QUINN ON WRIGLEY AND FORMER ALDERMAN SMITH, CAR SALES AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND AN HISTORIC ANALOGY FOR TODAY’S CHINA

6/6/14

Today is the 70^th anniversary of D-Day.  Last summer, we were in France (See my seminal travelogue, CLARK GRISWOLD, MR. PEABODY, AND ME, http://mightyquinnpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/08/clark-griswold-mr-peabody-and-me.html) and visited the beaches and the American cemetery in Normandy.  At the expense of sounding sacrilegious, if I don’t ever see Paris again, it won’t break my heart.  But Normandy is another story; if you can, please try to get there.   You’ll learn a lot, hopefully pray a lot, and maybe cry a little.  And you will appreciate what those guys gave us.  At the expense of sounding comparatively trite, the countryside and the villages of Normandy are also stunningly beautiful; I told our tour guide the farm boys from Iowa who landed at Normandy probably felt right at home.   I don’t think she appreciated the sentiment.

I thought I’d be able to write a lot more this week, but things got busy, though I’m not quite sure with what.  I did manage to write three posts on widely varying topics, however…

WRIGLEY AND THE CUBS:  A FORMER ALDERMAN ENLIGHTENS THE BENIGHTED RICKETTS FAMILY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/06/wrigley-field-and-the-chicago-cubs-a-former-alderman-enlightens-benighted-ricketts-family/

The politicians know everything, don’t you see?

HUGE MAY CAR SALES:  “I SAW A CADILLAC SIGN SAYIN’ ‘NO MONEY DOWN’…”

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/05/huge-may-car-sales-i-saw-a-cadillac-sign-sayin-no-money-down/

The seemingly prescient Chuck Berry, the father of rock’n’roll, saw today’s car financing situation way back in 1956.

A "COERCIVE AND PROVOCATIVE” CHINA?   LESSONS FROM HISTORY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/02/a-coercive-and-provocative-china-lessons-from-history/

To quote a guy who was okay but who couldn’t carry the aforementioned Mr. Berry’s guitar case, I’m lookin’ at the man in the mirror when I read about China.

Have a great weekend, everybody, and say a prayer for the boys of Normandy.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

CPAC: CAN’T PLACATE A (GENUINE) CONSERVATIVE

3/17/13

The annual bleating of banalities known as the “Conservative” Political Action Conference (“CPAC”) has finally wound to a close.   So what is a genuine conservative to make of this parade of pabulum?

First, any “conservative” conference that eschews Chris Christie while embracing Sarah Palin is guilty of gross misrepresentation to those of us who believe in the sane and reasoned application of conservative principles to the challenges of government.  (See my 2/28/13 post CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY.) Further, excluding the most popular conservative in the country while highlighting a national laughingstock, a walking, talking tribute to the rejection of reason and intelligence in favor of naked, unchecked emotion and gormless reaction shows why the “conservative” movement has effectively committed suicide in this country but is somehow convinced that it must dig an even deeper hole to bury its own sorry carcass.

Second, who in the world can spend an entire three days listening to political speeches?   The terms “substantive” and “political speech” have become inherently contradictory over the last, oh, fifty or so years after skating on thin ice together since the dawn of time.   And how can a “conservative,” who, at least in the past, by definition rejected the efficacy of political solutions in a free society and a free economy, eagerly seek salvation from…politicians and government?   Even yours truly, who admittedly spends far too much time thinking about politics and government, cannot listen to a politician, even a rare politician for whom I have a modicum of respect, expel hot air for more than, say, three minutes or so.  To sit there and listen to these carnival barkers for three days and to call one’s self a conservative should induce some soul-searching among those who attend such events.

Third, even when something even remotely substantive emanates from these gab-fests, it is inherently contradictory and hypocritical.   The “conservatives” propose lower taxes at the federal level, which is great, though it doesn’t address the real problem, grist for a later, but hopefully not much later, mill.   But then they fail to produce any substantive, realistic, or remotely workable, plan for reducing spending.  (See, inter alia, my 3/13/13 post, ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF MEDICARE:  MR. RYAN STAYS IN WASHINGTON.)   And even if they should somehow achieve a miracle and actually cut some domestic spending, the War Party representatives of the CPAC crowd will find some way to blow such savings, and then some, on what they laughingly call “defense” but what is really international proboscis insertion into places where we are unwelcome and in which we have at best limited interests and even less business.  (See, inter alia, my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY.)

So, at best, the conservative call to cut taxes amounts to not paying our bills in favor of passing our expenses onto our children and grandchildren, which I never thought of as a conservative principle.  And, yes, the Laffer Curve works; I am one of its more ardent proponents.  But the Laffer Curve is an economic principle, not a miracle elixir; these deficits are too big to grow our way out of.

At the expense of being accused of further apostasy (Get in line.), it was the great conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, who told us that it was okay not to pay our bills, that deficits didn’t matter, that we could cut taxes and spend on the military and on entitlements ‘til our hearts were content and everything would be just fine.   Thus it was the Gipper and the genuine “conservatives” who followed him, some of us skeptically some more wholeheartedly and unabashedly, that set us on the path to the fiscal quagmire in which we are currently sinking.  Just look at a chart of debt to GDP since World War II if you don’t believe this.  

Fourth, what about the social agenda of the CPAC?   I, for one, agree with about 70% or 80% of the “conservative” social agenda.  I do differ with the growing “conservative” fixation with gays and have long suspected that it is a case of, as Shakespeare would say, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”   Do these guys perhaps some doubts about their own sexuality?  But I digress.  I also am alarmed that opposition to abortion has rather quickly morphed into a genuine uneasiness with, or outright hostility toward, contraception, which I find even more inherently contradictory than “conservatives” spending their weekends listening to lectures on how government can improve their lives.

Regardless, however, of where one stands on the social issues, if one is a conservative, one should be alarmed at the notion that the government should dictate conduct that does not infringe on the rights of others.  Yours truly is fine with the “conservative” social agenda when it amounts to opposition to the government playing for the other side but parts company when that agenda becomes advocacy for the government taking the field. 

The social issues are important cultural and moral issues, but are at best third rate political issues.  At least this conservative’s response to such discussion, regardless of which side is being advocated, amounts to “Why in the world are we talking about these things?”   Unfortunately, one gets the impression that many of the CPAC participants, and many who have highjacked the once noble tea party movement, are instead demanding that we waste even more time and effort on these sideshow political issues.

Finally, I was heartened to see that Rand Paul was the winner of a straw poll that asked CPAC participants whom they favored for president in 2016.  Though even thinking about the 2016 race at this juncture seems inherently not conservative, yours truly loves the horse race aspects of politics, especially since the stakes are all fool’s gold anyway; no politician, or at least no successful politician, is going to work to reduce the influence of government regardless of what s/he says.   Mr. Paul, perhaps seeing a real shot at the GOP nomination in 2016, is perhaps getting too cozy with the “limited government ends at the shore” approach of large swaths of the GOP, but his philosophy is in the right place.  Whether it is at all workable in a society that has grown very comfortable with big government is another issue.

The second place finish of Marco Rubio, though, is at least a little troubling.  Mr. Rubio seems to be fine fellow, and I was especially heartened that in his first speech as a senator-elect, he blasted George W. Bush (the man who gives LBJ perhaps decisive competition in the race for the not at all coveted title of “Worst President in U.S. History”) at least indirectly, as much as he went after the Democrats.  But I have the same problem with Senator Rubio that I have with Paul Ryan (See only my latest screed on Mr. Ryan, 3/13/13’s  ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF MEDICARE:  MR. RYAN STAYS IN WASHINGTON), i.e., how can “conservatives” get so excited about a guy who has never been off the public payroll?  As I told a young friend last night, in a perhaps not all that rare instance of my not showing sufficient restraint in discussion of the issues of the day, “If he had ever done anything other than s--k off the public t-t, I’d kind of like the guy.”  In Mr. Rubio’s defense, sort of, he is too young to have accomplished, or learned, much in his life in any case.   (On the other hand, when I was his age, I, too, thought I knew a lot more than I did.)  The same criticisms can apply to the guy in the White House, but I thought conservatives had a different, better approach to government and a more reasoned attitude toward the worthiness of experience beyond the public sector.

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY

2/28/13

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, long time champion of lean, efficient, and limited governance and stalwart opponent of pubic employee unions’ efforts to highjack state and local government, was, er, disinvited to something that calls itself, still with a straight face, the “Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”).”  

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and genuine war hero who favors a defense policy that defends and a foreign policy that cultivates foreign friends and encourages reason over hysteria, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense…but with only four votes from senators from the Republican Party, which still laughingly calls itself the conservative party.   See my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY, only the latest in a series of posts here and at the now defunct Rant Political that argued enthusiastically for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation.

What is going on in the “conservative movement” and the Republican Party?   Why are such good men with solid values, deep seated beliefs in the primacy of the people over their government, and optimism about and confidence in the American people (misplaced in yours truly’s opinion, but that is another issue) no longer welcome among the self-styled keepers of the conservative flame?

One “conservative” beef with Mr. Christie is that he, never a poltroonish type given to the hemming, hawing, and equivocating that characterizes most of the invited guests at CPAC, very clearly let it be known that he was fed up with Congress’s delay, or worse, in passing a relief package for his state of New Jersey and other areas affected by Super Storm Sandy.   Another complaint about Governor Christies is that he appeared too chummy with President Obama when the President toured New Jersey in the wake of Sandy.

Admittedly, the “Sandy relief” bill that emerged from Congress was a crummy bill.  It was loaded with provisions and spending that had little, if anything, to do with Sandy.   But that only reinforces Mr. Christies’s point.   The reason the bill took so long to, and almost didn’t, become law is because the Congressional popinjays insisted on seizing on the hardship of those affected by Sandy to get taxpayer money for their districts.   If they just passed a clean bill, relief would have gotten to the affected areas sooner and at a lower price.   But they didn’t pass such a clean bill.   And Mr. Christie realized that his constituents needed help right away.   He didn’t put Party ahead of his state and his job serving that state.  

And, yes, Mr. Christie was courteous toward Mr. Obama when the President visited Sandy ravaged New Jersey.   Since when is civility and gentlemanliness not a conservative value?    Does calling one’s self a “conservative” require that one be so consumed with hated for the president of another party that one treats that president with coolness, or contempt, when he is there to help in a time of need?   Is it a mark of honor and “true blueness,” if you will, to dump on the president of the United States, especially when he holds the key to getting relief to people who badly need it?   Mr. Christie has a job that makes him responsible for the welfare of the people of his state; unlike that of, say, Paul Ryan, a hero of the “conservative” movement, Mr. Christie’s job does not consist of preening for the cameras and assuming that the American people are badly in need of the type of wisdom that can only be gleaned from a lifetime of bloviating from Washington.   See my 1/26/13 post, PAUL RYAN:   MORE PAP AND PABULUM FROM THE MASTER OF HYPOCRISY.

Mr. Hagel’s unpardonable sin was finally seeing the light and opposing George Bush’s excellent adventure in Iraq that has already cost us billions of treasure and the incalculable value of thousands of American lives and will cost of us for generations not only in dollars but in enmity throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds and the legions of aspiring terrorists that will result.   Mr. Hagel also has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we think before going off on ill-considered crusades designed primarily to enrich those who bankroll the lifelong ego trips those who attend CPAC call careers.   (My words, not Mr. Hagel’s.  He is too circumspect to say the things that I can say.)   The War Party is now firmly in control of the foreign policy apparatus at the likes of CPAC and those who, like Mr. Hagel, favor a foreign policy grounded in the principles of limited government and careful consideration of national interests are no longer welcome.  CPAC’s view of the world can be summarized by the admonition to shoot first, aim later, and keep the campaign (?) cash flowing from the “defense” contractors.   Who needs a skunk like Mr. Hagel at such a wonderful garden party?

I’ve spent most of my life as a conservative.   That started to change as Ronald Reagan, after a pretty good start, decided that we could give ourselves goodies without paying for them and started us on the fiscal train wreck from which we are currently suffering.   The change picked up as the despicable George W. Bush decided that big government was just fine at home and was especially advisable overseas and that score settling, or who knows what, rather than national interests, should be the guiding light in foreign and military policy.   Now the banishment of Mr. Christie and Mr. Hagel, two of the few people in public life whom I respect and admire, has completed my metamorphosis.   Into what, I don’t know.   But if the people who find Messrs. Christie and Hagel so dyspeptic are “conservatives,” I know what I am not.

JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY

2/1/13

As anyone, and certainly anyone who reads my blogs, could have predicted, the War Party and its majordomo John McCain, are giving former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel one heck of a hard time in Mr. Hagel’s hearings for his confirmation as Secretary of Defense.   It seems that Mr. Hagel has the preposterous notion that we ought to be circumspect in military affairs and think long and hard before we send young men and women into combat for questionable goals.  Mr. Hagel apparently believes that further enriching the “defense” contractors who subsidize the lifelong sinecures War Party members occupy in the city they vociferously claim to detest is not sufficient justification for sending kids to their deaths.  Such apostasy is clearly anathema to Mr. McCain and his colleagues.

Fortunately for Mr. Hagel and for those of us who favor a defense that defends, Mr. McCain is not the brightest bulb in the Congressional chandelier.   Note the following exchange between Mr. McCain and Mr. Hagel on the “surge” in Iraq, of which Mr. McCain was the most salient and ardent champion:

McCain:

“Were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder…since Vietnam?”

Hagel:

“It’s far more complicated than that…My answer is ‘I’ll defer that judgment to history.’”

McCain:

“I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it.”

John McCain is, as is his usual custom, clearly wrong on at least one issue here.  History does not make judgments in the space of 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years.  History, unlike current events, takes a long time go play out.   So history has yet to make a judgment on the surge.

Mr. McCain’s narrative is that the “surge” led to pacification in Iraq that gave the United States the opportunity to leave, more or less, Iraq without the guilt of leaving behind a failed state in which anarchy and violence ruled the day.   This former may or may not be true and the latter seems to be turning out to be wishful thinking.

We do know that the “surge” cost 1,200 American lives and, less importantly, billions of dollars.  We don’t know if the “surge” led to pacification, even temporarily, of Iraq.   At the same time we were “surging,” we were stepping up a program of payouts (bribes, really) to various warring factions in Iraq to come over to our side, or at least to behave themselves for awhile.   Whether the surge or the payoffs led to Iraq’s temporary pacification we don’t know.  And we also don’t know whether we would have left regardless of conditions in Iraq; the American people were, even long before we left, sick and tired of George Bush’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq, an Adventure that John McCain was critical of only in the sense that it was not pursued aggressively enough for his tastes.

We also know that the pacification, whether the result of the surge or the expenditures of plenty of spondulicks, was temporary.   Just about every day, we hear of car bombings, kidnappings, or other such goings-on in Iraq.   The minority Sunnis, who used to run the country, are disdainful, or worse, of the now ruling majority Shiites, who are very cozy with their Shiite brethren in Iran.  The Kurds in the north have more or less seceded from Iraq, and neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites are happy about what that means for their access to Iraq’s oil wealth, much of which is located in the Kurdish north, which is now openly called Kurdistan.

It looks like Iraq will wind up being a failed state and will descend into anarchy and civil war.  It may become, or at least parts of it will become, an Iranian satellite.   Thus we will have left either another breeding ground for terrorism or have handed the Iranians a client state at the expense of American blood and treasure.   And John McCain accuses Chuck Hagel of not being sufficiently tough on Iran!

Iraq’s either descending into a hellish dystopia, becoming an Iranian satellite, or both seems to have been inevitable from the moment George Bush decided, for reasons no one has yet been able to discern, that it would be a good idea to invade Iraq.    The only difference the “surge” has made it is to delay this outcome for perhaps a few years.   Was that delay worth 1,200 human lives?

One more thought…

If Iraq keeps heading in the direction it seems to be going, it, too, will become a breeding ground for terrorism, if it has not already become one, as seems likely given the hatred the Iraqi people have developed for Americans after George Bush, er, had his way, with their country.  Note that the justification for our going into Afghanistan was that it had become a breeding ground for terrorism.  So perhaps Mr. McCain and his henchmen are brighter than I think and are simply laying the groundwork for more military adventures in Iraq, which would make the “defense” contractors even richer…and more grateful to the likes of Mr. McCain, his mini-me from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of those who find Mr. Hagel’s talk of prudent exercise of military power so reprehensible.

History, a subject that Mr. McCain clearly does not understand, will have to tell us.