Rust Belt Raconteur

Okay, three things.

First, I was stupid enough to watch Bush’s primetime address last night. (If you didn’t know there was one, you’re probably in the majority.) It was hyped as a new direction in Iraq policy, but was simply more of the same half-truths and garbage we’ve been fed for three years running now. Honestly now, people … you’re telling me that, 2+ years after Baghdad fell, Karl Rove and friends couldn’t have come up with a better speech? There has to be a point where unwavering stubbornness stops being redeeming and starts being scary.

Second, my alma mater had four members of its national championship team taken in the lottery round (the first 14 picks) of the NBA draft last night. Two of them (PG Felton and PF May) will have minimal moving expenses, as they were picked up by the Charlotte Bobcats. Two words: ticket sales. They’ll be great players, surely. However, lining the pockets of the nascent franchise might have been motivating that one.

Third … Vladimir Putin might have stolen a Super Bowl ring. On occasion, truth is stranger than fiction.

If I hear one more piece on Natalee Holloway, I’m going to scream.

There’s other important things going on. Like the death of America.

I’d like to define a new political science term. College textbook writers, take note:

Static populism is the central theme of American domestic policy this decade. Such a condition results from, and is perpetuated by, a partisan duopoly hell-bent on consolidating power combined with a remarkably uninformed and indifferent electorate. Thanks to an overpowering need for perceived (not actual) safety and security, as well as an inherent sense of entitlement among political moderates, both parties attempt to pander to this desire on a number of fronts. Unlike the populist era from 1896 to 1924, however, the current movement is one based on continuity over progress. The result is an erosion of individual rights, economic malaise, societal repression, and the anti-intellectual “dumbing down” of the nation as a whole.

This force has two halves, each advocated by one of the two major parties. Social conservatives seek to restore the role of church/family to their alleged “rightful place,” or roughly where they were in the 1950s. However, this view often leads to the censorship of contrary ideas, emphasis on conformity over creativity, extraneous regulation of intrapersonal behavior, and perpetuation of stereotypes against women, minorities, and immigrants (in terms defining their role in society as being in service of white males).

Economic regulationists seek to subordinate corporations to the will of laborers, using the government as a proxy for their objectives. This is to restore the American workers to their “rightful place,” or roughly where they were in the 1950s. This often manifests itself through isolationist trade, costly preservation of outdated industries, high taxes (with moderate benefits), large bureaucracies, and an overall desire to “level the playing field” by propping up some and handicapping others, often arbitrarily. This leads to the flight of corporations and accompanying labor, stagnant economic growth, extraneous regulation of financial and commercial activity, and perpetuation of stereotypes against women, minorities, and immigrants (in terms of the need for their separation from white males and bestowing of special privileges upon them to make up for imaginary deficits they may have).

The real conflict in America is not right-left, but liberty-state. We’re losing. Discuss.