PDA

View Full Version : Whose side are you on, Jon Huntsman?



Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 03:59 PM
Whose side are you on, Jon Huntsman? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/republican-nomination-2)

BEFORE it was clear whether Rick Perry would stay in the race or drop out, Erick Erickson, a conservative talking head for CNN and managing editor of Redstate.com, said, "If Rick Perry leaves the Republican race, there will not be a candidate in the field who authentically represents smaller government."

But what about Ron Paul?

For conventionally right-wing party stalwarts like Mr Erickson, Ron Paul doesn't count as real Republican, because of his principled anti-war stance. Of course, that makes him a more authentic representative of smaller government, war being the health of the state and all, but that's beside the point. The conservative tribe professes faith in smaller government, and it is membership in the tribe that determines the authenticity of one's devotion to the tribe's catechism. Ron Paul isn't really a member of the tribe, so he cannot "authentically represent smaller government". He may represent smaller government in fact, but not in the right way. As votes from the Iowa caucuses were being tallied, Mr Erickson saw fit to relate to his readers a rumour that "the Occupiers showed up for Ron Paul". You get the idea.

And what about Jon Huntsman? According to the Cato Institute's "Fiscal Report Card on America's Governors" in 2008, the last year Messrs Perry and Huntsman were graded together, they received identical scores, tying for fifth place. Pretty good, huh? Since Cato's report card "grades the governors on their fiscal performance from a limited-government perspective", one wonders why Mr Perry but not Mr Huntsman is considered an authentic champion of smaller government. Indeed, Mr Huntsman's classically-conservative wariness of foreign entanglements in general, and his case for ending the conflict in Afghanistan in particular, contrast dramatically with Mr Perry's eagerness to revive the American occupation of Iraq, and suggest a rather more principled commitment to smaller government. Again, it all comes down to standing in the conservative tribe.

Odysseus
01-10-2012, 04:13 PM
How a candidate views America's place in the world is a critical aspect of their campaign. Paul's assumptions about American foreign policy mirror those of the far left, who blame America for all of the conflicts in the world. Huntsman's cut and run approach to Iraq mirrors Obama's, and that, combined with his having served as Obama's ambassador to China, stronly indicate that his worldview coincides with Obama's in too many places for conservatives to feel comfortable.

BTW, Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2004, was thrown out of the party for supporting Bush on the Iraq War. Lieberman was a doctrinaire liberal who otherwise voted in lockstep with the Democrats in the senate. I'd say that kicking him out of the party shows less tolerance for ideological apostasy among Democrats than simply not voting for Huntsman does among Republicans.

Novaheart
01-10-2012, 04:34 PM
Huntsman has potential. But all of these guys are like a first date, you're wondering what the crazy is, how severe it is, and when it will surface.

linda22003
01-10-2012, 04:51 PM
See my signature line, below.

Molon Labe
01-10-2012, 05:14 PM
See my signature line, below.

Linda...I love H.L. Mencken.

If more people had his b.s. detector, then we would be in good shape.

Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 06:32 PM
Linda...I love H.L. Mencken.

If more people had his b.s. detector, then we would be in good shape.

Bullshit and the art of crap detection.

Have you read Neil Postman? He talks about that.

I loved his juxtaposition of Huxley and Orwell in the foreword to his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business .


We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Amusinghkn.jpg

Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 06:34 PM
BTW, Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2004, was thrown out of the party for supporting Bush on the Iraq War. Lieberman was a doctrinaire liberal who otherwise voted in lockstep with the Democrats in the senate. I'd say that kicking him out of the party shows less tolerance for ideological apostasy among Democrats than simply not voting for Huntsman does among Republicans.

Lieberman was not thrown out of the party. He lost a primary race and decided to run as an independent.

I realize it is rare for an incumbent to lose a primary (I think the last senator to do so was a Republican from Utah) but that is not throwing someone out of the party.

Odysseus
01-10-2012, 07:11 PM
Lieberman was not thrown out of the party. He lost a primary race and decided to run as an independent.

I realize it is rare for an incumbent to lose a primary (I think the last senator to do so was a Republican from Utah) but that is not throwing someone out of the party.

Semantics. He lost the primary only because the party rejected his position on the Iraq War. In every other way, he was a sterling liberal who had served in that position for at least two terms before being rejected, and had been the party's VP nominee only a couple of years before. It's a far more complete rejection of someone who stood for the party at the highest levels than the failure of Huntsman to capture a constituency.

Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 07:19 PM
Semantics.

Is that Odie for facts?

DumbAss Tanker
01-10-2012, 07:56 PM
Whose side are you on, Jon Huntsman? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/republican-nomination-2)

And what about Jon Huntsman? According to the Cato Institute's "Fiscal Report Card on America's Governors" in 2008, the last year Messrs Perry and Huntsman were graded together, they received identical scores, tying for fifth place. Pretty good, huh? Since Cato's report card "grades the governors on their fiscal performance from a limited-government perspective", one wonders why Mr Perry but not Mr Huntsman is considered an authentic champion of smaller government...

Because 'Fiscal Conservatives' are far from being the start and end of meaning of 'Conservative.'

AmPat
01-11-2012, 12:01 PM
Is that Odie for facts?
It is fact, ODY, and a few million realists.

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 02:36 PM
Bullshit and the art of crap detection.

Have you read Neil Postman? He talks about that.

Only one of my top 10 best books about our society I've ever read.