The fact is that we have been ruled by conservatives for the past 40 years, Clinton included. Conservatism was proven a failed government philosophy when the Founding Fathers formed this country and chose a liberal form of government known as Democracy. And conservatism as defined in the context of these times has also proven to be a dismal failure. Unfettered capitalism is a return to the rule of natural law. Under such law, even if we all started from the same position with the same abilities, at the end of each leg of the competition, a settling-up and adjustment would occur that would improve the conditions and abilities of the winners and reduce that of the losers so that the next leg of competition would have the winners starting from a favored position. If you play this game over thousands of legs and scores of generations, you get what we've got right now. Unfettered capitalism is designed to eliminate the middle class by continuing to concentrate wealth and power for the strongest. Human beings created the rule of law to help level the playing field. The conservatives gained and maintained power because they successfully define the discussion so that an argument against a candidate could simply be a label such as "liberal" (simple words for simple minds). Nothing more need be said just as in days past the use of the word "communist" had the same impact, ending the discussion. The fact is that democratic socialism is a better blend of government and economy for the benefit of the most people (exception the uber-rich). As erudite as George Will and others of his ilk can sound, they are just plain wrong. Liberalism has never been proven a failure. Its flaws are a myth: strong on social issues, weak on financial and national security. The best of times have always been during Democratic administrations (not a coincidence as Will implies) especially under FDR and JFK/LBJ. With the exception of Lincoln's presidency, most of the real progress made in our history occurred during these administrations. Liberals have been at a disadvantage because we are not willing to ???swiftboat??? the truth so freely. There has never been a choice so clear as the one between McCain and Obama, not since, uh, Bush and Kerry. It is tragic that after these past 40 years and especially the past 8, that this election is even close. If we could have 40 years of a liberal government and economy, today's times would be something our grandchildren would find difficult to comprehend.
THE LAST WORD
George F. Will
Conservatism: Not TBTF
In recent weeks, two formerly bright lines of political demarcation have become indistinct, to Barack Obama's advantage.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's statement last week that economic conditions are "skewed to the downside" was the most muted assessment of a dismal situation since Emperor Hirohito, in his surrender broadcast after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said, "The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage." There often are, however, upsides to downsides.
Furthermore, in this transformative summer, America's political argument is being fundamentally recast in two ways that will reverberate long past November.
In today's Niagara of bad news, the melancholy fact that General Motors' market capitalization recently dipped below that of the Hershey chocolate company testifies to the efficiency with which the market is working: It is punishing the U.S. auto industry for products incompatible with consumers' rapidly (but perhaps not irreversible) evolving preferences shaped by bad experiences at the pump. And the fact of $145-a-barrel oil may have had the beneficial effect of undermining those people who remain eager to strike Iran militarily, thereby producing a $200 price.
There actually are people eager to enter a third war, even as conditions in the first—Afghanistan—worsen. The worsening might be, in a sense, partly because of recent success in the second, Iraq, where there is this downside to the upside: The success of the surge was purchased with troops urgently needed in Afghanistan, where July probably will be the third consecutive month in which U.S. fatalities exceed those in Iraq.
In recent weeks, two formerly bright lines of political demarcation have become indistinct, in both cases to Barack Obama's advantage. One is the line between his and John McCain's positions regarding Iraq. The other line is crucial to conservative critiques of liberal interventionism in domestic policy, the line between the public and private sectors.
Obama vows to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible—consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, including residual forces left there for training and other purposes. And consistent with the stability of that country. So Obama acknowledges that there is an important U.S. interest in Iraq's stability, and he promises a surge of sorts in Afghanistan. The Iraqi government's semi-endorsement of a semi-timetable for U.S. withdrawal, made in the context of the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, has undercut McCain's assertion that "timetable" is a code word for surrender. So what is the supposedly stark demarcation between Obama's and McCain's policies?
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss