From: roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Subject: Re: American Election
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.57.1, GNUS 3.13, NNTP 3.10
	<1992Sep7.231457.14795@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:21:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.231457.14795@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> 
dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:

>roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes: 
>> If you track the policies espoused by the dominant faction of the 
>> Democratic party, (ie., the liberal wing), you will find, over the last 
>> 40 years, the following trends:
>> 
>> 1) Growing protectionist tendencies.  This is BAD for China (and the US 
>>    too, BTW).  And all it will take to stifle the growing trade 
>>    interdependence between China and the US is one piece of sufficiently 
>>    protectionist legislation passing the Democrat-controlled House and 
>>    Senate, and being signed into law by a President (Clinton, for the 
>>    sake of argument) who has *openly* espoused protectionist aims (I 
>>    refer to a recent speech in Michigan).  
>> 
>> 2) Growing isolationism.  Again, bad for US-China relations.  

>I thought the liberal ideology and protectionism are inconsistent.

They were .. 40 years ago.  The nature of liberal thinking has changed, 
and not for the better, IMO.  

I think (i.e., I _guess_) that Vietnam and Nixon polarized political 
thinking in this country.  But _some_ of the Conservatives felt they 
had to rethink their politics.  This lead, IMO, to both a tendency 
towards anti-statism in _some_ conservatives (a good thing IMO .. 
statists give me the shivers) and the unholy ( :-) alliance between the 
Republican party and the fundamentalist Christians (a _bad_ thing, IMO).  

But the Liberals, for the most part, did _not_ do any rethinking.  And 
the logical conclusion of FDR's (_neccessary_) New Deal programs is 
statism and protectionism (Michigan auto jobs are seen to be more 
important than free trade _or_ well-made cars).  I am not saying that 
FDR would have espoused these views .. only that _NO_ political view 
should be carried to its 'logical conclusion'.  Every once in a while, 
ALL political parties should take apart their positions and rebuild 
them from scratch, using the present circumstances as a guide.  

>Protectionism is a better fit for Pat Buke.  

But Buchanon (sp?) represents, IMO, what the Republican party was 40 
years ago than what it is today.  

>> 3) Growing geopolitical cluelessness.  

>No evidence.  What about Carter's credit on the Middle East peace process?

>> 4) Growing economic cluelessness.  Remember the Carter recession ?  
>>    Brrrrr !  The Liberal wing of the Democratic party has a loooong 
>>    track record of economic idiocy.  I agree, the Conservatives are 
>>    only marginally better, but at least they know what an economy is !

>You apparently accepted the conservative explanation of "economic ideocy".
>It's not like black and white on how much the government should interfere.
>In an economy free growing period, government control will limit the grow and
>even slow it down, that's what happened in Carter's time.  But in the
>time of recession, only more investment (or spending in conservative's words)
>can stimulate the economy, so the traditional Democratic economics will work.

Of coure, its not black and white.  

But Carter _did_ allow too much interference.  And the later recovery was 
on too narrow a base (i.e., defense).  

But 'more investment' is possible only when the money is there to invest.  
And Democratic politics have evolved towards higher taxation, which tends 
to _reduce_ investment.  

>> 
>> 5) An growing tendency to link things like trade sanctions to perceived 
>>    human rights abuses, when in fact trade sanctions have *never* in my 
>>    memory corrected such abuses.  It wasn't Bush who pushed for 
>>    revocation of MFN for China.  And Clinton has tied his political 
>>    fortunes to the folks who did !  Think about it !!!  

>I believe trade sanction is a positive factor in South Africa's progress.

I disagree.  IMO, the collapse of Soviet support for the regimes in 
Angola, Ethiopia, and elsewhere in Africa, and the cessation of Soviet 
destabilization, made it possible for the liberal factions in South 
African politics to finally capture power.  _Then_ the reforms began.  

>dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman