According to the New York Times, “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Socialism’s slow collapse.” If only in America.
Contentions
0 Responses to “Specter of Socialism’s Collapse”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
The rats are leaving the sinking ship, but, for this particular rat, the ship that is sinking is his own.
I bet the WH (or the “Obama for America” political arm) offered tons of cash as well.. What does the “follow the money” take us?
The Corner NRO:
RE: Arlen Specter [Mark Hemingway]
I read that he was switching parties, but I was disappointed to learn he’s still a Democrat
Eric, couldn’t agree more for the most part. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around for this. Obviously, both parties are trending more toward parliamentary politics, in the sense that dissenters are punished in primaries. I actually think Specter might have been able to win an independent bid after losing to Toomey, much like Lieberman in Connecticut. Party switching is egregious, though, and undermines the voters’ faith. However, I do think this is better than switching right after the election; at least he will have to put this before the voters in November.
Oh, at first I was excited to hear he has switched parties, now I find out he is still a Democrat.
Told you so.
Brilliant strategists, you Republicans. It’s like watching lemmings go off a cliff. Make sure you go after Collins and Snowe, too. 62 is a lot more fun than 60.
4
In Pennsylvania, you can’t switch after losing the primary, I believe.
I wonder if Rubin is still crowing about the death of EFCA? Bet labor helped convince Specter to switch.
FusterWatch, why don’t you sound happier? Isn’t being a troll fun? All you trolls seem to be a miserable lot.
Carville thinks Dems will be in power for 40 years. Your work is done. Celebrate
“But Republicans have physics on their side: what goes up must come down.”–Eric Trager
Funny thing about physics. It also shows that things sliding downhill (think GOP) only pick up speed.
Democrats are likely to pick up Senate seats in 2010. So it appears Democratic power has not yet peaked.
The Club for Growth has now given the Democrats a Senate seat. Anyone who supports this group needs to have some second thoughts.
“Republicans have played a part in this..” Yeah, those dumb Republicans, staying true to their values-how dare they. Comments like yours just irritate the heck out of me. Good riddance to Specter. He has been nothing but a thorn in our side anyway. And what good did it do to have his vote on the stimulus. Oh wait, he voted with the Dems.
Specter has been an American embarrassment for 50 years. Time to take out the trash.
Actually, this is the penultimate act in a long process of revolt by the grass roots against the Washington Party. This column by Scott Rasmussen today illustrates a process of revolt that is going on out in the country. It actually began in the Bush years, but has accellerated.
As the Democrats get used to power, and grow more fat and corrupt, Republicans will grow leaner and more populist. This is part of the natural order of things. Eventually, the D’s will fall from grace, as they are already showing signs of valuing power over principle.
What you are seeing is basically a repeat of what happened after Goldwater lost in 1964. Only we are looking about for a Nixon or a Reagan to lead us out of the wilderness. Don’t worry, they will come. Power abhors a vacuum.
8
“Carville thinks Dems will be in power for 40 years”
Oh believe me, I am happy. How could I not be?
But regarding your thought: Honestly, I don’t know any Democrats who think one party rule is good for America over the long term. The problem is, Republicans have become so irrational and dogmatic. They are too crazy to be a viable alternative and too small-tent to be a countervailing force. They’ve failed the stress test.
Obama may need to appoint a GOP czar to keep the party afloat while it rebuilds. Maybe Specter will want the job?
8- No, no, no
It ain’t me babe.
http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bob-dylan-nashville-skyline.jpg
EW, the problem with people like you is that you believe your own cutout, straw man version of who your opponents are.
The Republican Party out in the country is actually in reasonably good shape. It’s producing good Outside the Beltway leadership. That’s the key. Outside the Beltway. That’s where our leaders will come from tomorrow, while you folks are dancing your triumphalist jig and poor Specter is counting the thirty pieces of silver that Eddie Rendell gave him.
Bush left office in such a low state of popularity in part because a lot of conservatives left him, over spending, borders, the war, etc.. Republicans started getting that the difference between the Washington G.O.P. and Obama and his crowd is a difference of degree, not kind.
When people start getting that the Obama Administration is the Third Bush term, that is when there will be clarity of understanding. Principled conservatives get that. Why else would the bankers get bailed out like this?
Not living in PA, I don’t really care much for this particular issue, and this move by Specter was already foreseen due to the difficult primary that he’d be facing…. But what I’m most interested in is how this move affects the standing of the RNC Chair Michael Steele. I’m sure that most Americans that define themselves as republican are very pleased with Specter leaving the party. One less RINO is always a good thing I suppose. But in the wake of the recent NY-20 loss which just should not have been won by a democrat, and now this issue with Specter – do these recent election and PR disasters indicate problems for Steele? Can he really hold his ground amongst so many competitors with these two recent losses occurring on his watch?
14
I think that, ultimately, you may be right. But the times are different: The young, the hispanics, the growing cohorts, heavily favor Democrats. The GOP’s base is old and declining. Also, marginal tax rates are not close to the issue for the GOP that they were in late 70s.
Certainly, by the time Republicans rise again, universal health care and cap-and-trade will be well established. Gay marriage may well be law. And the Supreme Court will have several young new liberals.
Your platform will be quite different than it is today.
Steele is actually making some necessary reforms inside the party. He has been under relentless attack on all sides because the D’s prefer a Republican party filled with buck passers and hangers on like we had going into 2008.
Let’s see how 2010 pans out. No one should expect a majority, but if we show some solid gains, then Steele should keep his job.
The problem with a lot of the Triumphalist crowd in the Democratic Party is that they look at snapshot polls and insist that it means a permanent shift in power. This Steady State theory has already been taken apart by Jay Cost here and here.
Political parties respond and adjust to defeat. So will the Republicans. We will find new leadership and adjust to the times. But the following is also key: voters will become alienated and suspicious of too much power in the hands of one party. You can already see this in the rise in generic Republican party identification.
And the Ruling Party, representing as it does the interests of State Power, will overreach, just as Bush did. It already has in regards to the deficit and the National Debt. There is always a correction in the Stock Market, so it will be in politics.
ExtremistW #7:
I guess you write off the cuff before being informed… Being lazy won’t take you far. Do some homework
and think before you write. You can start by reading Specter’s statement…
http://www.politicspa.com/Specter%20Switches.htm
“”While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change. “”
Rod
You want to bet? He’ll be “persuaded” to vote for card check. Trust me. Fix is in.
If he betrays Emanuel and Rendell he end up on a fishing trip like Fredo.
I think this is a great development.
1. The Democratic agenda of socialism/nationalism will proceed at record pace. The change will be very stark and apparent to everyone. With such a dramatic shift over a short period of time, perhaps people will understand the uniqueness of a capitalist system. Let the Democrats race everything through. We need to see up front in a very tangible way that Democrats=socialism. If Western society truly needs a nanny state in Europe and now America, the voters will decide to cement this change.
2. The Republicans really do not fulfill the idea of limited government. This time in the wilderness can bring about great modifications and improvements to that idea. It makes no sense to me that a believer in limited government would control reproductive rights. I personally am against abortion and gay marriage. But, why would I want the government to endorse my view over another citizens? Yes, there are many gray areas to these debates, but essentially, the government will overreach when it makes these decisions, or endorse heterosexual marriage; and a supporter of limited government simply opens the door for full blown statism of liberalism.
So, let Spector go. Let the Democrats run wild with tax evaders, smart diplomacy, apology tours, high unemployment, card check, etc. It will truly be the end of America as we know it,.
Unless the conservatives take limited government back the shop, work out the kinks and reintroduce it in 2010 or 2012. Never a dull moment in our country, and btw, I know we can do it. We can survive a Shabbtai Tzvi episode and open up conservatism to everyone from every walk of life.
The Democrats will be sorely disappointed if they assume they have “the young” for keeps. Today I was forwarded one of those annoying email constructions (a conservative one) from my 30 year old neice; and last week my son (an Obama voter) attended a Tea Party in Worcester where he’s in grad school.
So the utopians are overjoyed to that a hack that’s being rejected by the Republicans is slithering into their pile of worms. Does that mean that they didn’t have anyone of their own that could take him on in the next election? Will he win the utopian primary? Or is he the automatic nominee by virtue of incumbency? Yeah, what a triumph.
N. 14, I hope you’re right. N. 19, I fear you’re right. The loss of concerted conservative voices in universities was a big deal. It will take something truly calamitous to cause a change of course, and it’s hard to wish for that.
26- Went through some of your blog, and not only liked your anti-beer tax stand, but also admire anyone who drinks out of 3/4 gallon glasses.
and my math continues apace, mistaking 26 for 25.
22
Thanks for the link. I think maybe you place too much stock in words. I can’t see Specter switching without some deal with labor. Remember, he previously backed card check and only recently switched to try to shore up his right flank. Card check never was going start moving before the 2010 elections anyway. So I suspect Specter agreed that he’d back some cosmetically revised version after the election and labor agreed that they’d back him even if he did not flip flop pre-election. It’s a tough balancing act for Specter. He’s got to hold onto as many of his Republican donors as he can, and he doesn’t want to look like his positions are for sale, even if they sort of are.
21
History says the pendulum will swing back at some point. But how long will it take and how much of the Democratic agenda will be advanced in the meantime, particularly now that we are entering a stretch of significant advantage?
Even one of the the columns you linked to ended by suggesting that Republicans need to address the movement of Hispanics to the Democratic Party. Fat chance when you also have a significant portion of your base that is always happy to make the leap from anti-illegal immigrant to anti-Hispanic.
I see your grassroots activists as your main problem. Their extremism is alienating to independents. Their teabags should read “Now With 50% More Crazy.” But then I’m a partisan.
And only physics is with them….
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we had him last time.
“Our system of checks and balances has rarely been so fragile”
Really? Last time I checked the Dems are currently trying to roll back 8 years of the imperial presidency…