View Full Version : The grand strategy of the United States under the 44th president
This thread is in partial response to nmap's question posed below.
Another little leaf in the wind - isn't it interesting that even though gasoline prices are low, we're seeing more and more emphasis on fuel economy? And local leaders are urging the use of public transportation and car pooling? Isn't it fascinating that we're seeing discussion of the electrical grid becoming a so-called smart grid in order to reduce fuel usage? I wonder - is this to reduce carbon emissions, or do they know that future fuel availability will decline?
After several months of intermittent thought, here's are my two cents on what the president has in mind for the United States.
First, by 'grand strategy' I am using the definition offered by E.M. Earle more than sixty five years ago.
The highest type of strategy--sometimes called grand strategy--is that which so integrates the polices and armaments of the nation that the resort to war is either rendered unnecessary or is undertaken with the maximum chance of victory.*
More recently, Paul Kennedy, informed by Liddell-Hart, broke down the elements of grand strategy into a "whole number of factors" and summarized in three interrelated areas.
The use of natural resources to balance ends and means.
The use of diplomacy in both peace and war to maximize the nation's standing relative to its allies, enemies, and neutral powers.
Maximizing national morale and levering a nation's political culture to secure a population's support for a government's policies.** This post centers around this third component.
For reasons outlined here (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257664&postcount=74), I'm very wary of Liddell-Hart. So while Kennedy's areas are useful for this discussion, I am using them provisionally.
Here, a brief review of the U.S.'s grand strategy since the end of World War II is in order. This discussion answers a mentor's favorite question: "SO WHAT?"
Since World War II, America has relied on the Mackinder-Spykman thesis.*** This thesis holds that there are five geographic heartlands (the U.S., Great Britain, the Rhine Valley, Russia, and Japan) “where the sinews of modern military strength could be produced in quantity.”**** Since the conclusion of the Second World War, the heated (and sometimes bitter) debates in American political and strategic cultures were about how to maintain the West's control over three of those heartlands, to neutralize a fourth, and to contain the fifth. Mackinder-Spykman is the foundation of American globalism and a key reason why there has not been a third world war among modern nations.
The events of 11 September 2001 challenged the relevance of MacKinder-Spykman against enemies that managed to combine the worst aspects of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern life. (This last aspect has not received the public attention it merits.)
In the months leading up to his 2002 state of the union address, I wondered if President Bush would shelve MacKinder-Spykman in favor of an unusual blend of Wintrhop and Machiavelli, and thus satisfy his most venomous critics' garbled ranting by living up to the fantasy that he was a unique combination of evil mastermind, religious zealot, and corporate thrall.:rolleyes:
Specifically, I wondered if Bush might do what I think the current president is doing: reviving the concept of Fortress America.
To be clear, had Bush the Younger pursued this path, it would have been for different--read, better--reasons. I'm fundamentally opposed to the concept of Fortress America but I think a Republican version would protect the homeland, remain an efficacious pluralistic society with a diverse culture, fulfill its international commitments, and stand as a bulwark against tyranny.
In my view, this president's version of Fortress America will be noteworthy only because there will be free 4G wireless for everyone, a Starbucks on every corner, and maybe The New Yorker will have an opportunity to get off its high horse and return to publishing a magazine worth the paper its printed on. (I'm not holding my breath. Nor am I renewing my subscription.)
This iteration of Fortress America is going to look like an eco-friendly City on a Hill but without the concepts of either American Exceptionalism or Christian sensibilities. (I'll be blunt. When the president talks about America's greatness, his words sound hollow in my ears.) Mackinder-Spykman will be consigned to oblivion.
I have outlined the political component of this concept here (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=250799&postcount=4). To this thumbnail, I would add an component that is in respectful disagreement with the interpretation that the president is a socialist. It is my view that the president should be taken for his word when he said.
So we have a choice to make. We can remain one of the world's leading importers of foreign oil, or we can make the investments that would allow us to become the world's leading exporter of renewable energy. We can let climate change continue to go unchecked, or we can help stop it. We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here in America and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity. [Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy_and_environment/).]
IMHO, he's going to shift the trajectory of free enterprise in America to benefit "green collar" industries (the list of products will include LEED certified buildings, hybrid cars, OLED displays, and, my favorite, devices that are digitally convergent). These industries will be shepherded by government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels much the way America in the past encouraged (through various subsidies) the automobile industry (among others). The Americans working in these industries will be a cross section of entrepreneurs, middle class professionals (such as engineers and urban planners), and the working classes (including the Reagan Democrats).
He envisions a level of prosperity that is high enough (and 'sustainable') that the upper echelons of his economic coalition will not mind paying higher taxes for the 'public good.' (There are Americans who make six figure salaries who were opposed to Bush's tax cuts.) The working classes will have stable jobs because they will be based on American technological innovations.^ Members of this coalition will not mind taking public transit (the parking is going to suck), living in close proximity, rubbing elbows, and shooting the breeze.
In this big Green City of Joy, assimilation won't be futile, it won't be necessary.
With this third leg of the stool (pun unintended) established, the president will have widespread public approval to pursue other, more controversial, policy goals in support of America's grand strategy.
As one of the objectives of this grand strategy is to make the world safe for America by making America safe for the world, the president will attempt to leverage his successes at home to establish a permanent Democratic majority. (The Democrats may have treated Karl Rove with contempt publicly but I have no doubt that they also took careful notes of everything he said.)
Concurrently, the president will continue to 'restore America's standing in the world' and to defeat the terrorist threat through his immeasurable personal charm (a la Franklin Roosevelt).
In contrast to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition, this president will be less inclined to bring more people into the big tent. He won't need to.
For those of us who are comfortable with this vision, we are going to get dinged bit by bit. But not by the federal government. Instead, the mechanism will be local governments. Even if these governments are controlled by right of center politicians, they will be staffed by professionals and bureaucrats who will bring a 'me too' frame of mind when writing municipal and building codes. The traditional Republican complaint about a bloated federal government is going to be undermined by the fact that local governments will be instituting these policies.
_____________________________
*Edward Mead Earle, introduction to Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, ed. E.M. Earle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943), p. viii.
**Paul Kennedy, introduction to Grand Strategies in War and Peace, ed. P.M. Kennedy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. 2-5.
***The thesis was originally promulgated by Halford Mackinder’s “The Geopolitical Pivot in History” (1904), supplemented by Thomas Spykman’s America’s Strategy in World Politics (1942), and popularized by Walter Lippmann’s U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic (1943). See John Lewis Gaddis, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 22-23. See also Gaddis’s Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 57.
**** John Lewis Gaddis, “The Cold War: Some Lessons for Policy Makers” Naval War College Review 27:3 (November-December 1974), pp. 2-16.
^ If there's a lesson of the e-economy--other than 'where there's smoke, there are mirrors'--it is that 'first to market' yields a huge competitive advantage. Missing from this calculation is that this advantage is undermined by theft. The president wants to 'restore' America's standing in the world but he forgets that foreign nationals have been hacking our systems, stealing our content, and producing unlicensed counterfeit knock-offs since Al Gore invented the internet.:rolleyes:
Sigaba - can't fool you. However, I have to wonder at what point his strategic vision will become so transparent it will galvanize the collective will of America to lash back in a historical fashion - MOO but I'm not so sure it's quite a done deal...yet. I think you've hit Paragraph 3 of O-bee's OpOrder - I'm hoping he's underestimated Paragraph 1a and it's greater than he thinks, and that the assumptions he used for his OpPlans are flawed.
Here's what Mark Steyn thinks of it all:
The Intrusion of Reality
The Left understands that the character of a people can be transformed.
Mark Steyn, NRO, 2 May 2009
We’re still in the first 100 days of the joyous observances of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and many weeks of celebration lie ahead, so here are my thoughts:
President Obama’s strongest talent is not his speechifying, which is frankly a bit of a snoozeroo. In Europe, he left ‘em wanting less pretty much every time (headline from Britain’s Daily Telegraph: “Barack Obama really does go on a bit”). That uptilted chin combined with the left-right teleprompter neck swivel you can set your watch by makes him look like an emaciated Mussolini umpiring an endless rally of high lobs on Centre Court at Wimbledon. Each to his own, but I don’t think those who routinely hail him as the greatest orator since Socrates actually sit through many of his speeches.
On the other hand, if you just caught a couple of minutes of last Wednesday’s press conference, you’d be impressed. When that groupie from the New York Times asked the president about what, during his first hundred days, “had surprised you the most . . . enchanted you the most . . . humbled you the most and troubled you the most,” Obama made a point of getting out his pen, writing it down and repeating back the multiple categories: “Enchanted,” he said. “Nice.” Indeed. Some enchanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room, but then he scribbles down your multi-part question to be sure he gets it right, and he looks so thoughtful, and suddenly he’s not a stranger anymore, and the sound of his laughter will ring in your dreams.
The theater of thoughtfulness is critical to the president’s success. He has the knack of appearing moderate while acting radical, which is a lethal skill. The thoughtful look suckered many of my more impressionable conservative comrades last fall, when David Brooks and Christopher Buckley were cranking out gushing paeans to Obama’s “first-class temperament” — temperament being to the Obamacons what Nick Jonas’s hair is to a Tiger Beat reporter. But the drab reality is that the man they hail — Brooks & Buckley, I mean; not the Tiger Beat crowd — is a fantasy projection. There is no Obama The Sober Centrist, although it might make a good holiday song:
“Obama The Sober Centrist
Had a very thoughtful mien
And if you ever saw it
You would say it’s peachy keen . . . ”
And it is. But underneath the thoughtful look is a transformative domestic agenda that represents a huge annexation of American life by an ever-more intrusive federal government. One cannot but admire the singleminded ruthlessness with which Obama is getting on with it, even as he hones his contemplative, unhurried, moderate routine on primetime press conferences. On foreign affairs, the shtick is less effective, but mainly because he’s not so engaged by the issues: He’s got big plans for health care, and federalized education, and an eco-friendly government-run automobile industry — and Iran’s nuclear program just gets in the way. He’d rather not think about it, and his multicontinental apology tours are his way of kicking the can down the road until that blessed day when America is just another sclerotic Euro-style social democracy and even your more excitable jihadi won’t be able to jump up and down chanting, “Death to the Great Satan!” with a straight face.
It would seem to me that reality is more likely to intrude on the Obama project from overseas than domestically. But if he’s lucky it won’t intrude at all, not until it’s too late. Thirty years ago this month, a grocer’s daughter from the English Midlands became Britain’s female prime minister — not because the electorate was interested in making (Obama-style) history, but just because nothing worked anymore. The post-1945 socialist settlement — government health care, government automobile industry, government everything — had broken down: Inflation over 25 percent, marginal taxes rates over 90 percent, mass unemployment, permanent strikes. The country’s union leaders were household names, mainly because they were responsible for everything your household lacked. Even moving around was hard: The nationalized rail network was invariably on strike, and you had to put your name on a waiting list months in advance for one of the “new” car models. The evening news was an endless parade of big, beefy, burly blokes picketing some plant for the right to continue enjoying the soft, pampering workweek of the more effete Ottoman sultans.
Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, who reversed her country’s decline — to the point where, two decades later, the electorate felt it was safe to vote the Labour party back into office. And yet, in the greater scheme of things, the Thatcher interlude seems just that: a temporary respite from a remorseless descent into the abyss. In its boundless ambition, the Left understands that the character of a people can be transformed: British, Canadian, and European elections are now about which party can deliver “better services,” as if the nation is a hotel and the government could use some spritelier bellhops. Socialized health care in particular changes the nature of the relationship between citizen and state into something closer to junkie and pusher. On one of the many Obama websites the national impresario feels the need to maintain — “Foundation for Change” — the president is certainly laying the foundation for something. Among the many subjects expressing their gratitude to Good King Barack the Hopeychanger is “Phil from Cathedral City, Ca”:
I was laid off in mid-January from a job I had for 12 years. It’s really getting hard to make ends meet, but this month I got some great news. This week I received in the mail official notification that my COBRA monthly payments for medical, dental and vision insurance will decrease from $468 to only $163, all due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is a $305 in savings a month!
I can’t tell you how much of a weight off my shoulders this is. I am living proof of how the President’s bold initiatives are beginning to work!
But just exactly how do these “bold initiatives” work? Well, hey, simple folk like you and I and Phil from Cathedral City don’t need to worry about the details. Once these “bold initiatives” really hit their stride maybe the cost of everything over 400 bucks can be brought down to $163. Wouldn’t that be great?
The problem in the Western world is that governments are spending money faster than their citizenry or economies can generate it. As Gerald Ford liked to say, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” And that’s true. But there’s an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give Phil from Cathedral City everything he wants isn’t big enough to get Phil to give any of it back. That’s the stage the Europeans are at: Their electorates are hooked on unsustainable levels of “services,” but no longer can conceive of life without them.
Margaret Thatcher has a terrific line: “The facts of life are conservative.” Just so. Alas, while the facts are conservative, everything else — the culture, the media, the institutions in which we educate our children, the language of public discourse, the societal air we breathe — is profoundly liberal. Phil is “living proof” of something, but it’s not good news for conservatives.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmFlYTY2MDE0OGI2YmNhNjdiZmNjMjQwODNmOGE2OTk=
Richard's $.02 :munchin
...I have to wonder at what point his strategic vision will become so transparent it will galvanize the collective will of America to lash back in a historical fashion - MOO but I'm not so sure it's quite a done deal...yet.
I think what may happen is that the president will benefit from hiding his agenda in plain sight. He can accomplish this goal by alternately expanding, changing, rephrasing, and simplifying the terms of the debate.
The article below illustrates my point. Environmentalists generally cast themselves in opposition to corporate America yet ecoAmerica is basically doing research that will benefit corporate America sell green products.
Source is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print).
May 2, 2009
Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.
The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.
Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”
The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”
“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.
Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.
Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”
He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”
Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.
And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
Sigaba, thank you for a fascinating and cogent analysis.
Your views about the development of national policy, and the significance of previous doctrine is illuminating to say the least. As I observe the POTUS, I'm inclined to agree that he is not actually a socialist. Rather, he is a proponent of increased control. Furthermore, he uses the language of socialism both to gain a specific group of supporters and to facilitate his goals of increased governmental control. Parenthetically, I would add that the implementation of controls over carbon emissions strikes me as a remarkably effective way to insinuate government control into essentially every transaction within the society.
I do not doubt the validity of your idea that the POTUS desires prosperity, and will seek to obtain this through promotion of the green collar industries you mention. That said, I have deep reservations about the efficacy of such a transition. People are fond of green technology, but careful analysis of the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is notably absent. Just as corn ethanol proved to be an ineffective approach to energy independence, due to the adverse energy balance, I suspect attributes of wind and solar power, is well as other alternatives, will likewise prove to be flawed. In the cases of both wind and solar, fluctuating supply necessitates significant storage. Although some proponents of the smart-grid technology suggests that extensive use of plug-in hybrid vehicles will result in the public supplying the needed storage capacity through the batteries of their vehicles, I have a suspicion this represents more of a hope that of a careful analysis.
Unlike the preceding, nuclear power offers the ability to maintain the base supply during all times and conditions. There are those who suggest that the supply of uranium is essentially limitless, and could be efficiently extracted from seawater. On the other hand, nuclear reactors require significant quantities of materials which in turn must be extracted and hence require significant energy investments. However, without an extensive analysis - which I have never seen - my preliminary opinion is that nuclear power is probably the best interim measure to defer significant adverse consequences.
In essence, I agree with your analysis of the grand strategy pursued by the current administration. However, I suspect they will find that their strategy has an internal flaw, and that they cannot accomplish their end goal. Therefore, the question becomes how they will react. I suspect they will pursue greater control, and enforced sacrifice and restrictions. Again, this may feel very much like socialism, with labels that strongly suggest such an affinity. But I agree with you, the POTUS is not really pursuing a socialist agenda. I think he is pursuing control and power, either for himself or more likely for his backers.
Along the lines of control, not socialism - I'd like to offer a couple links for consideration. The first is at TickerForum, written by K. Denninger under his own name.
LINK (http://market-ticker.org/archives/1006-Senator-Tells-Truth-Whos-Listening.html)
It has some comments, especially at the beginning of the piece, that strike me as interesting. Particularly a remark by Senator Durbin to the effect that the banking industry controls our government.
The second item, referenced by the first, I do not know, nor can I vouch for. The unconfirmed material therein may be utter nonsense, as the site itself discloses, or it may have validity. It does provide footnotes and good sources for portions of the material. The writing style is polished - but that doesn't prove anything. That said, the ideas within may be worth considering, if you have some excess time.
The unifying theme of both is a trend toward increased governmental control - but not in the sense of socialism per se. If true, such a trend may be of interest.
LINK (http://finemrespice.com/node/56)
The Reaper
05-04-2009, 13:23
I was looking for a better definition of Mr. Obaba and the Dems version of politics that are currently being played, and came up with this. Hard to tell after 100 days, but if the first 100 were any indicator, this may be where we are headed, which will no doubt infuriate liberals to no end.
It may not be pure fascism, as it loooks to me like a blend of multiple systems, leaning heavily on socialism as well, but it provides some startling parallels. As some have claimed, fascism was deliberately ill-defined and nebulous to increase its popularity so that everyman could see himself in it.
Is Mr. Obama channeling Il Duce?
TR
Fascism
by Sheldon Richman
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.(Check.)
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.(Check.)
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.(Too early to tell.)
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.(Check.)
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.(Check.)
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.(Check.)
The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.(Check.)
continued....
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Utah Bob
05-04-2009, 14:09
I was looking for a better definition of Mr. Obaba and the Dems version of politics that are currently being played, and came up with this. Hard to tell after 100 days, but if the first 100 were any indicator, this may be where we are headed, which will no doubt infuriate liberals to no end.
It may not be pure fascism, as it loooks to me like a blend of multiple systems, leaning heavily on socialism as well, but it provides some startling parallels. As some have claimed, fascism was deliberately ill-defined and nebulous to increase its popularity so that everyman could see himself in it.
Is Mr. Obama channeling Il Duce?
TR
Funny, but during the campaign I was watching Obama making speeches and something looked strangely familiar but I couldn't put my finger on it.
I finally realized his chin up, jaw out posture after making a point was hauntingly reminiscent of old Benito.
My wife said I was nutz. She's right of course, but that has nothing to do with it.
Blitzzz (RIP)
05-04-2009, 14:33
I said it when I watched him walking to the inaugaral podium/ Walking down the hall just before coming outside for the oath He postured just like Benito. If you get a chance look at it. Blitzzz
incarcerated
05-05-2009, 00:24
:munchin
The article below illustrates how the federal government can pressure local governments. Residents of a small town that are not getting stimulus money because the municipal governments don't have plans ready to go may be increasingly inclined to support candidates and policies that encourage growth. In the rush to revitalize local economies, the long term implications of a particular "master plan" may not be debated adequately.
Consequently, ostensibly minor issues including the placement of trees, curb cuts, parking spaces, and stop lights will be left more and more to the urban planners, economic development officials, and their consultants. Their vision of how a town should look will trump the objections of dissenting residents.
In the short term, citizens won't mind because there will be plenty of work. But in the long term, when people think about the new the skate park, they may realize that while there's nothing wrong about their redeveloped town, something isn't quite right, either.:confused:
Source is here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guNAb2By3sueeeMXl9bWidVIwh1wD983T6D00).
STIMULUS WATCH: Early road aid leaves out neediest
By MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.
One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.
Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.
The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.
The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.
The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.
"It's not fair," said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. "It's a joke because we're not going to get it, because we don't have any projects ready to go."
The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for "folks looking for work" and "folks who want to work."
"That's the core of my plan, putting people to work doing the work that America needs done," Obama said in a Feb. 11 speech promoting transportation spending as a way to expand employment.
Also, Congress required states to use some of the highway money for projects in economically distressed areas, but didn't impose sanctions if they didn't. States can lose money, however, if they don't spend fast enough.
The AP examined the earliest projects announced nationwide, the ones most likely to break ground and create jobs first. More projects are continually being announced, and some areas that received little or no help so far may benefit later. The Obama administration could also encourage states to change their plans.
To determine whether there was a disparity in where the money would go, the AP divided the nation's counties into four groups by unemployment levels. The analysis found that, no matter how the early money is measured, communities suffering most fare the worst:
_High-unemployment counties, those in the top quarter of jobless rates, are allotted about 16 percent of the money, compared with about 20 percent for areas least affected by joblessness.
_In low-unemployment counties nationwide, those in the bottom quarter of jobless rates, the federal government is spending about $89 a person compared with $59 a person in the worst-hit areas.
_In counties with the largest populations, the government is spending about $69 a person in areas with the lowest unemployment and $40 a person in places with the greatest job need.
The analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.
Among them: Wheeler County, Ore.; Steuben County, Ind.; Macon County, Ga.; and Crowley County, Colo.
Many others are getting minimal help in this round: Vermillion County, Ind.; Lapeer County, Mich.; Presidio County, Texas; Tallahatchi County, Miss.
Those counties still will benefit from job creation elsewhere in their states, said Lana Hurdle, a Transportation official overseeing the agency's stimulus money.
"Even if you have to drive to it, it's better than no job," Hurdle said.
Joel Szabat, who also oversees the stimulus for the Transportation Department, said the agency presses states to build projects in struggling areas but does not normally consider how much money is going to each county.
Presented with AP's findings, he said: "I will be going back to ask our folks to do this kind of analysis, the overall amount for the projects."
"Our goal, and I think it is a goal that will be achieved, is that you will see that a fair share of this money will go to these areas," Szabat said.
Obama's plan sends $38 billion to states and local governments for roads, bridges, transit and other infrastructure, about 5 percent of the overall program that also includes money for, among other things, schools, community development, technology, worker training and tax breaks.
All counties will receive some stimulus relief eventually. But the haste voiced by the White House is not reflected in the flow of highway money so far.
"We cannot wait," Vice President Joe Biden said last week when announcing a $30 million transit project in his hometown of Wilmington, Del., where the 7.7 percent unemployment rate remains below the national average. "We're spending a lot of time and money. Why? It's about ... jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's why we cannot wait."
Yet residents of Perry County, Tenn., will have to wait. County Mayor John Carroll said he's disappointed his community, which suffers from 25.4 percent unemployment, won't receive a dime any time soon for its road needs.
"It's pretty easy to draw a connection between the high unemployment rate and the lack of any four-lane highways," he said.
Federal auditors acknowledge they can't yet track the transportation money that is leaving Washington and there is no single list of the thousands of projects planned in each state. For its analysis, the AP used lists of projects approved through March by the Transportation Department and collected lists of stimulus projects that have been announced in 49 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Federal officials have approved 2,800 projects. The remaining projects on the AP list represent the states' official plans for the money. Only Virginia, which has not announced its plan, is not included.
As the number of projects grows, places like Elk County, Pa., could still be left out because they could not afford the upfront costs needed to put proposals in the pipeline.
"It's all based on this 'shovel readiness,'" said Elk County Commissioner Daniel Freeburg. "That's been our stumbling block."
Elk County surely could use jobs. The once thriving north central Pennsylvania county is home to metal factories that equip the nation's auto industry. Layoffs are mounting.
Freeburg is pinning hopes on getting future stimulus money, such as for energy conservation programs, that will create jobs and rekindle the local metal and lumber industries.
In promoting his plan, Obama went to hard-hit communities such as Elkhart, Ind., and Peoria, Ill., and promised the jobs would come.
"Now, I know that some of you might be thinking, 'Well that all sounds good, but when are we going to see any of that here in Elkhart?'" Obama said. "'What does all that mean for our families and our community?' Those are exactly the kind of questions you should be asking of your president and your government."
Obama kept his promise to Elkhart, which so far is expected to receive $13.7 million, and Peoria, which should receive at least $10.6 million. But other, similar counties have not been so lucky.
For now, laid-off workers in Elk County, Pa., question why they've missed out, while money flows to more prosperous places.
"Why are they helping them?" asked Wendy Cameron, 50, of Saint Marys, Pa., who lost her job in a metal factory last year. She doesn't have health insurance and would gladly take road work. "They're not in need. We are.
"What are these people going to do? Is everybody going to go on welfare? I've never been on welfare. I don't want to be on welfare."
The following article illustrates how the current administration will use environmental and energy policy issues as part of a broader effort transform everyday life in America. If the new emissions and mileage standards make America less dependent upon foreign oil, American car companies more competitive, and increase air quality, the president will be credited for sound policy decisions.
Meanwhile, the increased costs of car production will be passed along to consumers who rely on their automobiles. In urban living spaces, the solution may be more mass transit and mixed-use developments. Such developments favor 'green collar' professionals.
Suburban and rural areas, long the target of urban planners, will feel the squeeze. Residents of these areas, feeling the growing weight of fuel costs, may make the transition to more energy friendly vehicles (which will help a greener auto industry that will be increasingly appreciative of energy friendly policies). Or they may start moving closer to cities where they'll encounter the cultural sensibilities they sought to distance themselves from when they moved away in the first place.
Ultimately, influencing and changing cultural values are what these policies aim to do. The logic is that familiarity will breed conformity and a new sense of community. Hey, neighbor, would you like to mosey on over and have some bacon quiche? It is from a vegan cook book. We can watch Medium...I got the complete series on DVD...it's such a shame that it was canceled! (By the way, would you want to join our vanpool?)
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos/print).
Obama wants increased fuel efficiency, less smog
By KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined Tuesday the nation's first comprehensive effort to curb vehicle emissions while cutting dependence on imported oil, calling the plan an historic turning point toward a "clean-energy economy."
Joined in the White House Rose Garden by leaders of the auto industry, labor, government officials and key national and state political leaders, Obama said the agreement that once would have been "considered impossible" was what he termed a "harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington."
The two-pronged approach to problems that compound threats to the global environment marks the latest in a series of shifts by the Obama administration away from the policies of his conservative predecessor, former President George W. Bush.
"As a result of this agreement," Obama said, "we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. And at a time of historic crisis in our auto industry, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century."
He said the new rules amounted to removing 177 million cars from the roads over the next 6 1/2 years.
In that period, the savings in oil burned to fuel American cars, trucks and buses would amount to last year's combined U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria.
While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.
While requiring that vehicle carbon dioxide emissions be reduced by about one-third by the target date, the plan requires the auto industry to be building vehicles that average 35.5 miles per gallon.
The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes.
The plan, to be proposed in the Federal Register of pending rules and regulations, must still clear procedural hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers expressed their support for the plan. "We're all agreeing to work together on a national program," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.
Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets.
In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.
The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.
The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.
But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Ken Thomas and Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.
The Economist offers its take here (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13685976).
Utah Bob
05-19-2009, 14:58
Suburban and rural areas, long the target of urban planners, will feel the squeeze. Residents of these areas, feeling the growing weight of fuel costs, may make the transition to more energy friendly vehicles (which will help a greener auto industry that will be increasingly appreciative of energy friendly policies). Or they may start moving closer to cities where they'll encounter the cultural sensibilities they sought to distance themselves from when they moved away in the first place.
Out here in the country there's no way for people to switch to the newer technology fuel efficient vehicles unless they can come up with one that will haul a trailer with a John Deere on it, a horse trailer, hay, rocks, firewood, etc.
Everybody's mortgaged up to their necks trying to keep their farms and ranches afloat anyway.
I'd be happy if they could just do something about the damn coal fired power plant down in NM that smogs up the once blue skies around here.
Suburban and rural areas, long the target of urban planners, will feel the squeeze. Residents of these areas, feeling the growing weight of fuel costs, may make the transition to more energy friendly vehicles (which will help a greener auto industry that will be increasingly appreciative of energy friendly policies). Or they may start moving closer to cities where they'll encounter the cultural sensibilities they sought to distance themselves from when they moved away in the first place.
Ultimately, influencing and changing cultural values are what these policies aim to do. The logic is that familiarity will breed conformity and a new sense of community. Hey, neighbor, would you like to mosey on over and have some bacon quiche? It is from a vegan cook book. We can watch Medium...I got the complete series on DVD...it's such a shame that it was canceled! (By the way, would you want to join our vanpool?)
Excellent points, Sigaba.
In addition, the so-called red (conservative) areas will face more distress than the blue (liberal) areas.
As we are concentrated into urban areas, we become easier to observe - and, easier to control.
Rhetorical question: What happens to the sheep once they are herded into a small pen, after the gate is locked? Do they supply wool, or do they supply mutton?
Out here in the country there's no way for people to switch to the newer technology fuel efficient vehicles unless they can come up with one that will haul a trailer with a John Deere on it, a horse trailer, hay, rocks, firewood, etc.
Everybody's mortgaged up to their necks trying to keep their farms and ranches afloat anyway.
I'd be happy if they could just do something about the damn coal fired power plant down in NM that smogs up the once blue skies around here.
The president has a plan to organize communities like yours. That plan is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/rural/).:rolleyes:
Excellent points, Sigaba.
In addition, the so-called red (conservative) areas will face more distress than the blue (liberal) areas.
The red areas will become less and less populated as Americans will go where the jobs are.
As we are concentrated into urban areas, we become easier to observe - and, easier to control.
Rhetorical question: What happens to the sheep once they are herded into a small pen, after the gate is locked? Do they supply wool, or do they supply mutton?
Well, the party and politicians in power will want more and more wool. Wool to make ever more empty suits, and wool to keep pulling over our own eyes. (Whoa. That sounds a little bitter.)
GratefulCitizen
05-20-2009, 21:46
The hope of audacity.
They can go ahead and require these mileage standards.
It won't work.
People will not spend money on cars they don't want to buy.
The nails will be driven into the coffin of domestic auto makers.
In most cases, people lose money (net) trading their old gas guzzler for a shiny new hybrid.
This doesn't look to be part of a grand plan to herd the sheeple.
Rather, it looks like a bunch of liberals who can't figure out that wishful thinking doesn't convert into reality.
That's our congress and executive.
One thumb in their mouth,
one thumb up their butt,
waiting for someone to tell them to switch.
This doesn't look to be part of a grand plan to herd the [people].
I agree with all of your points but the one on the grand plan.
Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy_and_environment/).
Securing our Energy Future
Our reliance on oil poses a threat to our economic security. Over the last few decades, we have watched our economy rise and fall along with the price of a barrel of oil. We must commit ourselves to an economic future in which the strength of our economy is not tied to the unpredictability of oil markets. We must make the investments in clean energy sources that will curb our dependence on fossil fuels and make America energy independent.
* Breaking Dependence on Oil. Promote the next generation of cars and trucks and the fuels they run on.
* Producing More Energy at Home. Enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy, fossil fuels, advanced biofuels and nuclear energy.
* Promoting Energy Efficiency. Promote investments that reducing energy bills in the transportation, electricity, industrial, building and agricultural sectors.
Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters
We must take immediate action to reduce the carbon pollution that threatens our climate and sustains our dependence on fossil fuels. We have had limits in place on pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and other harmful emissions for some time. After decades of inaction, we will finally close the carbon pollution loophole by limiting the amount of carbon polluters are allowed to pump into the atmosphere.
* Closing the Carbon Loophole. By stemming carbon pollution through a market-based cap, we can address in a systematic way all the energy challenges that we face: curbing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our use of fossil fuels, and promoting new industries right here in America.
* Protecting American Consumers. Revenues generated by closing the carbon loophole will be returned to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities, and businesses.
* Promoting U.S. Competitiveness. Ensure a level playing field for domestic manufacturing and secure significant actions to combat climate change by our trading partners.
A point that I've alluded to but not yet developed is the role 'green' building will play in the president's agenda.
While much has been made of Fannie Mae's role in the mortgage crisis, less has been said about its now-defunct journal, Housing Policy Debate. (As a precursor to FM's troubles, this journal's on-line warehouse disappeared from what seemed like one night to the next:confused:.)
During its run of approximately eleven years, this journal was an important arena for the planning community (a group including academics, planners, developers, engineers of various sorts, and government officials) to discuss how to reshape how people live their lives.
The journal was part of a much larger national--and international--dialog on how to combat "sprawl," "brown fields," and urban congestion, with concepts including "smart growth," "LEED certification," "transportation demand management," and "the new urbanism."
An issue I've identified with this amorphous discourse is the extent to which it is one sided. While there are numerous instances of energetic debate over specifics, there's broad agreement over the basic concepts. Dissenting voices are generally economists and/or libertarians located outside of the planning community.
This isn't to say everyone has the exact same agenda or motivation. Some participate in these discussions so they can be on the leading edge of trends in urban development. Others want to stream line bureaucratic processes so that plans can become developments sooner rather than later. Still others are true believers in the cause of green building.
As a consequence of the broad agreement among the participants in these discussions, I'm yet to encounter sustained arguments by those inside the planning community that some of these concepts may be faulty. (Most glaringly, the assumption that people are better off if they live in cities.)