  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The French BellwetherPosted on May 8, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Is Europe moving right? Is the democratic left in trouble? The decisive victory of Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Segolene Royal in France’s presidential elections on Sunday was the most recent example of the battering that moderate-left parties are taking from the forces of globalization and discontent over immigration. A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor Party in local elections. Last September, Sweden’s Social Democrats were voted out of power, a blow to the progressive spirit in light of the country’s standing as a model egalitarian society. Earlier in 2006, in the land of single-payer healthcare, Canada’s Conservatives under Stephen Harper came back from near-death 14 years ago to form a minority government. In 2005, Germany’s Social Democrats lost their majority, though they cling to a share of power under Christian Democratic Chancellor Angela Merkel. There are some countertrends toward the left, notably in Australia, according to the recent polls. A populist left (quite different from the moderate European variety) has gained ground in Latin America. And Democrats might take heart that France and the U.S. have moved on opposite electoral cycles ever since Socialist Francois Mitterrand won power in 1981, just a year after Ronald Reagan’s election. Nonetheless, the social democratic and liberal left faces a big problem because globalization makes the movement’s core pledge—to produce economic growth that lifts up the poor and the middle class as well as the rich—far more problematic. For much of the period after World War II, national governments found it relatively easy to redistribute wealth and income through taxes and decent wage agreements negotiated by strong labor unions. Globalization and heightened competition take a toll on unionized industrial jobs, while national governments have less freedom of action when capital is so mobile. As a result, thriving emerging economies are enjoying higher growth rates than their traditionally wealthy competitors. In France, Sarkozy promised that by deregulating the labor market, he could create more growth and more jobs. Royal pledged to preserve and expand some of France’s generous social protections—although she also bowed to the imperatives of global capitalism by sounding some modernizing themes. Sarkozy’s clarity trumped Royal’s well-meaning muddle. Fear that immigrant and particularly Muslim communities were not integrating well into France also helped Sarkozy. His tough-guy image allowed this center-right candidate to court the far-right constituency of Jean-Marie Le Pen. According to the polling agency Ipsos, voters who backed Le Pen in the election’s first round went to Sarkozy on Sunday by a margin of better than 5 to 1. Here again, Royal played defense by offering her own version of patriotic politics—French citizens should learn the words of the Marseillaise, she said, and keep a French flag in their cupboards. But she also felt an honorable obligation to criticize some of Sarkozy’s harsher positions on immigration. Worries over immigrants trumped fear of Sarkozy’s hard line. And where Royal won by almost 3-2 among public-sector workers (she also carried students and the unemployed), she lost private-sector workers (as well as the retired). The left can’t win without a better showing among workers in the private economy. In fact, Royal’s biggest problem was reflected in another Ipsos finding: While 42 percent of her voters said their ballots were aimed primarily at keeping Sarkozy out of the presidency, only 18 percent of Sarkozy’s voters said they cast negative ballots against Royal. The left is in trouble when its campaigns are based more on anxiety about the right than on the hopes that progressives inspire. It would be a mistake to draw too many American lessons from the troubles of European social democrats. For one thing, the social insurance system is much weaker in the U.S. than in Europe, where even conservatives support substantial government provision for healthcare and child care. If European voters seem willing to gamble on a bit less security because they have a lot of it, American voters now seem inclined to ask for more because they have so little. But the center-left clearly needs a shot of dynamism. It must convey a clearer sense that it knows how to preserve social justice in a globalized economy and how to respond to a growing impatience with government. It must figure out how to preserve civil liberties, protect immigrants and foster an inclusive sense of national solidarity at the same time. With their European friends in some trouble, American progressives may have both the opportunity and the obligation to find the new formulas. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The Greatest Threat to Choice Next item: Ten Bodies, but Not Much of a Pulse Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Marshall, May 16, 2007 at 11:28 am # Max - if you’re genuinely exasperated by my lines of argument, then we’re probably just not on the same wavelength and I agree that discussion is useless. But I’m afraid that, from my side, I’m rather frustrated and confused by the way you continue to: a) Restate blatant inaccuracies despite my posting links which refute them. For example: It’s a FACT that the US unemployment rate of 4.5% is NOT based on people who receive unemployment insurance. I’ve shown you the link that states this very clearly… yet you continue to insist that it is. Another example: You made the statement that union membership has gone up. My response was to post a link to data showing that union membership in the US has decreased since the early eighties. So I ask you: when you make statements of fact, why are you not required to substantiate them with verifiable data? And when I substantiate mine, why do you ignore this or tell me the data is wrong, yet provide no proof of this? Max, where are you getting your belief that the unemployment figure is based on insurance claims? Where are you getting your belief that union membership is increasing? What is it about the bls figures on underemployment that is wrong (and do you even know how they’re calculated)? “Critical thinking” requires substantiating ones beliefs. Until we can resolve this double standard where I do but you don’t have to, you and I won’t be able to have a productive discussion. And maybe that’s just the way it is… that’s up to you.
By Marshall, May 15, 2007 at 4:25 pm # Max, I’m sorry you object to my use of economic terms - I didn’t mean to intimidate you. And I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to ignore fact based discussions and retreat into name calling. I know it’s much easier than addressing my points, but it’s the reason that liberals ultimately fail to gain long term power or pull together coherent agendas. Take care and good luck. Marshall
By Marshall, May 15, 2007 at 12:21 pm # <<your “facts” are based on indicators which are in dispute (GNP and GDP...>> So what you’re saying is “the official indicators are wrong, but I can’t tell you how or why”? Krugman’s article sure doesn’t. And of course, most open countries publish economic figures which you attempted (as with Europe) to compare ours to… are theirs correct and ours wrong? <<Than why are unions seeing growth in membership if everything is so cool?>> Answer: they’re not. National union membership is down from over 20% in the 80’s to about 12% today (manufacturing union participation fell for the first time in 2006). Once again, here’s a link to (recent) hard numbers which you seem unwilling to find for yourself: http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID =13482 <<The stockmarket does not reflect US citizen’s overall prosperity>> Correct - which is why I cited it as one of many economic indicators. It simply reflects the private sector’s predictions about our economic future. <<why you think a nation - the US - once with regular unemployment of 8 - 10% (when the nation was in a high prosperity state, and manufacturing was king) is now at 4.5%.>> Perhaps you could tell me specifically what years you’re referring to? <<Job growth is low, off-shoring of hi and lo tech has been rampant (the work you do can be commoditized and sent off to India in a blink), manufacturing has virtually disappeared, the gap between rich and non-rich has grown to pre-WWII levels, wages are stagnant at best. So, what’s with the official numbers? The stock market doesn’t reflect US jobs. The GNP and GDP do not either. All of these indicators can go through the roof while average Americans struggle to get by.>> Max - I need you to substantiate your claims because it’s common practise for economic nay-sayers to blindly repeat hearsay. For example, the US economy has been adding jobs for almost four straight years for a total of 7.8 million since 8/03. Now if you’re going to counter that these numbers are fake, then you need to tell me how/why because I can back them up. “Offshoring” (a common liberal accusation during the election) has been happening for decades… but guess what? So has “Onshoring” - the movement of jobs (like auto manufacturing) from other countries to the US. Can you give me some figures to back up your “offshoring” claim? If you can’t, then you’re just repeating hearsay. BTW: the work I do has not been commoditized to India because India is marginally appropriate for call centers, but not at all for high level video game development. In fact, many companies that opened call centers overseas are now bringing them back because customers are tired of dealing with the language and social differences. So much for “offshoring”. Real wages rose 1.3% since March of last year. This is fact - not disputable. Which “average americans” are struggling to get by? Please - cite some stats to back up your claim or else you really have nothing but your own “feelings”. <<who are the “fringe” economists and who are the “non-fringe” economists?>> I classify Krugman as “fringe” because his political agenda obviously drives his economics and his opinions are in the minority. Max - it’s disingenuous to use govt. stats when they serve you ("gap between rich and poor is widening"), but dismiss them when they contradict with you ("unemployment & wage statistics are bogus"). This is your problem. You need to be willing to have an honest discussion about the economy instead of cherry picking your stats to try and make your argument. But if you’re going to cherry pick, then at least make sure the ones you choose are accurate (real wages, union membership, unemployment calculation methods). Inaccurate statements undermine your credibility.
By Marshall, May 14, 2007 at 10:26 pm # Max - I responded to the issue of the economy because it was a major component of some of your earlier posts and I detected an all too common (among liberals) tendency to downplay the positive and accentuate (or completely misstate) the negative. I thought it was worth responding to. Now you can side with the minority of economists who have made their names nay-saying (only to be proven wrong, as with your Krugman post) if you want. But you’ll notice that none of your articles disputes the official numbers… in fact, they quote them. Krugman’s point appears to be that the U-3 rate may not show the whole picture. Unfortunately, he can’t seem to offer any alternative explanations so we’re supposed to be left feeling uneasy about things. Two years after his article, the economy has continued to expand just fine, thank you very much - negating the very point he makes at the close of his article. But I suspect you’re not so much of a “facts” guy as a “feelings” guy, and the hard numbers probably mean little to you given your general distaste for our economic system. The stock market, as a barometer of the economy’s future, is pretty happy. And interest rates, inflation, and unemployment continue to be low while home ownership, equity, incomes, GDP, and productivity continue to rise. In addition, we now know that when taxes are lowered, govt. tax receipts rise. These are good things we should all be happy about. It’s why the Dems no longer criticize Republicans on the economy (and why they place ALL emphasis on the Iraq war). And yes - I do have a full time job in the video game industry. But I also have time to discuss issues like these because I know that if they fire me for it, this economy will make it easy to find another job.
By Marshall, May 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm # Max, You’re still mistaken about the US incarceration rate. As I stated in my previous post, it is not 2%, but approx. .6% as there were just over 2 million folks in jail in 2005 out of a US population of 300 million. Here’s my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim05.htm I didn’t say the numbers had gone down; I said the rate of incarceration had gone down. This is because the crime rate has dropped significantly in the last decade or so… a good thing (primarily due to an improved economy, IMHO). If you want to start adding prisoners to the unemployment rate, then be my guest. But you’ll need to do it for all countries you want to compare our rate to (BTW: you’ll need to subtract the prisoners that are part of prison work programs). <<You pay no attention to the increase in part-time and temp work which has become central to the employment numbers and a whole slew of other indicators.>> Part-time/temp/discouraged workers are counted in the “labor underutilization” figures published each month. These are additional indicators besides the most commonly cited “U-3” national unemployment rate. Here’s a link to help you when doing your own research: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm Also - as much as I hate to repeat myself, real wages increased by 1.6% from 3/06 to 3/07 (weekly earnings minus inflation) according to the dept. of labor. As to your Krugman article: you’re right that he’s too liberal for my tastes which is why he’s considered a “fringe” economist. But the article you cite is two years old, and the unemployment rate and real wage picture has improved since then. The Bradbury study he cites is just that: one study. By no means a definitive statement. Even if her additional 1% added to unemployment turned out to be true, we’d still have a better employment picture than most other countries. If you’d like to dispute any of my statements above, I’d appreciate it if you’d post unbiased source material as I’ve done.
By Marshall, May 14, 2007 at 1:13 am # Max - it is you who’ve allowed an author to convince you of something without having done the research yourself. If you had, you wouldn’t still be clinging to the misconception that the US unemployment rate is based on how many people receive unemployment insurance. Are you disputing this despite my link to the horses mouth that very plainly refutes you? <<Did you ever ask yourself the question: how, when jobs are being off-shored at a rate of millions per hear, where much of the work has become temp based and where much of the work is part time, manufacturing is virtually gone>> Max - I’m simply asking you to post verifiable figures on those claims. Will you do this? Or will you simply refer me to your favorite book? <<I’m not saying that EU doesn’t suffer relatively higher unemployment - but they are not bolstering their employment with credit debt like the US does. >> Excuse me? Can you please explain how credit debt affects the unemployment rate? <<the gap between the top 1 - 5% is enormous. The top 5% makes more than the bottom 100,000,000 combined.>> ...and pays more in taxes too. What’s your beef here? That the US has the wealthiest people on the planet? Or that you’re not one of them? <<The number of working poor has increased dramatically year after year since it peaked in the 70s.>> Wrong. Percentage of working poor peaked in 1992 (at just over 6.5% of the labor force). It dropped dramatically for the next seven years (to just over 4.5%) and has risen somewhat since then. It is complicated, in particular, by increased immigration which adds millions more unskilled workers to the US economy, dragging down wages and inflating unemployment figures. This is one reason immigration must be controlled. <<So, on the one hand, US unemployment figures are in fact fudged>> You keep saying this Max, but you don’t prove it. <<even those employed have seen their purchasing power decreased dramatically as real wages decrease precipitously.>> Since I assume you’re basing this statement on the actual BLS numbers, here’s the official statement for March 2007: “Average weekly earnings rose by 4.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, from March 2006 to March 2007. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 1.6 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and inflation, average weekly earnings were $580.31 in March 2007, compared with $556.42 a year earlier.” This, Max, despite rising gasoline prices (which diminish real wages significantly) and rampant immigration, which increases the numbers of unskilled, low wage workers in the US. <<Yes, we don’t count the 2% of those incarcerated as unemployed - seems obvious - but when you put that 2% (or 6 million adults)...>> Max - you’re full of inaccuracies. You just said it was 2 million in your previous post… now it’s 6 million? (correct answer: 2 million - which is .6%, not 2%) We won’t even mention the fact that national crime rates have fallen to the lowest levels since the 1960s, dramatically slowing the rate of incarceration. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/incrt.htm) <<I’ve supplied you with sources>> Which sources are those, Max? You mentioned a single book, which is not a reliable source. The reliable sources are the actual numbers which you seem unable or unwilling to supply.
By Marshall, May 13, 2007 at 2:56 pm # <<Look, the stats for unemployment only count those who are collecting unemployment benefits>> A common misperception, but patently untrue. The US unemployment rate specficially DOES NOT COUNT unemployment insurance recipients. The number is based on a survey. Here’s the actual text and a reference for you: “Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits..., the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940...” http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5 <<then there’s the underemployed which is nearly anyone - mostly professionals - who have lost jobs due to downsizing (and off-shoring - high tech and engineering as well as services)>> Please provide stats on this number to substantiate your inference that this number is unusually large. You can’t, and I know that. <<than there’s the 2 million in prison (some for minor infractions) who are not counted.>> No country counts its prison population as unemployed for obvious reasons. The 4.5% rate applies, as it always has, to non-incarcerated people. Not sure what your point is here. <<I will not do your research for you.>> But it appears I have to do yours for you, since you’re swallowing other people’s words hook line and sinker. You want the stats? Go to the actual sources, not to authors with agendas. Then do your own thinking instead of letting others do the thinking for you.
By Marshall, May 11, 2007 at 10:30 pm # Max - You put environment first and foremost. Fine. I put my survival first and foremost. I suppose if environment had been #1, we’d never have entered WWII for fear of the environmental havok that it undoubtedly caused. But I’m glad we did. I’m waiting for you to show how 4.5% unemployment is bogus (and how all those other countries have it right). The household and establishment surveys are both used to calculate this number and the simple fact is that the vast majority of US citizens are gainfully employed, generally happy, and doing quite well thank you. Divorce rates are down, there are more wealthy than ever, and the poor pay less in income tax than ever before. Naturally there are problems - every country has them… and most rightly envy the prosperity and success of the resiliant US economy and are doing their best to emulate it. So if the US is an “economy in decline”, then we’d better redefine “decline” because it never looked so good. The widening wealth gap is a combination of more wealthy, and a growing unskilled immigrant population in the multi-millions that drains social services, sends money out of country, and pays no taxes. So while you’re right about the statistic, you’re apparently not aprised of what’s behind it and I’d be the first to call for policy changes to deal with this. I don’t really care what “world polls” say - luckly, we don’t run US policy from world polls (none of which you cited). Our nuclear arsinal was largely responsible for the end of the cold war and continues to be a valuable deterrant. If you feel threatened by it, then I’m sorry. But the only other countries I know of that agree with you are the ones that would like to acheive huge arsinals of their own to dominate and bully their neighbors. Luckly, the US is not subject to any world courts and the UN is not a court, so your claim of “illegal” US wars is bogus. Again - please name a single court with jurisdiction over the US that has ruled any war illegal. I’ll send you money if you can. I think you’re confused (and threatened) by the term “debtor nation”, Max. The US GDP is easily large enough to sustain our debt (which, as a percentage of GDP, is actually lower than at many times in our history). I understand that you’re probably not in the finance business, but it’s basic to an understanding of economics that you get this.
By Marshall, May 10, 2007 at 11:58 pm # Max - Forgive me for assuming that your agenda has socialist leanings. I forget where all that money is supposed to come from to coddle the enviros and provide universal healthcare and I apologize for assuming it was higher taxes and bigger government. I’m well aware of the two surveys from which unemployment figures are calculated and have yet to hear your alternate proposal, other than a catch-all reference to a book that you accept as gospel despite obvious inaccuracies in the claims you say it makes. The middle class is not “nearly gone” - if it’s shrunk at all (which is debatable since there is no clear definition for the term), it’s because so many have moved into the “wealthy” class. US health care is actually quite good - it’s the cost that’s high. But then, in a country with millions of illegals who depend on the system, I think that’s to be expected. Unfortunately, no country has actually solved this equation because it’s not an easy one to solve. Your “biggest debtor” accusation is baseless because we have arguably the highest global standard of living and obviously the wealth to sustain it. Last time I checked, nuclear weapons were not a threat - regimes that would use them are. And it’s not clear to me why having invited military bases around the world is a bad thing… that is, besides our ability to act rapidly, respond to global disasters like recent Tsunamis and earthquakes, and our obligation to protect allied nations. And do remind me by which court the Iraq war is “illegal”? People like you have been forcasting the implosion of the US economy for decades and decades despite the very success that allows people like you to accuse it of being an “empire”. Sour grapes comes to mind, hence my belief that you’re not gainfully employed or have just been unable to succeed for whatever reason. I wish you better luck in the years ahead and the ability to share in the success that so many others have acheived.
By Marshall, May 9, 2007 at 10:03 pm # Oh Max - how much longer will the US economic model be on the “verge of collapse” and how many more socialist economies will bite the dust before you finally admit that ours works? And btw: the US reports its unemployment figures the same way it has for years. But then you most likely represent one of the scant 4.5% that can’t seem to keep a job, making the US the envy of world economies.
By Marshall, May 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm # “The left is in trouble when its campaigns are based more on anxiety about the right than on the hopes that progressives inspire.” Yes, this is an apt description of the left in France as well as in the US. Royal stood on a platform of naive idealism mixed with long discredited socialist values. Sarkozy brings economic (and hopefully foreign policy) realism to France much the way Bush did to US economic policy. I expect that the French economy will reap the rewards just as the US economy has. It’s long overdue.
By C Quil, May 9, 2007 at 10:01 am # Canada didn’t choose Harper. He had 36% of the vote at the time of his election. 64% of Canadians chose centrist, left of centre or regional candidates (Bloc Quebecois). If Canadians had a run-off system like France, he wouldn’t be in power. And, despite a small rise in popularity, mostly engineered by money give-aways to targeted groups, the Conservatives (who aren’t really the Progressive Conservatives, the former “other” party in Canada, but a renamed Reform party - fundamentalist religious, right-wing and corporation backed) Stephen Harper is back to where he was when he was elected, or perhaps a few points lower. Harper is losing ground on his indifference to the fate of Afghan detainees (torture? what torture?), backing the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and mining the country with cluster bombs as a “measured response” when even the Israelis don’t back Olmert any more, and secretive administration. (He won’t answer open questions from the press, only those he approves. The press, in response, are savaging him.) And last but not least is his complete ignorance of the looming climate change disaster. He didn’t even believe it was happening a couple of months ago, although scientists have been issuing warnings for more than thirty years. He has given a complete pass to the industries who produce oil from the oil sands in Alberta. It is horribly destructive to land, water supplies and requires tons of natural gas to extract. Alberta and the oil bigwigs are some of his main backers. This “industry” is the single greatest producer of greenhouse gases. The U.S. imports more oil from Canada than from any other country in the world, including Saudi Arabia. And, although Canada is a net oil exporter, it still imports from other countries because a previous Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, a great friend of Regan, locked Canada into a deal that puts its own energy supply in a distant second place to the U.S. requirements. Canada does not even have strategic reserves. If anything happens, it is, to put it mildly, screwed. Also, although more that 85% of eligible voters went to the polls in France, more than 20% of the ballots were deliberately left blank or spoiled. The difference between the two candidates was less than 10%.
By MItchell P., May 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm # Great article. Sarko may be considered “right-wing” in France, but were he a politician in the US he’d probably be a centre-left Democrat. Something to consider before calling him a “neo-con.” Although the French like to call him “Sarkozy the American,” he’s got more in common with Tony Blair than he has with Bush or Republicans. Also, I disagree that Sarko won for fear of immigrants or violence. Sarko may not be perfect, but he presented a more cohesive economic program than Sego did. His ideas may sound “republican,” but they also may work. I think what we see in France is pragmatism over idealogy. Sometimes people have to put their idealogies aside and vote for a program that will produce results. Royal offered nothing but expensive gov’t programs & no plan to pay for it. Sarko offered the French an opportunity to work harder, earn more, and take responsibility for improving their lots. Needless to say, they took it.
By kagaka, May 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm # Ideal vs Real politics- I don’t think the left ever traditionally promissed economic growth as much as an evening of the playing field. To accept growth as the first and foremost criterion for measuring the health or success of an economic policy is to cede to the neo-liberal right the entire debate of how the economy should be measure; by one single abstraction (growth in GDP) that masks many blemishes; or by a larger basket such as life expectancy, child poverty, measures of contentment, literacy, and overall healthcare. The core problem with the modern left, by which I intend Social Democrats, Socialists, and Leftish Democrats in the US, is that they still embody two of the better elements of humanism. First, they adhere to a cartesian sense of doubt, which impels them to review again and again their principles and conclusions. Second, they are at heart idealists who believe government exists to serve *all* of the governed. Government has a duty to soften the pain of hard times, to even out class advantages and disadvantagse, and to aid and encourage the disadvantaged. Compare this to the radical totalitarian left and to the rightwing economic neo-liberals. These traditional rivals of the modern democratic left, both feel they have reached irrefutable scientific truths in economic theory and policy. They both are righteous in their beliefs. They both feel that since they own “the truth” all means are acceptable to hold on to power and enrich themselves. This includes demonizing minorities, foreigners, and creating exclusive factions at the expense of the larger society. For the right it also includes tarring the democratic left with the failures and fallacies of their totalitarian cousins.
By writeon, May 8, 2007 at 9:15 am # In Europe in general the “Right” has found a magical, golden key, to the doorway of Power. Put simply, it’s the fear of “immigrants” which is the decisive factor, the factor that tips the scales away from the “Left” which is regarded as being “soft” on immigrants. Put very bluntly, “immigrants” are the new Jews. In the same way that fear of Jews was a central part of Hitler’s appeal. This sounds very, overly, dramatic; but in essence I believe we’re dealing with the same basic attitudes. In a time of great change, of puzzling and frightening change, and challanges, people often seek scapegoats. In Europe the scapegoats are immigrants.
By anonymous, May 8, 2007 at 9:04 am # Seems like a lot of simple rationales for a lot of complex events. I’m not convinced the media ever gets it right when explaining why people win or lose elections. I’ve never been asked why I voted like I did. The story used to be that Canada chose Harpur because of Martin’s scandals. Are the French more likely to vote for a woman than we are? I never heard it questioned. If you say “Bush sucks!”, don’t you win anywhere? I didn’t know much before I read the column and don’t feel like I know any more now.
By James Yell, May 8, 2007 at 7:11 am # While Sarkozy won a clear majority, it was a simple majority and not some huge shift in public opinion. The best government is one which is defined by an enforced Bill of Rights, which limits even the amount of power of the majority. Economically balanced between socialism and market economy. Wages should be realistically defined and a nations interests should not be sold off to the highest bidder. Internationalism sounds nice, but we should all be warned when Intenationalism becomes a code word for investment and production moved out of country to avoid their responsibilities to their home countries. We have the power to block export of wealth to off shore banks, require corporate offices to be located in the United States. Cheney in my opinion is the poster boy of this Corporate Internationalism, a lawless gangster who uses foreign dummy corporations to hide his enrichment by dealing with countries he encourages us to think are enemy states. In my opinion Cheney is a man without a country and I for one would not be surprised to see him move out of the US at the end of his term, taking bags of money created by his terms as vice president. Add Your Comment |
|
Huckabee’s Major Misfire
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article