'Progressive' Silicone Valley

Joel Kotkin has a pretty good piece concerning how the leftward shift of silicone valley could destabilize the democratic party.  For all the claims that republicans are the party of big business interests, and it isn't entirely without historical merit given that the the northeast had been its' traditional base until their political shift in the late 1960's, it becomes bit harder to maintain such a stance when you consider that the many of the most influential and wealthiest companies, and the leaders of those companies, in the United States are following a decidedly progressive line.  But progressive ideology has limits when it comes to many and the elite who run these companies are more than willing to advocate policies that are decidedly progressive when it suits their interest.

Joel postulates that this disconnect between the nominally progressive technology leaders and other parts of their base could be difficult to reconcile.  Historically there is every reason to believe that this will happen considering that political parties are simply amalgamation of interest groups and that the focus of the party is driven by the interest group that wields the most influence.  The republican party, despite all the rhetoric of the party as the conservative party, used to be quiet progressive relative to the time.  Party focus and allegiances change and this will happen within our lifetimes.  The real question is how?

Joel notes that the wages have dropped for black and latino minorities in silicon valley cities despite the wealth generated by those mega-tech firms.  While there is a possibility that the growing disconnect could cause an electoral revolt within the ranks, I am skeptical to a degree given how blacks are wedded to the democratic party despite historic racism and the empirically terrible results of their policies and the rapidly waning influence of unions throughout the country. At the same time there could be a general shift if working class individuals begin to see not only the failure of progressive politics, but also the hypocrisy of those elites.  This could potentially be a chance for republicans but I would consider it a remote one at this point and time. Most importantly, even if this did happen why should we care?  Unless the elites of the republican party actually begin to see a benefit of classical liberal ideology outside of the rhetorical, then a shift from the democrats to the republicans wouldn't actually mean a whole lot.

Please No

I don't have as high a distaste for nepotism as the Captain, his feelings on the matter are well known and his rants legendary, and it probably is more align with Aurini's view on the matter.  But one thing I hate seeing is political careers that are started on nothing more than the family name.  That is why speculation like this gets my blood pressure up, it's not that she announces that she is considering running for office one day,and I assume an hard line progressive statist (she will and is.). Nor is it that she is related by blood to two politicians.  If that were the case I would have to predisposed against Rand Paul but I am not; largely because I think he does a pretty decent job.

It's because she will probably win solely on her name, by virtue of running in an area that is solidly in her camp. She will, most likely anyways, have to run on nothing more than her parents name and a few leftist platitudes.  This is what angers me. She will win, not because she will have run a better campaign or articulated a better vision for America, but because no one is going to run against a Clinton in the heart of blue territory. Not to excessively draw parallels to Rand Paul, but could anyone imagine a Clinton, Bush or a Kennedy doing what he did, facing the opposition he did, or even having the balls to run against his own party? I can't.

Ultimately I think this is another great argument as to why we need term limits. Because what is going to happen is that Chelsea Clinton will win whatever office she for, outside an any office were she would actually have to compete, and will probably squat in that position for as long as she can.  Now I know it is too much to hope for a libertarian leaning Clinton but maybe, just maybe she will actually display real qualities of leadership; after all it really shouldn't be too hard to surpass her father. But given the reality distortion field she has probably lived in her entire life I am very doubtful.  Maybe we should just have our elected office filled up via lottery, after all, I can't imagine how Joe or Jane American would do any worse a job than our current crop of elected leaders.

Bill Introduced In Texas That Will Give Tax Breaks To Companies That Violate Obamacare

The headline says it all. I am not going to make much of this, considering that dozens, if not hundreds, of bills are introduced in state legislators that never see the light of day outside of their first proposal. However, if this bill does gain traction, then it would be another interesting development in the growing rift between the states, and the federal government.

White House Intimidation Backfires

A white house aide didn't like what a reporter was going to write and wrote an email that the reporter considered a veiled threat, however, when the reporter is the guy who broke the water gate scandal, you probably aren't going to intimidate him so much as piss him off.

Presidential Politics: Obama's Power Class

Joel Kotkin has a great article talking about how the clerisy, as he calls the conglomeration of academia, government bureaucrats, and information and 'green' companies, will benefit from Obama's second term. What is also interesting is the rivalling power class, traditional big business, bankers, and other east coast institutions, had benefited greatly under Obama, but backed Romney anyways. In some ways you could call their backing an attempted fail coup, but this is normal in politics.

While the results of the presidential election matter little for everyday Americans, since Romney and Obama didn't really differ that much on policies that would have actually affected the average American, the elections are a big deal for the power class. It serves as a good reminder that the halls of power are not occupied by one set of elite, but like the scheming feudal lords of old, different groups of 'nobility' each vying for their own influence.  Banks and traditional business, lost this round. Academia, bureaucrats and green industries have won big time.

Fiscal Cliff Nonesense

Congratulations congress and American media, your cowardice, capitol hill myopia, and complete inability to do simple economic analysis has resulted in the fiscal cliff being averted; not at all! As Vox Populi correctly ascertains, they are simply kicking the can down the road.  And here is how pathetic congress is; I don't even have to read the bill to know that this is what it will not do, as our government is incapable of doing anything remotely close to actual governing:

1. It will not raise government revenues as I have pointed out before.
2. It will not actually decrease government spending; merely slow down the rate of increase
3. It will continue the crowding out of the private sector.

I can't say I am surprised the GOP caved; a party that couldn't muster a measly $ 100 billion of spending cuts out of a budget that was increased by over a trillion dollars only a few years ago isn't really fiscally conservative. I am a bit surprised on how fast the house caved, not even a couple day fight, but then I have heard from others that I shouldn't be surprised by this. And in truth those that say that are right.

Regardless how this had gone, the writing is already on the wall, and has been for quiet some time (in my mind it was secured after Ron Paul failed to garner the GOP candidacy). This is just another reminder, among many other instances in the past, that there is no such thing as a 'conservative', party in America.  Lip service is given to the constitution; all the while the jackals slowly dismantle it to the peoples indifference, or in some cases, enthusiastic approval. Talks about fiscal responsibility are nothing more than honeyed poison from the tongues of vipers. Expect to see many more betrayals in the near future. We are entering the end game, and the wolves will begin to take off their sheep's clothing.

The 5 Nations Of America

As I have said in my blog post, and in numerous other posts in other blogger's blogs, I would expect the partition of the United States to be a disaster for a variety of reasons; none the least being that the real divide in America currently is rural versus urban, but I am digressing.

Here interesting article by Joel Koetkin were he writes about the '5 nations' of America.  Now these nations aren't based on any racial cultural demographics, and really aren't multiple nations like there are say in the United Kingdom, and we should probably add a few more nations for the increasingly Latino southwest and mix raced Hawaii if we added a demographic view to it, rather they are based on geographic, economic, and political guidelines.

The nations, while mostly ignoring racial, religious, and urban versus rural make ups, are generally split into who they voted for in 2008 and their economic prospects.  Joel Koetkins essentially makes these points:

1. Given that both parties can reliably count on the two nations, each one is generally seeing larger and larger control of their respective regions, the rust belt becomes the fulcrum point on how national elections, and from there policy, will turn.
2. The conservative nations are seeing far stronger economic and population growth relative to the liberal nations. Kotkin has said that despite short term set backs for republicans the long term state population growth demographics favor republicans; someone like Vox would disagree.
3. Depending on what the president does on fracking, which heavily affects the rust belt states, it could evaporate democrats gains in this region of the country.

Now it is very apparent that Joel doesn't ascribe to the racial demographic outlook wherea someone like Vox does. I myself am on the fence, like I have said before, I have never been what you call a race realist, but I am a cultural one. Certain cultures are superior to others and human societal evoluition is proof of this, and no amount of verbosity by those who find those ideas distasteful will change my mind. And as much as I hate to admit it, at times, Vox, and others like him, make some salient points. I don't think having a multiracial America is a negative, it isn't inherently positive either.  Whether immigration is a fountainhead of our power or a deluge that will drown America is up to America as a society.  However that is also another discussion, back to the issue at hand.

The larger than normal growth for the red states may simply be conservative and libertarian leaning individuals leaving the states that they tolerated only because of economic incentives.  Liberals are also leaving for the red nations, but I am willing to wager that they generally have been moving to states that have always leaned somewhat less right than others.  If the growth of the red states is predominately a shifting of individuals with differing political opinions, then this could possibly change the divide from an urban and rural one to an actual geopgraphic one; which would make Vox's prediction more likely.

On the other hand, if it is simply a migration of individuals, regardless of political creed, to better performing areas, then the divide that currently exists doesn't change. Moreover, what happens to blue states as their population drops? Will they remain blue, or will they undergo a metamorphosis? I think it would be a mistake to assume, as so many do, that once a state goes blue, it remains blue.  Once again, I will stress that this discounts certain demographic trends due to immigration and individuals varying beliefs on immigration, but the other point that needs to be taken into account, and which Joel Kotkin has pointed out before, is that conservatives are out breeding liberals.

It is entirely possible, however improbable it may appear, that even if red states start to blue we could see a general reddening of the country. Demographics is destiny, it is why China is in deep trouble, Why the Russia 100 years from now may not look like Russia today, why Japans civilization itself is threatened, and why the American progressive agenda might not survive the 21st century in America.

Now whether that means that America by virtue of demographics returns to a more constitutionally oriented society, assuming that either republican assumptions about the social conservativeness of Latinos are correct, or that if they are wrong and Latino immigration rates fall, or increased civil strife, like Vox predicts, remains to be seen. But one thing stands clear in my mind, the future of the United States, as a nation, as a society, and a civilization, depends on who is right about the effects immigration and immigrants; and what we as a nation do depending on who is right.

Legislators Starting To See How Dire Crisis Is

Yes he is a small time legislator from an arguably from an unimportant, electorally, state. But individuals should take note when members of the leadership not only recognize the crisis; but act on it.

Paul Ryan Selected As Romney's VP Candidate. And This Makes No Difference To Me

I know that the circle of blogs that I frequent have differing opinions about Ryan's selection by Romney. To be frank, I am surprised at the level of excitement. I myself cannot muster the same amount of excitement that I have read about.  The fact is, I wasn't planning on voting for Romney and Ryan's selection has not changed this plan one iota. Bear with me as  I explain why.

Ever since my brief stint as a delegate in my congressional district for the republican presidential primaries I have intentionally not paid attention to the presidential race. It was a blissful period that has been temporarily suspended with the news that Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee. Some of my republican coworkers, my family, and even some bloggers I follow are ecstatic, or at the very least optimistic, about the selection of Paul Ryan.  I can see why it galvanizes many republicans.  But the fact is that I am not going to vote for the Romney Ryan ticket.  Here is why.

For most individuals who believe themselves conservatives Paul Ryan is a strict budget hawk.  However, for true fiscal conservatives his plan is severely underwhelming.  Even if his plan was followed to the letter, and assuming our economic growth was in line with his plans projections, then after ten years we would still be running a 287 billion dollar deficit.  This means that for over ten years we would be added to our national debt by about 4 trillion dollars.

And let us not forget the absurdity of doing budgets over the course of ten years.  There is no way to forecast economic growth or even anticipate the fiscal prudence of multiple administrations. How long did the last balanced budget, that only exist on paper, last? Moreover, to add salt to the wound, he projects an increase in the governments share of our GDP from where it stands now.  Yes his plan is better than Obama's, but that is hardly a tough criteria to beat.  I am tired of half and partial measures when real action is necessary. If you really care about fiscally responsible government then Paul Ryan, compared to fiscal heavy weights like Ron Paul, and his son Rand Paul, is a relative light weight.

Many other libertarians or peace minded conservatives will take umbrage with Paul Ryan's stronger stance on defense.  That doesn't bother me. Not because our current defense spending is unsustainable, it is, but because I recognize that there is little change that can be done.  While Ron Paul spoke of closing all, or rather most, of America's overseas bases, ending foreign involvement via funding and secret dealings; I knew that even if he were president he would be able to accomplish very little of that goal.

The other reason why I am less than enthused is, that despite the fact that he is among a small group of republican party members I actually like, he did after all try to put together a plan when so many other so called conservative congressmen didn't even bother, he will most likely have little impact in the Romney administration.  Dick Chaney's vice-presidency is an anomaly in what otherwise is a very weak office whose influence is minimal at best. The vice-presidency is more useful as a springboard to the presidency, 5 presidents since the 1930's were once vice presidents, than an actual office from which policy can dictated and shaped.  Romney's selection of Ryan is simply a move, an admittedly shrewd one, to galvanize enthusiasm for a campaign that needs it if they are to face Obama. And if you vote for Romney based off of your expecations of Ryans roll in the administration, then I think you will end up being disappointed.

The final reason has little to do with Ryan or Romney and more to do with the party in general.  The republican party has shown that they are completely unable to exercise any sort of real fiscal conservatism, or any sort of conservatism in general, outside of mere plattitudes and promises.  The GOPs actions these last few years has shown that the tea partys' affect has been minimal.  If it had, then the the GOP would never had the gall to try and pass their pitiful budget plan and the presidential primary would have been a little bit different.

Ron Paul's candidacy was always a long shot, and I never expected him to win the nomination, but I did expect him to have a strong showing.  And the fact is that he did have a strong showing, and indeed it would have been stronger if it weren't for the party malfeasance during the primaries.  Now I need to make this clear, I am not pulling this out of my rear, I saw this ill-doing and vote scheming in action as I was selected to be a delegate and represent my district for the next round of voting before the state delegate selection.

The party actively did all it could to make sure that anyone they suspected of being a delegate in the camp of Dr. Paul would not be able to attend.  I received numerous messages from our district leaders about how dates and locations had changed, when in fact they had not.  Moreover, at the district convention itself, the chairperson tried to game the system, and if it weren't for a mass revolt by the delegates, Paul supporter, Romney supporters, and others, then the caucus leaders would have completely shut out all the Ron Paul supporters.

I was utterly disgusted by the spectacle that I saws and realized that the GOP had not learned it's lesson and has become utterly corrupted even at the lower levels.  Whether you agree with Dr. Paul or not, the fact is that he espouses the views for a not so insignificant portion of the republican party, and of the nation as a whole. There have been many instances like this, the Goldwater movement, the Reagan election, Ross Perot's third party bid, the electoral revolution of 94, and the tea party movement.  And the one thing I have noticed with these movements is that the libertarian wing of it has gotten stronger with each incarnation. I remember that at our little convention that even some delegate veterans were astounded by not only the youths that showed up for Dr. Paul, but minorities as well.  And the fact that the GOP party treated the man and his supporters the way that they did has shown that they are, not only willing to risk future losses for short term games, but also incapable of seeing which way the wind is blowing.  The libertarian wing is growing, and it utterly confounds me that a party that often argues the need for cooperation between conservatives and libertarians did everything in their power to make libertarians want even less to do with the party. Now more than ever real conservative principals are not only seen as viable, but increasingly popular amongst large swaths of America.

This alone makes me to not want to vote for the GOP candidate simply as a giant 'screw you' to a party that has long since stopped caring about true conservative principals.  I could care less who occupies the office of president, be he democrat or republican, as long as good sound long term policies are implemented.  The GOPs pitiful 100 billion dollar spending cut pledge shows that the party cannot do this.  However, there is a growing minority that remembers what true republican, the idea not the party, virtue is within the GOP. And that is the final reason why I am not voting for Romney.

A lot of bloggers on the manosphere have wrote about the coming economic correction, or what I think of as the final chapter in the depression we are currently in.  This final chapter, if it were to happen, will have long term socioeconomic and political ramifications and I have become convinced that this event cannot be avoided. Even the election of Ron Paul as president probably could not have avoided this even, though the even would certainly be less painful. And I am now thinking about what comes after.  I see two scenarios playing out.  Either we recollect and reorganize ourselves along more republican style principals, or we continue down the path of statism, and true imperialism. The Great Depression was the kind of even that drastically, and fundamentally, altered the nation. It resulted in a government that further strengthened and accelerated the movement towards socialist styled policies that began at the turn of the 19th century.


I do not see how this event, the final chapter in economic collapse, cannot happen by 2016.  We've been in global economic turmoil for over half a decade and the pot continues to boil. It has to boil over, and when it does believe me it matters who is in charge. Because if the democrats are in charge then there is no way they cannot shift the blame away from their socialist policies. Yes they will blame a likely republican controlled congress, but I expect those attempts to fail. However, if Romney is in charge then you will hear no end to how it was a lack of government, no matter how false, that caused this collapse. 

If that is the case, then expect to see an even stronger shift towards populism and authoritative government, like what we have seen in Europe and Latin America.  We have seen how that story ends, and it doesn't end well.

I recognize that there are individuals who will disagree with my decision to not vote for Romney because it will benefit Obama.  Believe me it is not easy considering the disaster that I think a second term will be. But the fact is I am thinking about the longer term consequences and I don't want to inadvertently hurt the long term movement towards a return to true American principals for the sake of some perceived short term gain.  And having participated in two presidential elections already I know this to be true. Voting for someone simply because they are republican and hoping that they will implement real conservative policies is wishful naivete. Just look out how former President Bush's presidency turned out, he usurped the free market in order to save it in his own words.  Never again.

Stratfor: Europe Hardens on Immigration

For decades Europe ignored the legitimate fears being raised about unfettered immigration.  Now they are seeing a rise in nationalistic governments.  Now I don't view nationalism as a positive or a negative, it simply is.  It is an extension of the tribal mentality that every human being has whether we want to admit it or not.  People identify with groups, be it a small tribe of hundred or a nation of a hundred million. But nationalism can get out of hand, we saw this at the beginning of the last century.

What we are seeing now is force that could spell the death of the European Union.  Governments are now starting to actively act within their own national best interest, despite the fact that it would violate, if not legally, then conceptually of the European Union. Yet there are lessons for the United States, which have always done a better job with assimilation, to take head.  If the US continues to not enforce the laws* that it has towards illegal immigration it will face the same sort of unrest.

*As I have said before I am all for a revision of the laws on our books. It is absurdly difficult for people, many of whom would be very productive, to come here legally.  People are human capital, and as I will state in a later post, there will be a battle for human capital in the future.