The most over-rated goal in politics
To-day, my driver's-side window of my evil SUV exploded. Apparently the rapid decrease in external temperature led to a buildup of pressure in the cabin, causing the safety class to crack up and blow out. Very strange. Perhaps the government is involved.
Regardless, to-day's rant is on the topic of politics. Politics has always been a sentimental science, with each side galmorising the period in history that most closely represents their utopian vision. For the modern Clintonista (i.e. authoritarian democrat), that period was the nineties. The carefree nineties represent an almost mythical time period in modern thought. In 1999, anyone could become an inter-net millionaire, and money grew on trees. Perhaps the reality was a bit different, but the Clintonistas still have fair dreams about the days when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was the greatest trauma to rock the nation.
Many others have different views about this magical decade of overpriced coffee and long-running TV sitcoms. Some heretics even think this was a decade of unparalleled ridiculousness, where serious foreign matters such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia were glossed over whilst the cult of celebrity was at its peak. Some have likened the America of this decade to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground.
However, these nay-sayers ignore the greatest achievement of the nineties. According to the Clintonista types, a national consensus of a sort existed and guided the progressive progression towards progress- the bridge-building to the twenty-first century, as it were. These types claim that we had none of the vociferous political fighting that marks political discourse nowadays. Furthermore, internationally we had wondrous coalitions and plenty of multi-lateralism to protect us against the bad guys. There was no nuclear North Korea or Iran, and Iraq was a distant problem mentioned only when the administration launched cruise missiles at random buildings.
Again, the critics claim that there was no sense of consensus outside of the Democratic party and the media organisations. Remember the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals? Furthermore, the critics contend that North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Iraq were engaged in secret arms-building throughout the nineties, and we're only now hearing about it because at the time we were too focused on the latest goings-on at Central Perk to pay any notice over-seas. Only now, where we have sites like Strategy Page and resources like Google Earth, can civilian analysts notice this buildup and coordinate their thoughts to create a comprehensive picture of what's really going on without depending on some empty suit at CNN to decide between an expose on the North Korean nuclear programme and the secret life of Bill Clinton.
But on to the main question. Is political consensus something to seek? Do we really want that warm and fuzzy feeling that we get when we think that there is a comprehensive blueprint for the bridge to the twenty-first century?
I would argue that we don't. First, any sense of "consensus" will automatically exclude a significant portion of the population from the political discourse. Furthermore, the discourse becomes boring, as there's only one message being preached. People lose interest in the political process and their attention focuses else-where. This is a bonus for Clintonistas, who like the idea of an activist and even an authoritarian Federal Government that enforces the consensus. They do not like public pressure deterring them from a course of action, since they are acting for the betterment of all (whether they like it or not).
Secondly, a "consensus" does not adequately serve the needs of a government. Oftentimes, radical measures are needed to save a nation (especially, it seems, after years of "consensus"). Margaret Thatcher was a radical politician, but her reforms saved the British economy and the British State from virtual third-world status. Consensus-building does not admit these possibilities: Thatcher is still an extremely controversial figure in British politics. If she had attempted to build consensus with Labour, she would have accomplished nothing. The same goes for the Reagan administration after years of the Nixon/Ford/Carter malaise and stagflation.
An example of how a "consensus-builder" is failing to save their economy comes in the form of German CDU leader Angela Merkel. Frau Merkel will more than likely become the next Chancellor of the German Republic after the massive defeat of social democrat Gerhard Schroder. Many had their hopes pinned that Frau Merkel would be a German Thatcher, leading the German economy out of its worst depression since the Weimar Republic. However, it seems Frau Merkel doesn't have the stomach to do what must be done for Germany's long-term survival. Instead, she offers only a meagre plan that will probably increase effective taxes by closing loopholes. By trying to create a consensus, Frau Merkel is dooming the German economy. She has merely loosened the economic noose slightly. For those interested, read details of her lukewarm plan here at TechCentralStation.
A third negative about a consensus is that it really doesn't exist. The sense of consensus is usually a put-on by the powers-that-be that allows them to suppress the voice of the opposition and lend themselves a special legitimacy. Though a general and clear consensus does exist on some subjects (such as the Kelo-authorised abuse of eminent domain), most political controversies do not have anything close to a resolution at hand. To pretend that there is a consensus is silly. It also requires the suppression of the opposing view. Though this prevents the vociferous exchanges of political battles, it also prevents the democratic process from running as it is supposed to.
I prefer the loud and super-heated political barrages of modern times to the deafening silence on political matters that characterised the nineties. At least we can exchange political opinions in an unregulated and open manner, as the Founders intended. By these vulgar machinations, we maintain our liberty and do not pave it over for a lyrical bridge that goes nowhere.
Regardless, to-day's rant is on the topic of politics. Politics has always been a sentimental science, with each side galmorising the period in history that most closely represents their utopian vision. For the modern Clintonista (i.e. authoritarian democrat), that period was the nineties. The carefree nineties represent an almost mythical time period in modern thought. In 1999, anyone could become an inter-net millionaire, and money grew on trees. Perhaps the reality was a bit different, but the Clintonistas still have fair dreams about the days when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was the greatest trauma to rock the nation.
Many others have different views about this magical decade of overpriced coffee and long-running TV sitcoms. Some heretics even think this was a decade of unparalleled ridiculousness, where serious foreign matters such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia were glossed over whilst the cult of celebrity was at its peak. Some have likened the America of this decade to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground.
However, these nay-sayers ignore the greatest achievement of the nineties. According to the Clintonista types, a national consensus of a sort existed and guided the progressive progression towards progress- the bridge-building to the twenty-first century, as it were. These types claim that we had none of the vociferous political fighting that marks political discourse nowadays. Furthermore, internationally we had wondrous coalitions and plenty of multi-lateralism to protect us against the bad guys. There was no nuclear North Korea or Iran, and Iraq was a distant problem mentioned only when the administration launched cruise missiles at random buildings.
Again, the critics claim that there was no sense of consensus outside of the Democratic party and the media organisations. Remember the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals? Furthermore, the critics contend that North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Iraq were engaged in secret arms-building throughout the nineties, and we're only now hearing about it because at the time we were too focused on the latest goings-on at Central Perk to pay any notice over-seas. Only now, where we have sites like Strategy Page and resources like Google Earth, can civilian analysts notice this buildup and coordinate their thoughts to create a comprehensive picture of what's really going on without depending on some empty suit at CNN to decide between an expose on the North Korean nuclear programme and the secret life of Bill Clinton.
But on to the main question. Is political consensus something to seek? Do we really want that warm and fuzzy feeling that we get when we think that there is a comprehensive blueprint for the bridge to the twenty-first century?
I would argue that we don't. First, any sense of "consensus" will automatically exclude a significant portion of the population from the political discourse. Furthermore, the discourse becomes boring, as there's only one message being preached. People lose interest in the political process and their attention focuses else-where. This is a bonus for Clintonistas, who like the idea of an activist and even an authoritarian Federal Government that enforces the consensus. They do not like public pressure deterring them from a course of action, since they are acting for the betterment of all (whether they like it or not).
Secondly, a "consensus" does not adequately serve the needs of a government. Oftentimes, radical measures are needed to save a nation (especially, it seems, after years of "consensus"). Margaret Thatcher was a radical politician, but her reforms saved the British economy and the British State from virtual third-world status. Consensus-building does not admit these possibilities: Thatcher is still an extremely controversial figure in British politics. If she had attempted to build consensus with Labour, she would have accomplished nothing. The same goes for the Reagan administration after years of the Nixon/Ford/Carter malaise and stagflation.
An example of how a "consensus-builder" is failing to save their economy comes in the form of German CDU leader Angela Merkel. Frau Merkel will more than likely become the next Chancellor of the German Republic after the massive defeat of social democrat Gerhard Schroder. Many had their hopes pinned that Frau Merkel would be a German Thatcher, leading the German economy out of its worst depression since the Weimar Republic. However, it seems Frau Merkel doesn't have the stomach to do what must be done for Germany's long-term survival. Instead, she offers only a meagre plan that will probably increase effective taxes by closing loopholes. By trying to create a consensus, Frau Merkel is dooming the German economy. She has merely loosened the economic noose slightly. For those interested, read details of her lukewarm plan here at TechCentralStation.
A third negative about a consensus is that it really doesn't exist. The sense of consensus is usually a put-on by the powers-that-be that allows them to suppress the voice of the opposition and lend themselves a special legitimacy. Though a general and clear consensus does exist on some subjects (such as the Kelo-authorised abuse of eminent domain), most political controversies do not have anything close to a resolution at hand. To pretend that there is a consensus is silly. It also requires the suppression of the opposing view. Though this prevents the vociferous exchanges of political battles, it also prevents the democratic process from running as it is supposed to.
I prefer the loud and super-heated political barrages of modern times to the deafening silence on political matters that characterised the nineties. At least we can exchange political opinions in an unregulated and open manner, as the Founders intended. By these vulgar machinations, we maintain our liberty and do not pave it over for a lyrical bridge that goes nowhere.
posted by The Admiral at 9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home