Tag Archives: politics

A Problem of their own Making

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the People’s Republic of China’s setting up trade-centric “retaliatory tools,” there’s this bit in the middle of the piece:

The rules could put US and other Western companies in a bind: they need to comply with US restrictions on trade with China and often want to reduce their reliance on Chinese production, yet such actions expose them to punishment by Beijing and even possible expulsion from the world’s most important manufacturing hub.

Of course, if those companies weren’t in the PRC in the first place, the PRC couldn’t “punish” them. They’ve had plenty of time to move their supply chains and businesses out of that nation and plenty of warning regarding the necessity of doing so.

Still, there remains no time like the present to take serious heed and get moving on those adjustments.

A Conundrum

Posted on by
Reply

A town in Massachusetts has laid it out. South Hadley had a referendum put in front of them that proposed a 50% property tax hike. Voting it down, said its pushers, would be the end of the town as residents knew it.

Override backers argued that the measures were vital to preserve schools and town services. Without a revenue infusion, officials had warned, major cuts loomed: no school sports or extracurriculars, slashed Advanced Placement classes, reduced police and public-works staffing, and more.

That “more” included slashed Advanced Placement offerings, along with hits to police and public-works staffing.

The town’s residents, though, made it clear they’ve had enough of tax increases with little to show for them but empty promises by the taxers. The referendum was voted down in no uncertain terms, 65% to 34%. The message of this defeat was clearly articulated by Rudy Ternbach, semiretired and leader of the anti-override group Alliance for Fair Taxes:

I think the results of the election show voters do not want to try and fix the government by increasing taxes on those least able to pay. They want more efficiencies in government and less taxes.

Sadly, but entirely predictably, the message was not received by Leftist tax-and-spenders. Lisa Wong, South Hadley’s Progressive-Democrat Town Manager:

“We will regroup and continue to communicate with the public on the changes ahead,” she said by text, adding that the town would also push for policy changes and greater support at the state and federal levels.

Politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party cannot conceive of cutting spending or leaving taxes alone, much less reducing them. Efficiencies in government? Pfft. Progressive-Democrats only want to increase people’s dependency on government, if not at their own level, then further up the government’s food chain.

This is a message to the rest of us and a lesson to be heeded come November.

Hungary’s Election

Posted on by
Reply

The results of Hungary’s election last Sunday are pretty much in, and the upstart Tisza Party, led by Péter Magyar, has won a resounding victory, 53.6% of the votes compared with 37.8% for Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, with 98% of the votes counted. That puts Tisza on track for a better than two-thirds majority in the nation’s unicameral Parliament.

Some on the Left in the US and in Europe are calling that a defeat of a traitorous right-wing Orbán and his party. Others have a different take on the outcome:

Notre Dame College Republicans
@NDRepublicans
Orbán was just voted out democratically and conceded. Meanwhile countries like France, Germany, and Romania ban opposition candidates from running, cancel elections, and surveil parties for “extremism” if they oppose immigration.

Rasmus Jarlov @RasmusJarlov · 19h
This is the biggest and most needed defeat for traitor right in Europe in modern times. It is not a victory for the left. But a victory for sane conservatism that believes in democracy and does not ally with the enemies of Europe. This is what….

In the event, we’ll see. Magyar wasn’t very unifying in his victory speech:

Together we replaced the Orbán system. Together we liberated Hungary and took back our country. Those who commit the sin of dividing the nation must leave power.

Neither was Orbán:

What today means for our homeland, we do not know, time will tell. In any case, we will serve our homeland even in opposition.

It appears, though, that the Notre Dame Republicans have the better read. Divisive rhetoric, or not, this was a more democratically achieved election outcome than those of the so-liberal France and Germany and Romania.

In Which the Editors Get One Right

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors this time. Don’t expel him [California Progressive-Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell] from Congress. Let California voters have their say, goes their subheadline.

Swalwell is about as unsavory a man, let alone a politician, as it gets this side of Tren de Aragua, and the sexual assault and rape charges being leveled against him are even worse. However, as the editors point out near the end of their editorial,

He deserves a chance to explain himself, while accusations alone shouldn’t be enough to drive an elected Representative out of office. ….
The [House] Ethics Committee can take up formal complaints, sift the evidence, and recommend an appropriate punishment.

That’s right. In our legal system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a trial court. The legalism doesn’t apply to Congress; each house can expel its members for any reason at all, if two-thirds of its members can be persuaded to the expulsion. However, the principle underlying the legalism assuredly does apply to Congress, as it does to all of us citizens.

Let the House Ethics Committee do its investigation and recommend the punishment it deems fit, but short of expulsion. Let the matter also come to serious criminal trial, and if he’s convicted, the Ethics Committee then can revisit the matter and recommend expulsion—and the House then should vote unanimously for that expulsion.

All of that may have become moot, though: Swalwell announced Monday that he was resigning from Congress with immediate effect. Withal, my claim regarding presumption of innocence remains unbloodied and unbowed.

Despotic Regime Staying Power

Posted on by
2

Such polities have a staying power that the West has long been unable to understand. For instance,

Iran’s ability to resist despite large civilian casualties, the decapitation of much of the regime’s leadership, and severe economic damage shows the staying power of authoritarian governments. For decades, Tehran developed a toolbox that includes widespread political repression, relentless propaganda, an ideology of martyrdom and a powerful security apparatus—all aimed at protecting the state from enemies abroad and within.

But who (emphatically not what) is this state that’s being preserved?

The men and women populating the government and its levers of power are that “state.” These men and women don’t think like we do; in particular, they don’t put the same value on life that we do. What these personages value is their own power and their own lives; they don’t care a single minim about the value of the subjects over whom they reign, nor do they care a whit about the economic damage done to their nation as a whole or to those unvalued subjects. None of those tools of power are designed to protect their “authoritarian government,” they’re designed to protect the lives, personal power, and economic condition those men and women who manifest that government.

Nikolay Kozhanov, of Qatar University:

The state’s first priority was to ensure the survival of the regime. There are reasons why the government, elite, and to some extent the people, end up uniting around the regime.

Kozhanov needs to take that one step further: the state and the regime are those persons, not an impersonal, generalized institution to which we too often refer, in misleading shorthand, as “government” or “state” or “regime.” Those institutions don’t exist without the men and women who occupy the various positions in them.

The leadership…shares an ability to endure casualties and economic hardship, pain that is often borne by their populations. And when their people do rise up in protest, the regime’s foot soldiers have proven ready to use lethal violence to put down dissent.
“There is a much higher tolerance for pain among authoritarian regimes,” said Edward Howell, an international-relations lecturer at the University of Oxford. “That’s because we see very little evidence of them prioritizing the needs of their people.”

None of that should be a surprise. That leadership doesn’t care about the casualties of the people over whom they reign; those unfortunates are merely tools for maintaining/enhancing their own wealth, ego, power. Even a despotic regime’s “tolerance for pain” is a misnomer. They don’t feel the pain their subjects are experiencing, they feel only the pain they personally feel. Nor do they prioritize the needs of their subjects; their subjects are only tools.

In the end, there are only two ways to collapse a “state.” In many cases, those state men and women are pecuniary and can be bought off—Idi Amin, for example—especially if cut off from the money and material wealth sources of their physical comfort. A state comprised of ideologues, though, won’t collapse until the ideologues do: they’re cut off from life itself—they’re killed.