Tag Archives: politics

Center of the Political Spectrum

Posted on by
Reply

Where is it?  The German news outlet Deutsche Welle seems to typify Europe’s view of it, and its view is illustrated in this article about the inauguration of Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro.

DW labeled Bolsonaro a right-wing politician.  Why? Because he’s “pro-gun, anti-corruption,” as though wanting a safe population living and working in an honest market with an honest government is somehow not what everyone wants.  Oh, wait—here it is: Bolsonaro said on his assuming Brazil’s presidency that Brazil has been

“liberated from socialism and political correctness.”

And in his separate inauguration speech, Bolsonaro had promised to

unite the people, value the family, respect religion and our Judeo-Christian tradition, combat the ideology of gender, and preserve our values.

These run contrary to modern Liberal, Progressive goals.  Instead, they’re today’s Conservative goals, entirely consistent with the Classical Liberal views of our own Founders.

There’s more.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the foreign leaders present for the inauguration; he’s also labeled “right-wing”.  US’ Secretary of State Michael Pompeo also was present; DW made no characterization here (Pompeo was mentioned only in passing), but the outlet has made no bones about its view of the right-wing and irrational nature of the Trump administration in other writings.

On the other side of the political spectrum’s center were national leaders that were not invited to the inauguration: Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Cuba’s Miguel Diaz-Canel.  These are only “Leftist” in DW‘s view.

Hmm….

Of Course They Can

Posted on by
Reply

President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China increased pressure on the Republic of China to surrender and be “unified” with the PRC.

Mr Xi said differences in political systems can’t be used as an excuse to resist unification.

Of course they can. Those differences are what makes the two nations separate from each other.  Never mind that the two have been independent of each other ever since the mainland under Mao Tse-tung won then-China’s civil war and drove the Kuomintang off the mainland onto the island of Taiwan, with Mao then creating the PRC.  The reason for the civil war was precisely those differences, differences over which the Communists were willing to kill those who opposed them.

Xi went on.

He promised Taiwanese people a peaceful and prosperous future with the mainland….

Right.  Just ask the folks on Hong Kong, who were the victims of the same promise and who now see their freedoms eroded and in many cases outright eliminated.  They’re not even allowed to elect their own political leaders; they must choose from a list the Communist Party of China provides them.

Xi’s word is worthless, and the citizens of the RoC, along with their government, know that full well.  RoC President Tsai Ing-wen: Xi’s

framework would place the island under China’s rule with limited autonomy, as has been done in Hong Kong.
…
“Taiwan will never accept ‘one country, two systems,'” Ms Tsai said. “The vast majority of Taiwanese public opinion also firmly opposes ‘one country, two systems.'”
…
“China must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China, Taiwan,” she said…. She said [that] Beijing must “not reject the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have built.”

We need to stand loudly, overtly, and practically with the RoC.  We need to increase naval patrols of the Taiwan Strait, set up a naval basing right agreement for Kaohsiung City along with an Air Force basing agreement for Ching Chuan Kang and Tainan Air Bases.  We need to increase sales of modern air and naval weapons systems to the RoC.  We need to increase our trade ties with the nation, and we need to more actively support it diplomatically.

That’s just a start.

Brexit and a Pan-European Military Establishment

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the year-old EU effort with PESCO (the EU’s carefully euphemistically named Permanent Structured Cooperation), the bloc’s effort to form an EU army that would represent and act in the (sovereign) name of the European Union in defending Europe from outside incursions.  Oh, and be less dependent on us and our nuclear umbrella, our treasure, and our blood for their defense.

We’re seeing yet another example of the too-broad effort to unite all of Europe under one political flag, as this PESCO effort continues to lag.  More importantly, we’re seeing the cost to the EU of Brexit.  As Handelsblatt Today observed, the current situation is one of military failure:

The German Council on Foreign Relations (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, DGAP) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) recently reported that the EU at best has only a third of the resources needed for its ambitions to intervene in armed conflicts in Europe or neighboring regions, provide humanitarian aid in catastrophes, help in rebuilding programs, and to free hostages and evacuate civilians.
The EU does not have enough ships, planes, aircraft carriers, or even reconnaissance equipment to accomplish these goals, especially after the UK leaves the EU.

Notice that last.  Aside from the minor detail that the Brits will take with them half the EU’s carrier complement (France has the other one), they’re taking with them manpower, equipment, a serious (by European standards) defense budget, and a strong innovative capacity.

Prime Minister Theresa May is badly missing another strong bet in her series of missed bets as she “negotiates” Great Britain’s departure from the EU.

Bloomberg, Democrats, and Rehabilitation

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox News piece about billionaires contemplating running for President in 2020, one comment jumped out at me.  Adrienne Elrod, erstwhile Hillary Clinton senior advisor and current Progressive-Democrat strategist, made this remark about Michael Bloomberg’s chances in particular, were he to enter the primary contest for the Progressive-Democrat Party’s nomination.

[T]he biggest thing that’s going to hurt him more than his personal wealth is the fact that he used to be a Republican.

Fox News cited her as continuing:

She said that would be a “far bigger liability” competing in “a very left-leaning progressive grassroots primary.”

This is what the Progressive-Democratic Party—at the least what a major wing of the Party fighting for control of it—thinks of rehabilitation, of redemption.  The Party—or its potentially controlling wing—does not believe a man can rehabilitate himself, does not consider a man redeemable from his sins.

Keep this in mind over the coming couple of years.

Trump and Powell to Meet

Posted on by
Reply

Oh, the danger.  At least what Peter Nicholas and Paul Kiernan worried about in their Friday Wall Street Journal piece.  President Donald Trump might exert too much pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

[A] sit-down could pose serious risks to the perceived independence of the Fed, according to lawmakers, former Fed officials, and longtime central bank watchers.

Maybe even fire Powell, or threaten him with that.

Most of the ones making such claims are Progressive-Democrats manufacturing a beef for the sake of having something Trumpian about which to whine.

To the extent the threats exist, those exclaiming over them are insulting Powell, saying he’s such a limp-kneed coward that he’d take such threats seriously—as though they think Powell would consider his having the job to be more important than his own integrity or the duties levied on him and the requirements levied on the Fed he leads.

…it [the meeting] could give rise to outside speculation that Mr Trump is seeking to sway Fed policy given his public objections to higher interest rates, these people added.

Of course Trump would, or I hope he would.  That’s part of his duty as this nation’s Chief Executive.  Along with every Congressman, the President has a duty to speak his piece on economic policy—including to members of the Fed’s governance—and to push for his position. Including with members of the Fed’s governance.

The Fed is a part of our government; it is not above it; it cannot require audiences to be begged for before anyone can come before it.  No one in the Fed is too holy or beyond approach.  By anyone.

Powell understands that; he’s not the Milquetoast he’s made out to be by such…concerns.  Alternatively, if he is, he should be fired.  That personal weakness would amply satisfy the “for cause” requirement for a President to fire a Fed Chairman.