If you were the one who read my post entitled Upside Down, you may have noticed a commenter who shares my aversion to brevity. I mentioned that I had no intention of prolonging the discussion but he wrote back anyway.
I was impressed by his total misjudgment of me, as well as how far off the mark were his definitions. I decided to offer his most recent comment with my opinions and corrections. Although edited for length and tedium, I have not, I think, done violence to his missive.
I may be wrong, but you sound just like a Blue Dog Democrat formerly known as “Yellow Dog Democrats”, i.e., “I’d vote for a Yellow Dog before I’d vote for a Republican”.
Yes, you are wrong, on more than one count. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The Democrats have no homogeneous perspective. That hinders effective action. The Republicans rely on simpleminded cant that has been proven harmful. I am a populist.
There were many ‘Yellow Dog Democrats.’ They were so grateful for what FDR did for them and so angry at what the Republicans did to them that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They are much fewer in number now as memory fades and that generation is dying out. ‘Blue Dog Democrats’ are those who consider themselves social Democrats but see themselves as fiscally conservative. It is not a matter of “formerly known as.” There was no semantic change.
Many, of course, have converted to “realism”, a realization that the electorate was moving away from “loyalty oaths” and complete Democratic control.
I have tried to make sense of that sentence, without success. There is no complete Democratic control, although the electorate moved in that direction, not away. I am unaware of any loyalty oaths, other than to the Constitution.
And I can talk until I’m blue in the face about the astounding turn of fiscal events in America and not change it one whit. I use the word “astounding” with all the power that word conjures up. “New ground,” as we say in the South, “is being plowed.” I just hope we all will not be plowed under.
It’s true the economy will not change dependent upon the color of your face. I fail, however, to see the situation as astounding. The general outline of the failure of regressive economics was predictable. The speed with which it became generally apparent was a bit surprising but, since it began in 1981, it took longer than competent economists might have expected to hit us with its full force.
We will be plowed under if we depend on the private sector to correct the problem. Every policy implemented by the Hoover Administration was in line with such laissez faire nonsense. Every policy they tried drove the economy deeper into the toilet.
Okay, let’s drop the debate about FDR’s Great Depression. I lived through it and knew nothing of the politics involved although I remember liking Wendell Willkie very much. But it seems a shame that the depression lingered on for far too long. The question of “why” is an issue we do not agree on.
I was also a child of the Depression. I scavenged and sold scrap metal for a penny a pound during WWII. I still do not understand the need for reference to Willkie but do understand how a child of that age might be impressed by him. The Depression lingered because of more than 3 years of Hoover’s regressive policies, FDR’s going off course momentarily at the end of his first term and the domino effect of the Smoot-Hawley protectionist act of 1930.
Unlike you who have actually served in elective office (I did try, though) and who apparently did not read the legislation you approved (who has the time to read all that “stimulus package” stuff anyway?) I was keenly aware of pending legislation, how my opponent voted and what were the likely consequences of that vote.
Holding political office is far more than reading and voting on legislation. It is listening to and aiding constituents. It is explaining options and policies. It is a myriad of non-glamorous, non-public tasks. Staff is there to find and point out positives, problems and gotchas. Too many politicians are overly engrossed in getting reelected or padding their bank account to read legislation. Whatever the reason, those thousands of pages of legalese are seldom read by the politicians. Sorry, but that is the real world.
One other correction: Wilson Dam was operational before 1942 and it was the center of the most significant vote on TVA’s constitutionality in 1938.
My bad. Wilson Dam was the first operational dam for TVA. It was built between 1918 and 1924 and acquired by TVA in 1933. Those built by TVA started coming on line in 1942. I am uncertain as to how you construe “most significant” and why the constitutionality of a dam built by the government 20 years previously would be so characterized.
Here’s how the TVA is a reminder that government alone can get us out of this recession (near depression). While TVA provided some good construction but short-term jobs there was nothing left to sustain that work just as the CCC and other make-work programs when finished left no on-going economic base. Only private enterprise can do that.
TVA continues to provide nearly 13,000 jobs 76 years after it was created. Thousands upon thousands have retired from TVA. TVA does not sell power directly to the public. It sells to public utilities. Those utilities employ even more people than does TVA. Building the economy of the Valley made it attractive to private enterprise that would otherwise not have come in. By the way, FDR first begged private enterprise to build it. They refused.
Since private enterprise was decreasing, then as now, they weren’t producing any jobs, much less good jobs. CCC and other programs created a significant part of the infrastructure we have enjoyed for 70 years but now needs replacing. Those programs put money into the economy that allowed people to purchase goods and services from private enterprise. Ask those 5 million plus waiting for their unemployment checks if private enterprise creates permanent jobs.
Though not under FDR, the Interstate System created jobs, infrastructure and private enterprise opportunities. Perhaps you should temporarily suspend your lack of faith in government and ride on it, or use electricity from the power grid FDR provided, or even take a flight along the byways the FCC created. If you want to have a picnic, check the weather. Those things are nice, even though they don’t provide jobs as private enterprise does.
And one last question – where does the money to pay for all these grandiose public projects come from? If you say government, that only can mean the printing of more money and more taxes. Obama seems to think you can get blood from a stone.
All legal American money comes from the government. That other stuff is called counterfeit. When the economy gets smaller, we can let it stay small (permanent depression) or pump money into it. The problem would not have been so massive if not for the debt accumulated via spending and tax cuts when the economy had no need of stimulation. Obama may be right. He may be wrong. But, he certainly can’t get jobs out of private enterprise right this moment.
And oh yes, have you heard one mention of the U.S. Constitution in any of his statements?
I often heard Bush and others in his administration speaking of the Constitution, as though they were familiar with it. Obama’s day job was as a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows it. He is comfortable with it. What is the Constitutional problem anyway? Is it unConstitutional to spend money? What about lowering taxes for 95% of the people? Bringing the troops home, perhaps? Is it unConstitutional to be a Democrat?
Sorry, I missed the “The Rocky Horror …etc.” movie. I’m waiting for the flick that some brave producer will come up with, Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged. You might want to re-read the book in light of present circumstances; Orwell’s”1984” also.
One person’s masterpiece is another person’s drivel. The movie is tentatively scheduled for production in 2011. The shadow of plaigerism still hangs over the book as it has quite a bit in common with a book published in 1922. There is no reason to reread it. It’s lack of coherence or connection to logic and reality has not changed, regardless of present circumstances.
One more thing, I am not “obsessed” as you clinically infer with the TVA. But I do have a passion for the U.S. Constitution and the implications another “TVA” might have on American society.
I apologize for characterizing you as obsessed with TVA. Looking again at your web site, it was only the first 51 articles that were devoted to that subject.
The Crusader
P.S.
If you print this I’ll know that you still are listening (ha!)
Are you sure that you want me to listen?
{ 1 comment }
Sorry for not furthering the discussion, but I just wanted to say thank you for the insightful post.
Comments on this entry are closed.