The government’s protection of the entrenched is most noted by local efforts to ban Uber and the Tesla distribution model. Of course, like most protectionist legislation, the stated objective is to protect the public, but the end game is to protect the existing companies from the competition of better ideas.
Recently in Louisville I called a cab for a ride to the airport. 45 minutes later a dirty cab- inside and out- driven by a man in his pajamas, still yawning from being called to work from his deep sleep, arrived. This is what they are protecting.
For slightly more than the price of a dingy cab, Uber will send me a clean SUV. No cash is exchanged. The cab industry will have to improve or die.
Tesla is in demand and efforts to thwart their simplified distribution model will not likely be thwarted by efforts to protect their competition,
The younger more tech savvy voter will lean toward the party that refuses to stand in the way of market progress and their choices.
In The National Review Kevin Williamson writes The Thirty Years War
Unlike senators, governors have to do things — “governor stuff” — which means that they have to make compromises, that they cannot be ideologically pure, and that they have to live in the real world. That leaves them vulnerable to puritanical homilies from senators, as in the ridiculous 2012 Republican primary that found former senator Rick Santorum and businessman Herman Cain, both of whom were far from the levers of power for excellent reasons, preening and posturing as Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, a governor and a former governor who had faced very different challenges, were raked over the coals for having taken reality into account as executives. Romney’s rivals pronounced themselves shocked that Romney had governed as though he were in one of the country’s most left-leaning states, and Perry’s opponents were scandalized that the governor of Texas took into account the large number of illegal immigrants residing there.
I like Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio; each has his own virtues and admirable characteristics. But none of them has done one single thing of interest in office other than campaign for president since about five minutes after being sworn into the Senate.
The Democrats did not build the welfare state all at once in 1965, and Republicans didn’t have an honest shot at repealing it all at once in 1995. Everybody has a big plan, and Washington is full of magic bullets: leash the Fed, enact the Fair Tax, seal the borders. But what’s needed — what might actually result in a stronger American order — is a thirty years’ war of attrition against the welfare state and entrenched incompetency. Federal crimes and misdemeanors ranging from the IRS scandal to the fumbling response to Ebola suggest very strongly that we have management and oversight problems as well as ideological ones, but holding oversight hearings long after (one hopes) Ebola is out of domestic headlines provides very little juice for a presidential candidate facing a restive base all hopped up on Hannity. Being the guy who gets up and demands the repeal of Obamacare might get you elected president; being the guy who fixes the damned thing simply makes you a target for talk-radio guys who have never run for nor held an elected office but who will nonetheless micturate upon your efforts from a great height.
The Democrats may moan about their guy during his term in office, but at election time their strength is in their unity. Republicans have several groups, each with its own litmus test. They demonize RINOs more than the opposition. Governess Mitch Daniels lamented the RIMOs- Republicans in Mouth Only, those like Kevin notes here, who would reject a compromise that moves closer to their goal because it never goes far enough at once. It is necessary to ponder the ideal in order to clarify the ends, but the elected politicians must compromise in order to govern. We did not build this mess in once election and we will not likely fix it with the election of a single loyal ideologue.
“In this changing climate, moreover, it did not help that Chomsky, even though he sometimes called himself a libertarian anarchist, repeatedly rushed to apologize for or side with any totalitarian despot, whether Communist or fascist and no matter how murderous, provided only that the despot in question was ranged against the United States. To the consternation even of some formerly devoted admirers, this included Pol Pot, who had slaughtered one-third or more of his own people in setting up a Communist regime in Cambodia. As a result of all this, Chomsky, too, like Buchanan, was increasingly relegated to the margins and largely forgotten.
“After 9/11, however, and unlike Buchanan, Chomsky found a newly receptive audience and one bigger than ever. Arch Puddington of Freedom House summed it up in an article in Commentary:
9/11, a pamphlet-sized book of responses to questions from foreign journalists, sold over 300,000 copies in 23 languages. According to one survey, Chomsky is the most cited living author, and the eighth most cited of all time (just behind Freud). His speeches draw packed houses. At the World Social Forum, an annual gathering of the anti-globalist movement, he is a featured personality. The current generation of young leftists treat Chomsky as a celebrity, and pay him the kind of homage normally reserved for rock stars or cult icons. He is the subject of several reverential documentary films, which depict him as an isolated voice of truth against a corrupt and warmongering establishment, and he has even inspired a one-man theater work, The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky.”
Excerpt From: Podhoretz, Norman. “World War IV.” Doubleday, 2007-09-11. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=420784726
Pat Buchanan’s tilt towards anti-Semitism on the eve of the Iraq War caused him to be marginalized by the right. Chomsky’s equally odious slant caused him to be a celebrity of the left. Anti-Semitism has found a much more welcome reception from the left.
From John Mauldin in his blog, Mauldin Economics, Where is the Growth?
Our lives and our conversations are full of presuppositions. Our daily lives are based upon quite fixed views of how the world really works. Often, the answers we come to are logically predictable because of the assumptions we make prior to asking the questions. If you allow me to dictate the presuppositions for a debate, then there is a good chance I will win the debate.
The presupposition in much of academic economics is that the Keynesian, and in particular the neo-Keynesian, view of economics is how the world actually works. There has been an almost total academic capture of the bureaucracy and mechanism of the Federal Reserve and central banks around the world by this neo-Keynesian theory.
What happens when one starts with the twin presuppositions that the economy can be described correctly using a multivariable dynamic equilibrium model built up on neo-Keynesian principles and research founded on those principles? You end up with the monetary policy we have today. And what Larry Summers calls secular stagnation.
One of my favorite blog postings this year is The Left is Too Smart to Fail by Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish. Science is for Stupid People is equally worthy and an excellent companion piece to the first article.
Science, the magic of the secular age, is their church. But science isn’t anyone’s church. Science is much better at disproving things than at proving them. It’s a useful tool for skeptics, but a dangerous tool for rulers. Like art, science is inherently subversive and like art, when it’s restricted and controlled, it stops being interesting.
But manufactured intelligence has the same relationship to intelligence as a painting of the ocean does to the real thing.
The real ocean is complicated and messy. So is real intelligence. Manufactured intelligence is the fashion model playing a genius in a movie. Real intelligence is an awkward man obsessing over a handful of ideas, some of them ridiculously wrong, but one of which will change the world.
Real intelligence isn’t marketable because it doesn’t make an elite feel good about its power.
Biblical fake prophets were often preferred to real prophets because they made rulers feel comfortable about the future. The modern technoprophet assures a secular elite that it can effectively control people and that it even has the obligation to do so. It tells them that “science” is on their side.The easy way to tell real religion from fake religion is that real religion doesn’t make you feel good. It doesn’t assure you that everything you’re doing is right and that you ought to keep on doing it.
The same holds true for science. Real science doesn’t make you feel smart. Fake science does.
No matter how smart you think you are, real science will make you feel stupid far more often than it will make you feel smart. Real science not only tells us how much more we don’t know than we know, a state of affairs that will continue for all of human history, but it tells us how fragile the knowledge that we have gained is, how prone we are to making childish mistakes and allowing our biases to think for us.
Science is a rigorous way of making fewer mistakes. It’s not very useful to people who already know everything. Science is for stupid people who know how much they don’t know.
A look back at the march of science doesn’t show an even line of progress led by smooth-talking popularizers who are never wrong. Instead the cabinets of science are full of oddballs, unqualified, jealous, obsessed and eccentric, whose pivotal discoveries sometimes came about by accident. Science, like so much of human accomplishment, often depended on lucky accidents to provide a result that could then be isolated and systematized into a useful understanding of the process.