Free Markets, Free People
Yesterday, on our podcast, Dale, Michael and I talked for quite some time about the significance of Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina.
Does it foretell a Gingrich nomination? Probably not … or at least not necessarily. What it may signal, more than anything, is that the GOP voter doesn’t want some timid nominee who is mostly in a prevent defense mode. Or Mitt Romney as he has presently evolved.
I was under the mistaken impression that the interminable debates were really not having much of an effect. The South Carolina debates and results changed that impression for me pretty dramatically.
What Gingrich accomplished, with those two debates, was electorally remarkable. He literally changed the course of a primary that all the polls told us was Romney’s – and pretty comfortably too.
The big question though is what does it all mean? After all there are many ways to interpret this primary result.
Perhaps the biggest take-away may be that voters want a fighter. They’re tired of the apologies for what they believe. They want someone who is, as Michael described Newt, “unapologetic” about their conservatism.
The question that then follows is, does that mean they want Newt?
That’s actually a complicated question. Gingrich certainly was the choice in South Carolina after his “unapologetic” debate performances. But, per the polls, he wasn’t their choice prior to them. So has Newt suddenly become acceptable as a candidate or was it primary voters really expressing their dissatisfaction with the rest of the field and using Newt as their surrogate example of why?
I frankly think it is the latter. Quin Hillyer described Newt as the “Bill Clinton of the right, half the charm and twice the abrasiveness”.
If you’ve at all followed Newt Gingrich’s career you understand the truth of HIllyer’s description. Gingrich is, in political terms, a human hand grenade. In his previous life as a minority member of Congress, he was a designated bomb thrower. He has, many times in his career, managed to insert his foot in his mouth to such a depth that he’s killed the impetus of whatever good thing he had going at the time.
However, in the South Carolina debates, he said what many conservatives have been longing to hear said. And he also did something that conservatives love – he smacked the mainstream media, not once but twice.
But is that enough to carry him through the nomination process to victory? That’s the pregnant question. Will voters tire of him quickly? Will Romney again reinvent himself as a fighter for conservative values?
One of the theories out there is that voters have factored Newt’s baggage into their calculations about the man and have decided, the hell with it. But Conn Carroll reminds us that for the most part, ‘America hates Newt Gingrich’. His negatives far outweigh his positives and he runs poorly against Obama.
Of course, he was running poorly against Romney in South Carolina until a few days ago.
The other question about Gingrich is can he manage to discipline himself enough to somehow avoid doing or saying something which would doom his run for the nomination and/or his candidacy should he win the nomination? My guess is, if there was a betting line established on that question, the odds wouldn’t favor Newt at all.
Finally, there’s the question of how the big middle – the independent voter – will react to Newt. While he may, at least for the moment, satisfy conservative voters, they won’t win the election for the right. The premise of the Romney campaign, at least viewed from here, is that their primary goal must be to woo indies because, in their calculation, conservative voters will eventually come into the fold when it is clear that Romney is the inevitable nominee.
I don’t think that calculation is necessarily wrong, but it is very unattractive to conservative voters. And what the Romney team doesn’t seem to understand is that these primaries, unlike the general election, are where political activists and conservatives are much more likely to show up than independent voters. And, of course, if you can’t get past the primaries, how acceptable you’ve made yourself to indies is really a moot point, isn’t it?
So Florida just became a lot more interesting. As did the debates that are going to happen in the state. We should see at least some of the questions I’ve posed answered there, or at least be given a hint as to their eventual answer.
Is Newt the one or will he eventually bomb. And will we see plastic fantastic Mitt Romney reinvent himself yet again in an attempt to defuse the Newtron bomb?
All this and more, coming to a state near you soon.
That is certainly the premise at work in Davos as “political and economic elite”, who’ve served us so well to this point, meet to
plot discuss modifications to capitalism.
Economic and political elites meeting this week at the Swiss resort of Davos will be asked to urgently find ways to reform a capitalist system that has been described as "outdated and crumbling."
"We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations," said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.
"Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole.
"We are in an era of profound change that urgently requires new ways of thinking instead of more business-as-usual," the 73-year-old said, adding that "capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us."
Show me “capitalism” at work somewhere, please? Social welfare, in its current form, driven by high taxation and deficit government spending, is what “has no place in the world around us”.
The dirty little secret these “elite” won’t admit was that their premise that capitalism could forever fund their social welfare states is absolutely wrong and failing. They’ve killed the goose that laid the golden capitalistic eggs. It isn’t “capitalism” that is failing. It is their social welfare system that is “outdated and crumbling”.
These are just the same people who got us into this mess trying to shift the blame from unsustainable policies founded in socialism to something which has kept their socialist utopias functioning for more years than they would have had it not been there.
And we should also be precise about what it is that has kept them stumbling along this long … a mixed economy, not capitalism. A mixed economy which has featured less and less capitalism as the years have gone by. Capitalism in its defined form exists in few, if any places in this world.
Margret Thatcher’s warning that the only thing wrong with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money has come true … again. The agony was only prolonged because some free market mechanisms were left to at least partially function over all these decades that the Europeans (and now Americans) were constructing their little social welfare houses of cards. The elite simply refuse to see that reality and now seek another target to which they can shift the blame. The ultimate in “can kicking”.
The eurozone’s failure to get a grip on its debt crisis and the spectre this is casting over the global economy will dominate discussions.
"The main issue would be the preoccupation with the global economy. There will be relatively less conversation about social responsibility and environment issues — those tend to come to the fore when the economy is doing well," John Quelch, dean of the China European International Business School, told AFP.
"The main conversation will be about a deficit of leadership in Europe as a prime problem," he added.
The deficit in leadership isn’t just found in Europe. It is found worldwide. And it isn’t a deficit of leadership from capitalists, but instead a deficit of leadership within the ranks of the political elite. They continue to do or try to do the same things that have gotten us into this mess and expect different outcome. We all know how Einstein defined such activity.
It is interesting to note, too, that the Euro elite are now ready to pitch “social responsibility (however they define that – does that mean the welfare state?) and environmental issues” over the side.
But, in fact, it is more than just that which they should be considering abandoning. The problems they face do not find their root in a capitalist system or within capitalism itself. In fact, capitalism could be their savior, if they only gave it an opportunity.
However, they’d also have to abandon most of the social welfare state to do so.
No, their primary problem is to be found with the institution that has attempted to control their economies and which constantly gets in the way of any capitalistic successes in the name of social justice.
Government. And more to the point, government spending driven by high taxes and borrowing. It requires a deficit in intelligence not to understand that.
In essence Davos will be the elite – the social welfare elite – trying their hardest to shift blame on a system they’ve done the most to try to kill over the decades (even while using it to extend the life of their social welfare states).
Controlling government, taxation that provides disincentives to business, labor rules that prohibit firing bad employees, mandated early retirement and generous welfare benefits are not the problem of capitalism.
They are the problem of large, intrusive and socialist leaning governments.
But, apparently, that won’t be a part of the discussion in Davos.
Aw, come on, we know this doesn’t happen:
South Carolina’s attorney general has notified the U.S. Justice Department of potential voter fraud.
Attorney General Alan Wilson sent details of an analysis by the Department of Motor Vehicles to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.
In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they "voted" up to 6 1/3 years after their death.
The letter doesn’t say in which elections the ballots were cast.
The analysis came out of research for the state’s new voter identification law. The U.S. Justice Department denied clearance of that law.