rightwingsocialist: Big Bed Buddies

rightwingsocialist: Big Bed Buddies: "I am always surprised at how big business is so willing to get in bed with big government. For people who are supposedly all about fre..."

rightwingsocialist: Of vacuums and regime changes

rightwingsocialist: Of vacuums and regime changes: "Regime change is a many sided thing. The biggest problem with it is what happens when you take the existing leader out. In Egypt..."

Of vacuums and regime changes

Regime change is a many sided thing.  The biggest problem with it is what happens when you take the existing leader out.  In Egypt, there was the structure of government, assured by the military, that allows for some sense of transition including elections, we hope free.  In countries like England and Australia a government may fall, but the opposition operates a shadow government that is ready to step in.  When the Shah fell in Iran there was a government, however repressive that was ready to go.  In the first Gulf War one of the reasons we did not take Hussein out was there was not one to replace him.  We did not heed that in the second Gulf War.  In Libya, who will take the place of the current dictator?  There is no government in exile ready step in.  We do not even now who to talk to among the rebel forces.  A vacuum created like this is most apt to be filled with someone more repressive or just with ongoing civil war

Big Bed Buddies

I am always surprised at how big business is so willing to get in bed with big government.  For people who are supposedly all about free market competition, too many CEO's are very willing to have major government regulation of their industry.  The real purpose is to stifle competition, especially from smaller more nimble companies.  One need only go back at look at the behavior of companies during the Roosevelt era. The big boys supported the NRA (not the national rifle association but the national recovery act)  Big business could afford the price of regulation, the small companies could not.  Regulation became a competitive advantage is a perverse way.  We see the same thing today with the support of the over reach of the government if regulating farms.  Agribusiness can afford it.  The independents cannot.  The small organic farmers will be forced to sell at much higher prices because they cannot spread the cost of regulation the way Agribusiness can.  This jumping into the government bed by business is a form of Fascism that we do not like to admit.

How Pure?

Several of my conservative friends, especially those who say they are of the tea party bent, seem to be insisting on ideological purity before they will call a potential candidate a conservative.  Beyond general platitudes about balanced budgets, I cannot seem to get anyone to say how pure is pure enough.  Such a stance could be costly to conservatives.  A little history is in order.  James Buchanan was elected president because some Whigs could not support their candidate who owned slaves but who was opposed to the extension of slavery.  Buchanan sided with the South, supported the Dred Scott decision, did not act when the South took over Federal forts.  He helped bring on the Civil War.  :Purity got in the way of good judgment.
If a conservative, but not conservative enough candidate is nominated for President in 2012, will the "pure" conservative stay away?  Will they run their own candidate and thus assure a Democratic victory.  Are they willing to pay that kind of price for the sake of ideological holiness?