Speaker of the House John Boehner may emerge as the winner in
the budget ceiling game of chicken bringing the nation’s public budget to the
brink of default. That politician most deserving of merit promotion, John Boehner is a political operator in the
hot seat under extreme pressure running cool moderating between conservative
and appeasement sections of his party as swell as leftocrat Demo Party
apparatchiks in the Senate and Executive tranches of government.
Since Bill Clinton the people have failed to elect a President
with substantive national political service experience (*Barrack Obama running virtually
unopposed had a couple of years as a U.S. Senator). Clinton, Bush and Obama
followed extreme ideological agendas rather than mainstream national interests.
L.B.J. and Richard Nixon though on opposite ends of the national political
debate were grand American Presidents without a narrow or foreign point of
view.
An historical failure of democracy is in electing leaders that
are popular instead of good. The public should have no difficulty in viewing
Boehner in the role of President as a contemporary right-leaning L.B.J. style operator coordinating reform and maybe
making the change-promises that Barrack Obama made and failed to deliver (except
for debauching social morality with homosexual marriage and forcing through a
corporatist health care plan).
As important as getting the Hispanic vote is
that of getting the queer vote; Speaker Boehner would probably get the queer
vote better than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Negroes, Somali-Americans or
whatever the politically correct term is these days vote essentially race-first
and would vote for a Boehner-Rice ticket. So would I even though Boehner is no
Ralph Nadir. Boehner could suggest that the Washington Redskins change their
name to the Washington Whiteskins in order to get the vote of aboriginal
Americans (those would be the people descending from the Amerigo Vespucci era
of the North American continent history (as well as insular and island possessions).
In the Second World War some Nazis made lampshades from Jewish
skins. On the other hand, in my intermediate school gym class boys played
basketball with shirts and skins teams. That was fine if one wasn’t
embarrassingly obese. I can’t recall any
tubs of lard at all. There were no vending machines in the school. Maybe the
Redskin’s name should be reduced to just ‘Skins’.
I haven’t actually seen an American aboriginal with red skin.
There are red states full of Chicoms (just joking) Republican voters.
Maybe those are the real target of the hostility to the D.C. football team that
if renamed the doofus’ would better reflect the political antics of the
capitol. The Washington Redskins name probably have nothing to do with the
imported tradition of taking scalps or skins-that’s a Wall Street and global
banking quantitative trading practice this century.
What was the name of North America in the pre-Columbian era
anyway? We know at least that Alaska was called Alaska so maybe North America
should have its name changed to North Alaska out of respect for aboriginal
tradition?
American political-economic leadership seems uncomprehending
of the nature of change and realpolitik the past 20 years. Blinded by the
bright lights of Broadway when the cold war ended with the advantage to
capitalism the nation’s political leadership disastrously deregulated finance
liberating a generation of greedy private investors to begin buying up
everything abroad they could. Global financial schemes from derivatives to
buying shares of Chinese businesses became the norm. The economic development
interests of the United States were downsized in favor of support for the
corporate investor’s global funds and stock portfolios. President Obama has
continued that support following G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton while the nation’s
economic house has become increasingly disordered and wealth concentrated.
Paradoxically the Chinese Communist Party leadership runs the
world’s most fiscally conservative government and that is paying off richly. If
financial conservatives at the national level is defined as working to develop
one’s own national financial well-being first and foremost the Chinese are
plainly winning as conservatives. American political and Wall Street leaders
have for-themselves taken a liberal course investing globally, cutting taxes
domestically and appeasing the populace with franchise burger-flipping jobs and
providing the middle-class with tens of millions of illegal aliens for cheap
labor. Wall Street has provided cheap imports for the poor and middle class to
purchase. The U.S. government has built up 17 trillion dollars of public debt
during the era of malevolent political neglect of U.S. national interests.
A conservative international policy was an historical course
for the U.S.A. until the international conflicts of the 20th
century. A liberal domestic policy without development of a costly federal
government bureaucracy was also a normal state of affairs supporting national
prosperity. For much of America’s history small farm holdings by families with
a majority of the people producing food for-themselves made it more challenging
for wealth to be concentrated. The gradual industrialization, urbanization and
computer networking made Americans give up their farms and rural properties and
become urban proles working for abstract global entities called corporations.
Government altered its nature after the end of the cold war to reinforce the
corporate elites and financially began flying by wire without sufficient regard
to traditional national conservatism.
China may still be applying principles of national financial conservatism
but the United States has forgot the hard lessons learned by the 1929-30 Wall
Street crash and the depression of the 1930’s. There are real
political-economic material facts of life on Earth that differ from abstract
financial theories. Economic theory should be intended to support the national
practice of economic well-being of the people of a nation. The real interests
of the citizens are in prosperity, security, a good and flourishing ecosphere
and a sense of spiritual freedom.
The alternative direction for economic theory is to apply
abstract principles to benefit collectives called corporations as individual
globally without regard to the interests of nations or citizens. Nations and
national legal systems are the primary foundation for human and civil rights.
Elites inevitably seek to redistribute civil rights and economic empowerment
from the majority unto themselves. Erasing national borders is a fact for speed
of light corporate economics today and erasing the real political boundaries
that is a trendy accompanying propaganda effort to draft the public support
toward a world in which they have no legal or political power at all. That is a
bad direction for American voters to take breaking so bad the unknown founder
would roll-over in his or her grave.
One wonders if John Boehner could orchestrate a symphony of
national economic reform if elected to the White House in just four years. Politicians
are such a mess these days after all running blindly through the streets of
Pamplona like the bulls and the runners themselves chasing a golden orb of
profit floating through the hills of China and the prairies of India while the
forests of S.E. Alaska and other rain forests are under assaults by
bank-financed loggers of old growth so big box stick frame dwellings financed
by global networks can sprawl with asphalt and mercury vapor lamps.
No comments:
Post a Comment