Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

You sure put a lot of faith in the party of the scared witless.

I think you're playing a bit fast and loose with the term "fiscal conservatism."

If you define that term as "non-deficit-spending," then you may be correct. (Of course, I'm sure a good number of socialist nations would also qualify as fiscally conservative" under that definition.)

If you define that term as "low-spending," then I'm not sure how you could argue that the modern Democratic Party has been or will be fiscally conservative.

Thomas,

Generation Jones

http://www.jonathanpontell.com/aboutgenjones.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones

You fit the personality profile...

Obama as our first to run ...
How pathetic... A pretty face... no substance...

I truly find it strange that would identify with him... How sad!

Crouch sez it best.
What Obama isn't: black like me
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html

Cheers

I wouldn't be so quick to hold up Bill Clinton as a fiscal conservative. There were two Clinton presidencies. There was 93-94, then 95-01 after Newt & Co. came to power. Fiscally, those two eras look VERY different.

.

Loose use of terminology, no? A major plank of the populist agenda is to roll back free trade.

It's not wise to look for the party of Friedman and Clinton among Dobbs and Dorgan.

One advantage your generation has over us boomers is scarcity. There are so many boomers that outstanding individuals tend to get lost in the crowd. Scarce generations, like the one born in the 30's and early 40's that came of age in the 50's and early 60's, have an advantage in that outstanding indiviudals could come to the fore in their fields and dominate the field for many years. By contrast, boomers tended to get lost in the shuffle and have had trouble breaking through to replace the established leaders in their fields who held over from the earlier generation. Those leaders are now disappearing, and the torch of leadership may by-pass the boomers and go on directly to the scarce generation born in the 60's and early 70's.

"I wouldn't be so quick to hold up Bill Clinton as a fiscal conservative. There were two Clinton presidencies. There was 93-94, then 95-01 after Newt & Co. came to power. Fiscally, those two eras look VERY different."

Hardly. In 1993 Clinton and the Democrats imposed the taxes needed for the Federal government services the American people want, and the Federal deficit started dropping. And its been interesting to note that Bush backing off from that level of taxation has produced prodigious deficits once again.

Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend", and that's a far more reckless, destructive policy than "tax and spend".

And then there are those of us that preceed the Boomers (1944), that have the same passion that the "almost post-boomers" have. See stuart abrams comment.

We both seem to be liberal economists, willing to tax and spend, rather than borrow and spend. The Reagan and Bush 43 eras will no doubt be noted for the burden passed to others.

The Bush 43 is not a "tax cut" era, but merely a "tax avoidance and deferment" era.

Likelwise in foreigh policy, its a "feel good" testosterone era, with the chickens coming home to roost later.

So here's to Barnett and Obama's generation. A "cheer" from an older, scarce, educated, realist, pragmatic generation. We are not our parents depression generation, but we are a realistic childhood war generation (threefer - WWII, Korea, nuclear MAD in rapid succession). As such, our psyche is reality based, and Boomers are 99% fantasy based. We are happy to see them go.

"And then there are those of us that preceed the Boomers (1944), that have the same passion that the "almost post-boomers" have. See stuart abrams comment."

Well, it looks like I'm an "almost almost post-boomer", showing up in 1960. But I have no debt, apart from a mortgage that's 25% of the value of my house, 3 years into a 15-year fixed @ 4.5%

Debt is bondage, and Reagan and the Bushes, with no real dissent from the rest of the Republican Party, have sold us into Egypt.

Tom - If this is the peak of the Democrat party, Bush is not an interregnum between 2 Democrat eras. He's a transitional figure, sure. Compassionate conservatism was crafted in order to kill the "mean, puritan, racist skinflints" stereotype that the Left has been peddling a long time. It's done its job. Skinflint isn't something you associate with Republicanism anymore. But the rest of it is pretty much gone now too.

The 2006 elections will probably usher in a new House leadership and then speaker Pelosi can show us how Democrats would govern as she actually has to pass legislation and all the papered over divisions over taxing and spending can no longer be hidden.

If you want soul, I wouldn't look for it in either party today. Both need to be replaced on that count.

Sorry, but I can't share your optimism about Obama. The problems that need to be solved call for a "highly revolutionary force," as you state... but Obama is not a revolutionary force. He is a throwback to the old idea that if we all play nice, hold hands, and affirm our common beliefs, things will eventually work out for the better. That idea died with the era of bipartisanship, at the end of the Cold War.

Neither party is presenting anyone that will significantly change the course of this country. The Republicans want to keep putting the pedal to the metal, while the Democrats just want to ease back on the gas a little bit. Meanwhile, there is a growing populist backlash taking shape as more and more people (the bottom 95%) realize that this era of globalization and "free trade" has in fact depressed their wages and moved many of their jobs offshore. Whether the protectionism that results will be progressive or reactionary will be determined by who is in Congress when the movement comes to a head.

I suppose that's what these midterms are about--not "how do we keep globalization going," but "what sort of walls should we put up to protect ourselves from it?" I think we're entering the most unstable part of this last round of globalization. (I vaguely remember reading somewhere here that you put the newest round of globalization as starting on 9/11/01. I disagree and believe that we are in the waning days of the post-WWII [or possibly post-1970s] globalization. The sun is setting. See you in the morning!)