I don't think I follow. O's party has suffered the slings and arrows of assertions of foreign policy wimpyness for decades. Now for once we see the President and his party actually kicking back at the meme (with some merit). I mean obviously the right and left won't be affected, they're both convinced, but presumably this matters some to the centrists. I don't imagine Romney et all would be howling like they are if they didn't think this was a tender subject.
Also wouldn't a President who was "killing brown people without remorse" have invaded Iran by now rather than pulling out of iraq? I may be missing your point or being too literal.
I disagree Tom. Some of us have to do what we must because others just do what they want.
Personally it'd be nice to have a non-cut-your-own-throat non-Democrat alternative party in this country if for no other reason than so one could keep their Dems on their toes. But then I was raised mostly in a country with 3-4 adult parties so I may have grown up feeling entitled.
I have an anti gay marriage ammendment sliming its way along the electoral process here in Minnesota. It's a keen reminder of why I need to make certain I vote against republicans whenever I am able and why I need to try and convince those around me to do likewise. I'm no great fan of Obama's (though certainly not as down on him as libertarians or cons are) but what can I say? I'm a captive vote.
I think it's pretty firmly established now that the Tea Parties turned out to be largely a bunch of indignant old people who didn't want to be branded with Bush Minors stigma so instead varnished themselves with some convenient libertarians instead.
If you set aside Israel and foreign policy then socially and economically they're just centrist Dems. Personally I prefer leaving shrinking the tent to conservatives. We're so chaotic on the left we need all the numbers we can get.
Well if you look at the comparative growth charts the contrast is brutal. The English growth was recovering and then falls off a cliff when the austerity government kicks in. In contrast the Americans, deadlocked on autopilot except for stimulus, unemployment extensions and tax cut extensions, have significantly better growth.
But the household comparison really just doesn't work even metaphorically. The household income for instance is not generally much effected by the household spending.
The problem is exacerbated by poorly timed and structured austerity in the midst of a recession. That was the Great Recessions problem too (along with terrible monetary policy) but back then they at least could claim not to know any better.
The German polity is an amalgam of their political and industrial elites and their naturally populist populace. The two groups have to talk to each other and they do. Certainly pro-EU sentiments are higher for the elites than the masses, this is to be expected. But anyone who thinks that a German departure from the EU is going to lavish benefits on German workers is smoking something. The cost of their goods to their consumers will massively skyrocket (even assuming not a single trade barrier and that's one hell of a big assumption considering how bad the blood between Germany and the rest of the zone would be if they left). That equates to significant reorienting of purchasing. The germans aren't the only game in town. If german goods suddenly have to be bought with Marks that sell one to a hundred for Euros then the Europeans will buy Chinese, American or anything else and the Germans will have one hell of a recession.
Do they? If so, why the threats of trade barriers? Why is it that, when those stories about German banks allegedly printing out marks came around last year, the Euro sank like a rock? If the possibility of a German withdrawal is so farfetched, then why wouldn’t the rest of Europe tell them to take their austerity measures and bugger off?
Umm because people were calculating what the value of the Euro would be minus the value of the German production in it? This is like currency 101? As for why the Europeans don't tell the Germans to bugger off, well they haven't... yet... but we are witnessing right now the collapse of the German led austerity side in the EU. There may very well come a point where the Euros tell the Germans to "bugger off" at which point the Germans will have to decide whether they want low unemployment with them within the EU with higher transfer payments and or inflation or whether they want much much higher unemployment on the outside with no transfer payments and full control of their currency.
What this analysis leaves out, it seems to me, is that during the last century; in addition to achieving victories; the left also discovered the upper limits of its ambitions. The stagflation of the 70's and the backlash against regulatory kudzu of the 80's both identified areas where when leftist principles were taken too far the results were illiberal and unproductive (and unappealing to the electorate). The collapse of centrally planned economies, also, represented a flat out indictment of the idea of post market societies. This is reflected, I submit, in the rise of neo-liberals and the wonky left. This is a consequence of a general understanding on the left that the world that the left in general would like to see will look a lot like this one. A market, yes, but more egalitarian with less corporate misbehavior; a society, yes, but one with less racism and moral crusading; a government, yes, but one that functions better and produces less objectively bad outcomes.
The right, on the other hand, still imagines an ideal society that looks utterly unlike the one we live in whether that is a tiny government libertopia, a post government anarchy; a hyper governmental theocracy or a neo-con military crusading state. Unlike the left the right still has their ambitious dreams because they haven’t seen their dreams crash and sink against the shoals of reality (or in some cases it’s impossible for such a thing to happen to some right wingers dreams).
The basic fundamental point is simply that the EU has enormous and fundamental benefits to Germany; any one sided narrative is facile. The Germans have benefitted as much (if not more) than the rest of the EU member states from the trade union. They would likely suffer quite a lot from dissolution of that union. The Germans, mind, are very aware of this; you'll find fewer people more enthusiastic about the EU than the Germans. That is why the idea of the Germans jumping ship out of the EU is very farfetched unless they’re faced with truly enormous transfer payment requirements.
Pyre, what you're leaving out of this narrative is the massive benefits that Germany got from the EU. They come in two forms:
First: Germany was able to join a currency union with the rest of Europe. This made their currency artificially less expensive and thus makes German manufacturing much more competitive than it otherwise would be.
Second: Germany within the EU gained essentially free access to all the EU member states markets. This essentially meant that the other EU states tacitly agreed to outsource their manufacturing to Germany. This was huge for German jobs.
The entire EU gig was a mutually beneficial deal. The EU periphery got to borrow like Germans. The Germans got to have economic growth like poor peripheral EU states. It was win-win until the music stopped. The narrative of poor benighted worker bee Germans being abused by the rest of the EU is an intuitively appealing one but it is only half of the picture. What’s essentially happening is Germany has to decide if it wishes to continue the pleasant state of affairs it has enjoyed since the EU and the unified market started. If they do then they’re going to have to pay for it (in the form of bailouts and inflation of the Euro). If they don’t then the party is over and they’re going to have to face the potential of a hyper-strong German currency and the specter of trade barriers rising in what has been essentially their own private domestic European market.
Oh agreed heartily. There's gonna be a Lid Dem and Tory blood bath if the UK keeps struggling.
Germany really is in an interesting position. The more lousy Europe gets the better it is for Germany economically unless they either are asked to support significant bailouts or if the Eurozone collapses. If the former happens they essentially are handed the bill for the massive free market they've been enjoying all this time. If the latter happens then they'll loose their free maket and there's could be a massive wave of unemployment in Germany. So the cold blooded German goal would be to provide the minimum amount of bailouts and allow the minimum amount of inflation necessary to keep the Eurozone intact.
And yes, Greece was a massive outlier and personally I have very little sympathy for them. My heart bleeds for Ireland, on the other hand, they didn't deserve what they got. If I were the Irish polity there'd be bankers and politicians hanging by their toes from every lamp post in Dublin.
Certainly the kind of austerity that, say, Paul Ryan has been espousing is definitely on the run in Europe and especially in Britain and Ireland where they appear to be descending deep deep deep into an austerity sink. Austerity of course impedes economic growth which leads to lower government revenues which in turn leads to bigger budget deficits which leads to more austerity which leads to more economic impairment; a vicious cycle.
But one thing that should be emphasized is that while austerity right now of the kind that Europe has done is suffering considerable discrediting that doesn’t mean that budgetary discipline in general is discredited. The ideal solution of course is a mixed method; deficit spending in the short term coupled with reforms that promise to bring spending down in the long term. Entitlement reform and tax reform in the US, for instance, if done right would be just what the doctor ordered by allowing deficit spending in the near future while reassuring lenders and bond markets that the country isn’t going to descend down the Greek.
Alas the politics end a painful sword of Damocles issue as well. Squirmy politicians being what they are; the near term deficit spending comes easy but the hard decisions on long term reforms are very hard to get done. On top of that incumbent politicians in bad economies are already terrified of being fired (and bad economies do lead to blind anti-incumbent fever) which makes them even more risk averse. Politically of course the Canadian method offers the best means of proceeding: classic Keynes; cut the spending and raise taxes while the economy is on a strong rebound. Unfortunately politicians being the squirmy fellows they are the historical example has been that tax cutters and spending hikers will outbid deficit hawks in good times and the can gets kicked again.
Tom, Harper has done a smaller version of what Obama did for the most part. Martin handed government over to a Harper led minority with the economy on a distinct slow down. Harper has run up government debt and generally managed the recession. If he didn't have a Conservative label before his name right wingers would have little trouble finding things to indict him for. Both Obama and Harper even ran up spending impressively on non-recession related expenses Obama on healthcare (conservaticves assert overpaying on healthcare) and Harper on overpaying for jets that the country doesn't need.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Conflicting Accounts of Obama’s Foreign Policy Achievements”
I don't think I follow. O's party has suffered the slings and arrows of assertions of foreign policy wimpyness for decades. Now for once we see the President and his party actually kicking back at the meme (with some merit). I mean obviously the right and left won't be affected, they're both convinced, but presumably this matters some to the centrists. I don't imagine Romney et all would be howling like they are if they didn't think this was a tender subject.
Also wouldn't a President who was "killing brown people without remorse" have invaded Iran by now rather than pulling out of iraq? I may be missing your point or being too literal.
Personally I'm finding it a little charming to see that Obama can actually throw an elbow or two. Plus Biden's little quote about Osama being dead and GM being alive was quite cute. So cute that Romney is actually putting out trial balloons saying the auto bailout was his basic idea. http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-bailout-was-mitt-romneys-idea-apparently-2012-4?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider%2Fpolitics+%28Business+Insider+-+Politix%29
On “Sandefur: Voting for Obama”
I disagree Tom. Some of us have to do what we must because others just do what they want.
Personally it'd be nice to have a non-cut-your-own-throat non-Democrat alternative party in this country if for no other reason than so one could keep their Dems on their toes. But then I was raised mostly in a country with 3-4 adult parties so I may have grown up feeling entitled.
On “248 Small Government Party Members Vote “Yea” on CISPA”
Three points to Gryffndor for a deliscious ghostbuster quote!
On “Sandefur: Voting for Obama”
I have an anti gay marriage ammendment sliming its way along the electoral process here in Minnesota. It's a keen reminder of why I need to make certain I vote against republicans whenever I am able and why I need to try and convince those around me to do likewise. I'm no great fan of Obama's (though certainly not as down on him as libertarians or cons are) but what can I say? I'm a captive vote.
On “248 Small Government Party Members Vote “Yea” on CISPA”
Sorry correction, indignant old republican people.
"
I think it's pretty firmly established now that the Tea Parties turned out to be largely a bunch of indignant old people who didn't want to be branded with Bush Minors stigma so instead varnished themselves with some convenient libertarians instead.
On “Why Are These Two Things Different?”
The current vogue is to lower taxes and cut spending even more deeply to compensate.
On “Apropos of nothing, a little self-congratulatory group hug…”
Horray!
On “13.1”
Interesting post. Exertion is my arch nemesis, I can't even conceive of getting a thrill out of it.
On “The Sometime Blogger Formerly Known As…”
Many congrats! Missing Vegas continues to be an increasingly bitter cup.
On “The Rise of the Wonky Left”
If you set aside Israel and foreign policy then socially and economically they're just centrist Dems. Personally I prefer leaving shrinking the tent to conservatives. We're so chaotic on the left we need all the numbers we can get.
On “Austerity On The Run”
Well if you look at the comparative growth charts the contrast is brutal. The English growth was recovering and then falls off a cliff when the austerity government kicks in. In contrast the Americans, deadlocked on autopilot except for stimulus, unemployment extensions and tax cut extensions, have significantly better growth.
But the household comparison really just doesn't work even metaphorically. The household income for instance is not generally much effected by the household spending.
"
The problem is exacerbated by poorly timed and structured austerity in the midst of a recession. That was the Great Recessions problem too (along with terrible monetary policy) but back then they at least could claim not to know any better.
On “The Rise of the Wonky Left”
I'd say TNR pins down the rightward edge of the Liberal map just as the Nation pins down far off to the leftward side of it.
On “Austerity On The Run”
The German polity is an amalgam of their political and industrial elites and their naturally populist populace. The two groups have to talk to each other and they do. Certainly pro-EU sentiments are higher for the elites than the masses, this is to be expected. But anyone who thinks that a German departure from the EU is going to lavish benefits on German workers is smoking something. The cost of their goods to their consumers will massively skyrocket (even assuming not a single trade barrier and that's one hell of a big assumption considering how bad the blood between Germany and the rest of the zone would be if they left). That equates to significant reorienting of purchasing. The germans aren't the only game in town. If german goods suddenly have to be bought with Marks that sell one to a hundred for Euros then the Europeans will buy Chinese, American or anything else and the Germans will have one hell of a recession.
"
Do they? If so, why the threats of trade barriers? Why is it that, when those stories about German banks allegedly printing out marks came around last year, the Euro sank like a rock? If the possibility of a German withdrawal is so farfetched, then why wouldn’t the rest of Europe tell them to take their austerity measures and bugger off?
Umm because people were calculating what the value of the Euro would be minus the value of the German production in it? This is like currency 101? As for why the Europeans don't tell the Germans to bugger off, well they haven't... yet... but we are witnessing right now the collapse of the German led austerity side in the EU. There may very well come a point where the Euros tell the Germans to "bugger off" at which point the Germans will have to decide whether they want low unemployment with them within the EU with higher transfer payments and or inflation or whether they want much much higher unemployment on the outside with no transfer payments and full control of their currency.
On “The Rise of the Wonky Left”
What this analysis leaves out, it seems to me, is that during the last century; in addition to achieving victories; the left also discovered the upper limits of its ambitions. The stagflation of the 70's and the backlash against regulatory kudzu of the 80's both identified areas where when leftist principles were taken too far the results were illiberal and unproductive (and unappealing to the electorate). The collapse of centrally planned economies, also, represented a flat out indictment of the idea of post market societies. This is reflected, I submit, in the rise of neo-liberals and the wonky left. This is a consequence of a general understanding on the left that the world that the left in general would like to see will look a lot like this one. A market, yes, but more egalitarian with less corporate misbehavior; a society, yes, but one with less racism and moral crusading; a government, yes, but one that functions better and produces less objectively bad outcomes.
The right, on the other hand, still imagines an ideal society that looks utterly unlike the one we live in whether that is a tiny government libertopia, a post government anarchy; a hyper governmental theocracy or a neo-con military crusading state. Unlike the left the right still has their ambitious dreams because they haven’t seen their dreams crash and sink against the shoals of reality (or in some cases it’s impossible for such a thing to happen to some right wingers dreams).
On “Austerity On The Run”
Countries aren't households and households aren't countries.
"
I don't follow British politics closely but that does sound likely. Lord knows Labor could use an infusion of Lib-Dem brains.
"
The basic fundamental point is simply that the EU has enormous and fundamental benefits to Germany; any one sided narrative is facile. The Germans have benefitted as much (if not more) than the rest of the EU member states from the trade union. They would likely suffer quite a lot from dissolution of that union. The Germans, mind, are very aware of this; you'll find fewer people more enthusiastic about the EU than the Germans. That is why the idea of the Germans jumping ship out of the EU is very farfetched unless they’re faced with truly enormous transfer payment requirements.
On “I’m Guest Blogging at The Atlantic”
Grats David. Just remember your boat posts belong here on the League.
On “Austerity On The Run”
Pyre, what you're leaving out of this narrative is the massive benefits that Germany got from the EU. They come in two forms:
First: Germany was able to join a currency union with the rest of Europe. This made their currency artificially less expensive and thus makes German manufacturing much more competitive than it otherwise would be.
Second: Germany within the EU gained essentially free access to all the EU member states markets. This essentially meant that the other EU states tacitly agreed to outsource their manufacturing to Germany. This was huge for German jobs.
The entire EU gig was a mutually beneficial deal. The EU periphery got to borrow like Germans. The Germans got to have economic growth like poor peripheral EU states. It was win-win until the music stopped. The narrative of poor benighted worker bee Germans being abused by the rest of the EU is an intuitively appealing one but it is only half of the picture. What’s essentially happening is Germany has to decide if it wishes to continue the pleasant state of affairs it has enjoyed since the EU and the unified market started. If they do then they’re going to have to pay for it (in the form of bailouts and inflation of the Euro). If they don’t then the party is over and they’re going to have to face the potential of a hyper-strong German currency and the specter of trade barriers rising in what has been essentially their own private domestic European market.
"
Oh agreed heartily. There's gonna be a Lid Dem and Tory blood bath if the UK keeps struggling.
Germany really is in an interesting position. The more lousy Europe gets the better it is for Germany economically unless they either are asked to support significant bailouts or if the Eurozone collapses. If the former happens they essentially are handed the bill for the massive free market they've been enjoying all this time. If the latter happens then they'll loose their free maket and there's could be a massive wave of unemployment in Germany. So the cold blooded German goal would be to provide the minimum amount of bailouts and allow the minimum amount of inflation necessary to keep the Eurozone intact.
And yes, Greece was a massive outlier and personally I have very little sympathy for them. My heart bleeds for Ireland, on the other hand, they didn't deserve what they got. If I were the Irish polity there'd be bankers and politicians hanging by their toes from every lamp post in Dublin.
"
Certainly the kind of austerity that, say, Paul Ryan has been espousing is definitely on the run in Europe and especially in Britain and Ireland where they appear to be descending deep deep deep into an austerity sink. Austerity of course impedes economic growth which leads to lower government revenues which in turn leads to bigger budget deficits which leads to more austerity which leads to more economic impairment; a vicious cycle.
But one thing that should be emphasized is that while austerity right now of the kind that Europe has done is suffering considerable discrediting that doesn’t mean that budgetary discipline in general is discredited. The ideal solution of course is a mixed method; deficit spending in the short term coupled with reforms that promise to bring spending down in the long term. Entitlement reform and tax reform in the US, for instance, if done right would be just what the doctor ordered by allowing deficit spending in the near future while reassuring lenders and bond markets that the country isn’t going to descend down the Greek.
Alas the politics end a painful sword of Damocles issue as well. Squirmy politicians being what they are; the near term deficit spending comes easy but the hard decisions on long term reforms are very hard to get done. On top of that incumbent politicians in bad economies are already terrified of being fired (and bad economies do lead to blind anti-incumbent fever) which makes them even more risk averse. Politically of course the Canadian method offers the best means of proceeding: classic Keynes; cut the spending and raise taxes while the economy is on a strong rebound. Unfortunately politicians being the squirmy fellows they are the historical example has been that tax cutters and spending hikers will outbid deficit hawks in good times and the can gets kicked again.
On “Testing ideology”
Tom, Harper has done a smaller version of what Obama did for the most part. Martin handed government over to a Harper led minority with the economy on a distinct slow down. Harper has run up government debt and generally managed the recession. If he didn't have a Conservative label before his name right wingers would have little trouble finding things to indict him for. Both Obama and Harper even ran up spending impressively on non-recession related expenses Obama on healthcare (conservaticves assert overpaying on healthcare) and Harper on overpaying for jets that the country doesn't need.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.