saying that when the party platform was written.”
The candidates don’t write the platform or have any role in the platform’s creation, which is done by delegates at the national convention. You’re just digging yourself a deeper hole.
You’ve been caught out. Admit it, resolve to be more honest in the future, and move on, or you’re eventually going to hit the magma layer of the earth. 🙂
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | April 27, 2006, 6:26pm |
One should only fail to vote in an election, raj, if one is willing to accept without reservation that either of the candidates in question is an equally-good choice.
If you wish to vote for whomever you consider to be the lesser of two evils, feel free. Who am I to say otherwise? Some of us vote for third party candidates precisely because we do not want to vote for an evil.
Of course, since we’re from Massachusetts, our votes wouldn’t particularly matter one way or another. Except possibly for governor–although that will be up in the air this year–the state is becoming increasingly Democratic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“your initial response to me was a sleazy effort to score points using my exercise of my civic duty.”
You have a civic duty to shill for the Bush Administration on Internet web sites?
No. But I do have one to vote.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Actually, I voted for a supporter of the FMA.
Actually, ND30, that’s worse than what Solmonese did. Endorsements don’t matter in election campaigns, unless they lead to actual votes. (Full disclosure: Like ND30, I held my nose in ’04 and voted for Bush. Unlike ND30, I’m not proud of that.)
NE Lib: I had a chance to hear Michael Badnarik discuss his platform and positions before I voted. True, his position on gay-rights issues was immeasurably better than Kerry’s or Bush’s, and I respect that. But when I asked him a very basic foreign-policy question after his speech, he couldn’t answer it. Frankly, the man was a barking moonbat.
TGS: How can you be both an anti-corporate Marxist and a deficit hawk? With that sort of internal contradiction in your thinking, it’s a wonder your head doesn’t explode.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“when I asked him a very basic foreign-policy question after his speech, he couldn’t answer it”
I doubt Bush or Kerry could, either. That’s one reason why they don’t allow “normal people” to ask unscreened questions.
“the man was a barking moonbat”
A common bit of propaganda from the statist status quo. They support candidates like Bush and Kerry who vote to make the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, who believe that a socialist health care system is just hunky-dory, who say they can run up a huge deficit without consequences, who say they understand foreign policy and then involve the USA in an endless civil war in Iraq, and who vote to abridge gay civil rights qhile quoting the Bible — and accuse the Libertarian of being nuts! Talk about the log in one’s own eye. 🙂
posted by Avee on
Northeastern Lib writes, Actually, polls indicate that most Americans, while saying they’re better off than four years ago, also perceive the economy as weak.
Obviously, with CNN and the big liberal media telling them relentlessly that the economy is bad bad bad (the NYT piece Steve cites is a rare exception; someone will probably get canned), I’m not surprised that the gay between perception and reality isn’t bigger.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, ND30, that’s worse than what Solmonese did. Endorsements don’t matter in election campaigns, unless they lead to actual votes. (Full disclosure: Like ND30, I held my nose in ’04 and voted for Bush. Unlike ND30, I’m not proud of that.)
Wrong answer, Tim.
A vote is made in the privacy of the booth and influences no one else.
An endorsement is made publicly specifically as a means of influencing others to vote for the candidate.
The candidates don’t write the platform or have any role in the platform’s creation, which is done by delegates at the national convention.
Right. Sure. Typical response from a leftist who was cornered by the fact that his barking-moonbat candidate is as two-faced as the other ones he’s criticizing.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
ND30: A vote is made in the privacy of the booth and influences no one else.
You seem to believe that political speech is more influential than the act of voting. That’s a strange and potentially anti-democratic point of view (no surprise, coming from you). But no one was ever elected through endorsements or contributions; if endorsements alone could make a candidate viable, Howard Dean would have been the Dems’ nominee in ’04. Ulimately, it’s all about who gets the votes. And if the candidate you voted for wins, your vote has influenced the lives of those around you in a far more profound way than political speech or campaign finances ever could.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You seem to believe that political speech is more influential than the act of voting.
Let me ask this, Tim; do you support rules and laws limiting campaign contributions or who can buy media for a candidate? If so, why?
Think about it this way. If I vote, that is a single vote. If I make a political speech or endorsement that sways twenty other voters to vote my way, that’s twenty-one votes.
This is why Democrats pander so to unions. Time after time, they’ve proven to be the most effective vote-buying machines on the planet. Get a union endorsement, and you can be assured of an enormous number of votes; unions are excellent at enforcing and indoctrinating their members into just following the endorsement, rather than wasting time thinking about it.
posted by Ed Brown on
Until we have real camapaign law reform,. voting for a third party candidate is pretty much the same thing as not voting at all.