New Freeland

American Presidents

So is a Democrat victory in the American presidential elections unavoidable? Judging by the media coverage you’d think that the Republicans weren’t even running. Watch CNN for instance and there is hour after mind-numbing hour about the Hillary vs Obama tribulations, is he black enough, too black, does she cry on command to win sympathy, blah blah blah. Oh the Republicans? Are they running? Oh look Hillary is crying again.

But it doesn’t really matter about the Republicans does it? When was the last time they appeared interested in even a passing manner in small government, limited interference in citizen life or anything that they used to stand for? None of them are going to turn around the federal US juggernaut even if they by some miracle get elected. Limited government in the US is long out of fashion. Reagan is gone and no one has any interest in even maintaining what he managed. The Republicans are merely the mirror image of the Democrats, all you get to choose is the slight moral bent of the Presidential party. They will both rob you blind, expand useless government agencies with an ever increasing alphabet soup of departments and programs.

Let’s face it. George W Bush would be right at home in the conservative wing of the Democrats. He loves spending. He loves creating new government. His tax cuts are symbolic only and not renewed. He is not terribly conservative and is not racist, misogynistic or a gay-basher. The only difference is foreign policy and that difference is primarily of the Democrats own making. Since the Iraq campaign began most of the Democrats have tried to have it more than two ways as the war has shifted from fervent support, to poorly planned confusion, to successful surge and now on to some measure of calm and apparent hope. None more so than Hillary herself. George W would have been right at home in the Democratic party of Wilson, FDR, Kennedy or LBJ. It is only since Carter and the lack of will in the face of adversity that the Democrats have taken the easier road. That is the primary reason they hated Reagan and his supreme confidence and why they so viscerally hate Bush Jr. The same goes for the rest of the intellectual “left” of the world. Sure George W is no stunning intellect, nor fantastic speaker. But the only separation between him and Al Gore, say, is that Gore is a good public speaker who hides his own will to power from those he purports to represent.

Needless to say we have not seen the last of Gore. The man who was groomed from childhood for the presidency and devoted his whole life to it has not given up. Despite bollocksing up the enormous advantage of the pre-9/11 Clinton years, despite the tarnish of personal scandal for Bill, he will be back. Winning a Nobel prize for what honestly amounts to a fluff movie is the key he needs for a comeback, not this time but maybe in 2016.

But back on track. The Republicans are irrelevant to any liberal who is interested in and disturbed by American governance. Are any of them interested in limited government, or would even recognise it if they tripped over it on the way to tabernacle? I mean, seriously when you have local governments proposing remote controls on individual household thermostats you know that the sense of power in all levels of government has gone well beyond any safe level.

But what of Hillary and Obama? What an uninspiring duo they are. Both riding on their membership of an identity group, with Democrat voters desperately trying to reconcile how to vote against the black man in favour of a woman. Or vice versa. They must only be thanking their stars that neither the desire nor opportunity really struck Condoleeza Rice otherwise the horrid Republicans would have bagged both minority trophies in one fell swoop. How wonderfully ironic that would have been for entertainment value.

Hillary. She is a fine example to us females. Stands behind her areshole of a man while he shags whatever he wants because all along she has nursed her own presidential dreams. Any sane woman would have ditched the bastard and got on with it, funny but marriage used to be about love and dedication. Some feminist example she is. But for Hillary it was clear at the time that ditching him would have destroyed the Clinton name, presidency and any chance she had of not so subtley pretending that being First Lady was somehow a qualification to being President. I’d rather vote for Laura, she seems to believe in some ethics at least. As for crying on stage, that was not a sign of being vulnerable just like the rest of the little people. Oh no, that was very much an ace card to be played. Probably much earlier than she liked and it would have been far better deployed against a White Male Republican than against Obama but in extreme situations you need to use what you have. The tears were for her own frustration at possibly being denied the victory of inevitabilty that she has been so careful to create over the years from being the cheated on wife, through being a senator in a state far away from her own home state (revealing in itself) and on to the final dash only to be tripped by the upstart little minority man. She must have seen the ghosts of Al Gore’s campaign coming for her. No wonder she “cried”.

Hillary is no Lady Thatcher. She does not have the grace, poise or steel to come near Maggie in politics. She would never have cried in public to gain political advantage, she fought the battles on the men’s own terms and kicked the shit out of them. She was a real woman.

Obama. Who knows? Clearly very young, about as bad on foreign policy as George W was at the start of his campaign, politically well left and untried in virtually all areas of government that are meaningful to the Presidents office. Has the advantage of coming without the family baggage of the Clintons, the Gores, the Bushes or any Kennedy association. Most of all of course he is black. He is one up on Hillary here. Having a woman leader is old-hat in the Western hemisphere. But a black person? That is different. No one has quite managed that yet in our countries, and no Bill Clinton does not count. Obama I think would be a passable one-term President who would continue the expansion of the government, do little of any importance except make nice noises to the world. So long as nothing major happened like a terrorist attack or a war and he would be OK. If that did happen I think he would be toasted.

Oh we should make a mention of Ron Paul. Should. But I won’t because he is a complete nutjob. I wouldn’t consider him because he calls himself a “libertarian” any more than I would vote for Hillary because we are both women or would vote for Obama if I was a black American.

What would be good for America would be the destruction of this pernicious building of family dynasties capturing the Presidency for term after term, merely exchanging King (or Queen) every so often. The Bush’s are mercifully finished after 2008, I can’t see anyone of the family winning again even if the candidate was Jesus returned to Earth. But to destroy the electibility of Clintons, Gores, Kennedys and their like would be a great service to the public.

Some people say that you should vote for the best of a bad bunch. But why? All the possible contenders are not going to do anything that I consider good moral governance. Republican or Democrat the choice makes no difference. Governement will expand, taxes will not be rationalized, prayers will still be made at the altar of the Green Church. Screw the average girl or guy, they still have plenty of money for now and don’t seem to object to the creeping social control that seems eerily reminiscent of the social policies of the Weimar Republic.

Fortunately I don’t have to answer the “why” question because I am not American. Whatever dynastic feminist sell-out, populist pretty black man, Mormon tabernacle choirboy or big government Vietnam vet gets the top job the end effect will be the same. They will have their minor differences out on the facade, but those differences are merely created by the over-reaching influence of the government in peoples’ everyday lives. If the government was cut back to its proper ethical size then we would see some real difference among parties and candidates.

The Democrats are virtually by definition never going to do this, they are the consumate illiberal-liberals. The pity is that the Republicans won’t be doing it for the foreseeable future. As it is the partisan hacks will go on believing that Republican and Democrat candidates represent America, when in fact they represent no more than the dynastic dreams of their parents and the same will-to-power that will never ever consider limiting government in the interest of those represented.

Advertisements

21 January, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments