Second, his recent, and complete sell-out to the radical right wing of his party is further proof that he will be as easily manipulated by the traditional Republican power brokers as “W” was by Cheney and the Neocons.

But I really must take exception to your characterization of the two parties’ economic virtues.

Dear me, this is a big subject… but Doc, ya just got it wrong on this one.

The evidence is very clear – both parties use wealth redistribution as a fundamental element of economic policy:

* The Republicans redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

* The Democrats redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom.

(Of course, this is simplistic and their are many exceptions – Bill Clinton’s wide adoption of the ill-named and ill-brained “Progressive Policy Institute”’s so-called “Third Way” was just a thinly-veiled Republican economic plan.)

In the most simplistic, but still accurate, analysis, from the standpoint of GOOD GOVERNMENT, the Republicans are wrong. The fact is, the folks who are best at creating wealth will always “do alright”, as Warren Buffet likes to say. It’s the REST of the folks who need to have a system which FIRST looks out for their (modest) needs.

Sadly, modern Republican, Libertarian, and Milton Friedman-esque economic policies have a basic heartlessness and greed at their core which only populist movements can overcome. Ultimately, the availability of affordable and decent quality shelter, nutrition, healthcare, education, and opportunity is FAR MORE IMPORTANT to the family of man than “X% ECONOMIC GROWTH PER YEAR”.

My proposal to fix EVERYTHING – adopt the following rules WORLD WIDE:

1. No prima facie corporation may have more than 1000 employees, including partly- and wholly-owned subsidiaries.

2. Corporations must exist entirely within the borders of a single nation.

Phase in this SINGLE draconian law over a ten year period, and within another ten years, most of our problems will be gone!

( Finally, regarding your update regarding the RedState analysis of Politifact – would that that fellow would scrutinize Palin’s recent history anything like as closely as he is Obama’s …)

I think we’ll do both, no matter which candidates we elect.

By the way, I’m reminded of what Willy Brown said about the choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush: “… between the insufferable and the incompetent.”

With Bush we got both. IMHO.

My fear with obama is that he doesn’t appear very smart, yet everyone is impressed with him. I’ve yet to see one single tangible accomplishment of all his days as a legislator, state or Senate. That tells me that he’s not serious, but rather a political dilettante.

I was saying “regardless of so-called ‘world’ opinion”, not American opinion.

I _do_ believe public officials _should_ do what’s best/right, but it can certainly be hard to do so in view of the consequences (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lawrence_Carr for an example). There’s always that tension between what should be done, and what’s politically possible (which is why the Federal drug war rolls on in spite of the collateral damage).

I think it’s easier for a President to do something which is unpopular (longer election cycle than most of Congress, and – according to MacArthur – councils of war (I include Congress in this) breed timidity). The tradeoff is that a President can’t _do_ as much as Congress (I’m pretty sure _they_ wouldn’t have gone along with the Pournelle plan). There was certainly public support for invading Afghanistan and (initially) Iraq, but I think too many people would have said “huh?” upon hearing Pournelle’s ideas.

Note, I also said “might” have worked better, as well as saying that EVERY approach would probably have had _some_ negative consequences. It’s easy to play Monday-morning quarterback.

p.s. you forgot to include ‘catastrophic collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano”

You said “Ideally, Jerry Pournelle’s approach might have worked better (raze a city block or two as punishment, put up a monument honoring our dead, then spend a bunch of money on energy independence, instead of on a war), but I don’t think there wouldn’t have been public support for it. (both for the revenge aspect, and because a large number of Americans would have felt bad about the plight of the folks in Afghanistan).”

But in your other comments I seem to hear you saying that public officials should do what is best of America (put America first) _regardless_ of the public’s opinion. i.e. do what is right rather than what is popular. Am I misunderstanding your point of view, or perhaps reading in between the lines to much?

Harry,

I think you raise some really great points about the dangers that both candidates pose. However, I find that I’m more in line with Doc’s “natural and otherwise groundless optimism” because I like to believe that the network (i.e. the U.S. and all the people and systems that make it up) will find a way to correct mistakes that get made.

Granted the corrections may not be very fun, but I don’t think that they will be impossible to make either.

The worst case is what Chip said the “nothing to lose” situation coming up. I just can’t believe that (short of Yellow stone’s super volcano erupting, or an asteroid impact, etc) that humans will allow one person to get us to that point.

I might be wrong. But I choose to be optimistic.

-N