I must admit to being surprised by the volume of comments that this “Samizdata quote of the day” item provoked; I am not aware that we got linked to by some pro-Clinton blogs. One thing that did strike me about the comments was the apparent ignorance of the new commenters as to the philososphical bias of this blog (pro-liberty, pro-capitalism, small, if not minimal government, robust view on defence, etc). My dislike of Hillary/Obama/McCain/Huckabee/Romney is pretty consistent all the way through. Their unifying characteristic is their belief that government can do many good things and should do these things a great deal. Not one of them has – unless I missed it – made the sort of general, shrink-the-state comments that were the trademark of Reagan in his prime (that’s not to say, of course, that the Gipper actually was as marvellous as some of his supporters might claim). Of course, there remain differences, but none so much to really make a major shift in the direction of American, or for that matter, western politics. If Clinton were elected and we got a re-run of the Clinton psychodrama of the 1990s, it would be tedious, even a dangerous distraction from serious events, but I am not convinced it would be the end for Jefferson’s Republic. On the other hand, if McCain got elected, he’d probably only want to serve out one term, as he is getting on in years.
Why does any of this matter? Well, like it or not, what happens across the Big Pond resonates here. British politicians look for suggestions that western political ideas are moving in a particular way. At the moment, Big Government, Greenery, micro-management of personal behaviours via the tax and legal system are dominant ideas, although there is some fightback. This is why, infuriating though it may be to Little Englanders, the US Presidential elections get so much attention.
I’ll just be relieved when it is over so we can go back to bashing Gloomy Gordon and Dave.
Right, today’s Republicans are more Big Gov than the Democrats were in the days of JFK. And the dependency on public programs of one sort or another are so entrenched that any candidate that speaks openly about turning the tide is mocked. But of those you mentioned, I believe there to be at least one and maybe a couple who harbor an understanding of the need to curtail this out-of-control momentum. It takes a further look into what they don’t say to see that there may be more than meets the eye to a condidate’s convictions. But first one needs to get elected before being able to implement new ideas.
I think they may have been following the trackback from Andrew Sullivan’s article.
Also, Sullivan’s blog is not open for comments, so many of them just let off their steam here. It did feel like a sauna for a while, actually.
Wow, some of those pro-Hillary types were batshit-crazy, eh?
You knew it from their formatting before you even started to read (and then quickly scroll past) their hyperventilating rants.
I think what happened was, a bunch of people saw Sullivan breaking bad on Hillary. They thought, in a distressingly single-minded way, like this: “I am a woman. Hillary is a woman. This is what we have in common. Right now, this is the only identifying trait that either I or Hillary have. They are attacking her. Since she is unique only because she is a woman, they are attacking her because she is a woman. Therefore, they attack women for being women. That they attack women for being women is their only unifying feature, and therefore we will attack them for it. And they share a commonality with George W. Bush, who may have also attacked Hillary…”
Really sloppy thinking, poor logic, etc., but I’ve seen it somewhere else. There’s this one profession that tends to be rather insular, paranoid, cynical, and xenophobic, and prone to assume that a negative remark about one of them from an outsider is an outright attack on all of them. Not that I’d know anything about this.
I can’t believe I’m still awake. It’s time for the benadryl and the couch in the basement.
Sunfish, you are of course aware that you have just described a typical feminist way of thinking.
Your remark about that one profession did not go unnoticed, but I truly don’t know anything about this (and hope it stays this way):-)
I am popping in momentarily to clarify something. While I’m sure based on how I was treated yesterday no one particularly cares, I felt the need for closure. I came to your site yesterday because it was indeed the only comment link to Andrew Sullivan’s pathetic commentary.
I was not aware of the type of site that I had entered until upon attack, I investigated. So yes, I was initially ignorant. I can guarantee that everyone of you on this site is ignorant to something, if not many things. Such is the case for everyone. Even those that continue to learn and particularly those that don’t.
I did not attack the site, philosophies or individuals. I was here solely to reply to Sullivan. Not as a feminist, but as an individual who happens to be female and took offense at his commentary. I in turn was beset upon by either members or visitors and then members of your site. I generally tend to react when people are rude, condescending or just plain nasty.
I think that’s too bad. Had I not been treated with such disregard for an opinion that I am certainly entitled to as is everyone else, I may have stayed around long enough to learn something. Instead I stayed around long enough to learn that offering enlightenment or encouraging understanding is not part of your agenda. Alienation from those who are not already on your path seems more the purpose. That is too bad as well.
Gabrielle: I am sorry you felt unwelcome, I am sure no one here intended for that to happen…Well, OK, I am not really so sure, but you have to understand that all of us here were truly overwhelmed by the numbers and strangeness of all those comments. Besides, what was it that was so offensive to you? The fact that someone thought that you have thick ankles? Are you so shallow as to be offended by that?
The nature of the political animal is that if you oppose its favoured candidate or party, it assumes you must, ipso facto, favour its opponent.
A similar logic applies when you profess an admiration for Thatcher and Reagan. It follows, in the political mind, that you must therefore admire their hopeless Tory and Republican successors.
It’s as simple as that. They can’t even begin to understand that someone might not like any of the candidates on offer.
(PS: Classic thread, that. But I’m glad I missed it. Too intense. Top marks to Nick M and Perry, though.)
Gabrielle, you are certainly allowed your opinion. As are we all. That is rather the point of the site 😉
But when people come back at you and critisise your opinions you get all snarky.
Not the way things are done around here madam!
The very fact, that as some here suspected, there was a link to this post and Sullivans, and that you blatently barge in to Samizdata to vent your spleen, without a by your leave, or even reading the Blog properly for its diversity and depth of individual and collective knowledge. Well it speaks volumes about you my dear, not us!
For the record, most of the regular folk here, do not diss Hillary because she is a woman, It is because she is an awful human being. Full stop.
We dont like Obama for all sorts of reasons. But his skin colour sure aint one of them.
But do drop in again. It was almost exciting.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “Government is simply too big. State government is too big. The federal government is too big. It’s spending too much. There’s a lot we can do with efficiency and duplication. There’s even more we can do by just simply cutting back on the scale of our government.”
There’s a lot more where that came from.
Paul Marks says that he doesn’t believe it when Mitt says libertarian things, but does when he says things that sound statist. I suspect that this is a unifying thread for many on this blog, causing them to miss the positive message that received a beating last night.
James,
I think Mr Marks has made it quite clear that the reason he doesn’t take Mitt Romney seriously as a libertarian is because of his record as Governor of MA. Sudden changes of heart are historically more likely on the road to Damascus than on the interstate to DC.
Gabrielle,
So because you couldn’t have a go at Mr Sullivan directly you decamp to Samizdata and let off steam here? That makes perfect sense. Next time anyone says something that annoys me I solemnly vow that I’ll take out my frustrations on the first third party I come across.
What he says is utterly irrelevant unless measured against what he has done. If he thinks the state is too powerful, did he cut back the state in Massachusetts? Did he ease gun control in his state? Did he reduce the weight of regulations? Not “did he say he would”, did he actually do any of those things in any meaningful way in Massachusetts where he actually exercised political power? Please cite example where he did.
Also, we do not want a more ‘efficient’ state, we want less state, which is not the same thing at all.
Can the site admins confirm whether Gabrielle was posting from a different IP address to a number of the other commentators who had a similar posting style and turned up here at the same time?
Yes, different IP addresses. I think you underestimate how widespread the collectivist view that Hillary Clinton represents is.
It wasn’t just the worldview, Perry – it was also the posting style, ie. a single, long paragraph on the first post, then somewhat better paragraph structure in subsequent posts (after the unreadability of the former posts was pointed out).
Groupthink in action, I guess.
Thanks for checking.
What Mitt did in MA was dramatically attack the growth of the state. He raised some fees, and closed some tax loopholes, but the massive deficit was replaced by a tremendous surplus largely by beating down spending. He talks about doing it, has actually done it, and would like to do more.
He also promoted personal liberty in a variety of ways, with his efforts to get rid of blocks to gun ownership being the area that is most likely to appeal to this site.
Simon,
The similarities are because of a shared sub-culture. Although sub-culture might not be the right word for something that’s damn near the dominant culture in the US. I have no doubt that they were who they said they were – predominately female Democratic voters aged mid 40s to mid 60s.
If you’re feeling like an anthropologist, you can learn a lot by re-reading some of their posts.
Fun things to look for:
1) The cult of Feeeeeelings
2) Macho empathy – e.g: “I’m a NICE person, but you’re wrong because you’re MEAN!”
3) Self-serving psychobabble – e.g: “Anyone who disagrees with me/Hillary/whatever just feels threatened by a strong woman”
4) Stream of consciousness chatter – This often leads to a serious paragraph deficit.
For specific examples on guns, there’s this: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban/
Although it wasn’t a wholly positive bill, Mitt was able to negotiate with the Democratic legislature to arrive a a bill that received the support of the NRA.
This is a later bill, also promiting gun rights: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060177.htm
I’m assuming that you’re not seriously contesting the fact that he reduced deficits and created a surplus that were significantly in excess of the fees he charged. I’m also assuming that you believe that spending cuts that eliminate debt are as good as ones that go to tax cuts.
Did you notice the gender (or as someone said: the sex) of all those Hillary supporters on the other thread ? Was it just a matter of “widespread collectivist views” ? I think those weren’t collectivist views, they were sexist views.
james, then explain this(Link)
There’s this one profession that tends to be rather insular, paranoid, cynical, and xenophobic, and prone to assume that a negative remark about one of them from an outsider is an outright attack on all of them.
Just one? IMO, that’s a reasonably accurate description of lawyers, bureaucrats, and certain flavors of political activist.
Can you narrow it down a bit? 😉
Just Sayin and Jacob, what was more scary to me was not the specious accusations levelled at the posters on this board (I am used to being misunderstood and that can be corrected by open and genuine discussion) but the fact that the subtext of some of the comments was that they were voting for Hillary simply because she was a woman. There is no reasoning with such deffcient thinking.
Jacob, sexism is a kind of collectivism. There are many kinds.
You would be incorrect. I do not want a more efficient state, I want a smaller one. Spending needs to be reduce but as a means to an end… and that end is reduced state control, which means ‘balancing the budget’ is just a detail, not a meaningful objective. Shutting down whole government department is the only way to actually do what needs to be done (i.e. what Ron Paul wants to do).
However I would be happy (well, maybe not happy) to make a deal with the state: I promise to not ask to pay less tax if you promise to take 75% of the tax money you get and either just flush it down the toilet without spending it or just spend it on cocaine and hookers for public employees. Reducing the money the state gets is important mostly in so far as it starves the state of the ability to ‘do stuff’, but stopping the state doing stuff is actually what matters in my view.
James;
Romney is Bush mark 2. Promises small government conservatism despite his patchy record as governor and then, when in office, reveals his political instincts. Of course, if you ask people, “Is government too big?,” they’ll say yes – because it’s wasteful, blah blah blah.
When you ask, “Should government subsidise manufacturing industries?,” “Should government force people to buy healthcare if they won’t do it voluntarily, ‘so that they don’t put a burden on medicare/medicaid’?,” “Should government ban smoking in workplaces?,” “Should the federal government intervene in local education?” or “Should the minimum wage be linked to inflation?”, Governor Romney always answers Yes. Much like Huckabee – and identical to Bush – Romney calls himself a conservative, but proves himself a champion of big government – but only when he’s in charge.
The nature of the political animal is that if you oppose its favoured candidate or party, it assumes you must, ipso facto, favour its opponent.
I had a demonstration of this a week or so back: A long-time friend of mine blogged a reprint of some woman’s anti-Muslim rant, ending with a quotation from Ronald Reagan about faith in God being the basis of American government. I commented that the Constitution is the basis of American government—and that the Constitution (a) does not contain the word “God” anywhere and (b) mentions religion only to limit its impact on government (not just in the first amendment, but in the provision that there shall be no religious test for holding public office). Much to my surprise, he promptly attacked me as a supporter of Muslim conquest of the United States—even though he has known me for years and ought to have known better.
On reflection, I realized that this was the classic logic of “I’m supporting the good [Christian domination of American government, in this case]; you oppose the good, and therefore you must be in agreement with and supporting everyone else [Muslims, in this case] who opposes the good.” With us or against us, as the old saying goes. A sad demonstration of the reported psychological finding that partisan political thinking bypasses the part of the brain that does analytical reasoning and goes straight to in-group/out-group emotions.
There’s this one profession that tends to be rather insular, paranoid, cynical, and xenophobic, and prone to assume that a negative remark about one of them from an outsider is an outright attack on all of them.
Teachers?
Richard Thomas,
I agree. You can’t reason some people. But I did enjoy watching Perry and Nick argue with them.
This is what we get from a few decades of identity politics.
Evan – Hey, that’s a false generalization!
Boone: Do you want to go by his record or his recent statements? I’m just trying to keep track of where the goalposts are.
Perry, it is true that there were some areas where efficiency allowed Mitt to expand the state. I’d imagine that you’d approve of his improvements to the deal that the MA National Guard received. Their recruitment and morale had plummeted (Iraq was not popular in MA), and he turned them around and brought them right back up to targets with educational benefits, life insurance, and suchlike.
That said, if a candidate dramatically reducing the budgetary size of the state, sometimes by getting rid of programs (the hotel rooms for the homeless program being the most famous) doesn’t sound like someone attacking the size of the state, I’d like to ask what would, and which politician, past or present, would fit the bill.
Andrew: in order: He delivered smaller government in MA, as I was noting. / On subsidies, sure, his environmental program involves some subsidies for green research. This remains far and away the cheapest response to global warming offered by any politician. / It’s not just the state (or even primarily the state) that pays for the massive amount of health care defaulters. It’s the insured, the people. The free riders were effectively imposing a tax. If we could have a system where the poor sick were thrown out on the streets, that might be ideal, but in a world where we provide them with care, Mitt’s plan has been supportive of freedom and small government compared to most alternatives. You’ll note that just about everyone’s health insurance premiums went down dramatically/ No idea what you’re talking about. Mitt repeatedly vetoed anti-smoking stuff, such as here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/sj071703.htm. He did agree to give tax credits to employers who upgraded their designated smoking areas to reduce the spread of smoke outside them, but I believe this was a very small program, with no mandates. In addition, a veto-proof smoking ban was eventually sent to him. / On education, his big policies are the promotion of Home Schooling federal tax credits, which are surely examples of support for the reduction in the size of the state, and rhetorical support for school choice, which also seems Samizdata friendly. He had a similar record as governor, promoting school independence from the state. / Again, he vetoed minimum wage hikes. It’s not that he was crusading to keep them growing as fast as inflation, it’s that he was trying to stop them from growing faster. The legislature, obviously, never sent a bill with a reduction in it.
That said, I don’t think that Bush was an awful governor of Texas. Much of the compassionate conservatism came with the presidential race. In domestic policy, he basically did what he said he would. Of course, that would suggest to me that we should listen to platforms as well as history, but what do I know?
Evan, a.sommer, others,
I was actually thinking of cops. Joseph Wambaugh said that, on good days, we’re only as paranoid and xenophobic as the Kremlin.
I can only imagine that teachers probably look over their shoulders a lot as well.
Anyone who thinks that Mitt Romney cut spending had better find a garage to house his bong.
MA has a constitutional requirement to have a balanced budget. Mitt Romney accomplished this by raising taxes, then doing what even Clinton hadn’t the temerity to do, accusing his critics of playing word games, when Romney himself had done so. FYI, Fees in MA constitute taxes if they go beyond the cost of the, um, service provided.
I have a suggestion for how to make McCain look like a conservative, whatever that vacuous word might mean. First, have him put on a pig costume. Then put lipstick on it. Wait….
The money Mitt raised through fee increases/ tax loophole closing was much smaller than the deficit that he closed. It’s also less than the rainy day fund he left them with. By huge margins. More so when you remember to add the surplus to the removed deficits.
The purpose of MA’s rainy-day fund is to avoid returning money to taxpayers as required, if the money can’t be squandered on pork.
Romney is not responsible for the post-bubble-collapse increase in tax revenues in MA.