October 17, 2008

A new posting!

The irony is that both nominees have argued that The Problem with Washington is partisanship, and that bipartisanship is a big part of the solution.

And yet, perhaps the most catastrophic policy of recent decades, the relaxation of traditional credit standards to help people achieve the American Dream, was extremely bipartisan.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer


PeterW said...

Partisanship is nasty. Someone has to end up losing. Bipartisanship is much nicer.

Anonymous said...


How would you respond to the following claim by Oliver Kamm?

"There is, incidentally, a conservative criticism that the credit crunch derives from government meddling in the housing market, forcing the US quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to less creditworthy borrowers. I don't buy this. Governments and central banks have made the problem worse, by failing to restrain a credit expansion. But the underlying reason that we are where we are is that there has been so much capital around, not least owing to the enhanced role of China in the global economy."


Black Sea said...

I've been assuming that you've been working on something BIG over the past few days . . . I'm assuming this isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Glorification of "bipartisanship" is what you get when you have a room full of barely a hundred men and women many of whom have been working together for decades. Have you ever worked in an office with dozens of other people? Did you want to get along with those people, or did you prefer to always be in their faces?

It gets worse because liberals tend to be ideological firebrands, with "activist" or "professor" in their resume while conservatives tend to be businessmen who like to be flexible in order to make a deal or soft elites and heirs who like to get invited to fancy dinner parties.

If the GOP is supposed to come back roaring, all ideologically pure after going down to defeat (after abandoning its principles), who's gunna do it? 84 year old Ted Stevens? 76 year old Jim Bunning? 75 year old Bob Bennett? The older people get, the less they tend to like real conflict. Orrin Hatch's once white hot conservatism has cooled considerably over the years, and was already pretty much gone when he voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg.

The upside to putting the GOP in the minority is that many elderly Republicans, after nearly 12 years in the majority, may just decide to retire.

beowulf said...

The root problem is economic inequality.

The liberal critique is the wage-productivity gap. Since 1973, labor productivity has risen faster than inflation, but median wages have increased slower than productivity and has barely kept up with inflation (slower than inflation once you factor in the intentional lowballing of government inflation statistics).
The solution is greater regulation of the labor market (higher minimum wages, lower CEO pay, more unionization) or tax and spend income redistribution.

The Axis of Steve critique is, exporting low skill/IQ manufacturing jobs overseas at the same time we're importing more low skill/IQ workers by an open border policy, what the hell did you expect will happen? We're left with lower wages and more illegal aliens whose very presence here indicate lack of respect for our basic institutions and customs. The solution is keep out and deport illegal aliens and bringing trade barriers to protect US industry. Warren Buffet's Import Certificate plan is pure genius. http://tinyurl.com/buffettplan

The conservative critique is, economic inequality?--- THAT'S CLASS WARFARE! If everyone owns a house, the ownership society will cure all ills.

The bipartisan solution was ignore the immigration and trade issues (sorry Steve) and give money away so those on the bottom of the income scale could buy property. Liberals probably knew the mortgages were never going to repaid. But if conservatives are stupid enough to give money away but won't raise taxes to pay for it, well, why not go with the flow?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race. . . .

Anonymous said...

Whenever I hear the word “Bipartisan” I know I am about to lose either freedom or money and probably both.


Stopped Clock said...

The USSR was a bipartisan compromise between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.

Anonymous said...

Black sea said:

"I've been assuming that you've been working on something BIG over the past few days . . . I'm assuming this isn't it."

A few weeks ago VDare mentioned that Steve was working on a book about Obama. He would probably want it to come out before the election.

American Goy said...

I am a big fan of looking at people's actions first and listening to their bulls**t last.

So, the democrats swept triumphantly into majority in last election, and talking to my fellow centrists (remember - USA does NOT have leftists, only centrists and far right) who were all aglow about how "when the dems win we will get out of Iraq!".

How did that work out?

Lets analyze the two parties votes.

Funding for the war on Iraq?
Both yes.

Both yes.

Both yes.

Patriot Act?
Both yes.

OK, so they talk a different bulls**t to get elected, but once they do, they continue to talk the talk, but (surprise!) vote the same way on every important legislation.


American "democracy" is THE most corrupt political system in the world, perhaps not counting African hell holes.

In what other "democratic" country are politicians having a retention rate of over 90%?

Michael Moore said the most important thing as a joke - it passed by everyone and no one remembered it... but me.

He said (paraphrasing) "we have a bigger retention rate than the old Soviet politburo".



Anonymous said...

Bipartisanship is spineless and sycophantic. Stalin was enthralled with a single-party system.


"Supporters of a single-party state often appeal to a sense of unity, strength and commonality that a single-party government can lend a state. They argue that multi-party systems introduce too much division and are unsuitable for economic and political development. This argument was particularly popular during the mid-20th century, as many developing nations sought to emulate the Soviet Union, which had transformed itself from a backward, agrarian nation into a superpower

A common counter-argument is that one-party systems have a tendency to become rigid and unwilling to accept change, which renders them unable to deal with new situations and may result in their collapse. This counter-argument became more widely held as the 20th century drew to a close and the Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Finally, one-party states have often been criticized for their disrespect towards human rights, however, this is more a reflection on the ideology of the party in power, rather than on the system itself."
"Furthermore, the single-party system is heavily associated with dictatorship."

Anonymous said...

Steve is working on a book.

Glaivester said...

“IN AMERICA, WE have a two-party system," a Republican congressional staffer is supposed to have told a visiting group of Russian legislators some years ago.

"There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party."

He added: "Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called—bipartisanship."

-Peter Brimelow

albertosaurus said...

Partisanship is largely an American invention. It's odd that bipartisanship is honored.

The founding fathers invented the working democratic republic. They had many theorists but few working models. Washington was so respected that he ran unopposed and wouldn't campaign. John Adams followed that model too but Jefferson and Hamilton soon showed how politics should be conducted.

Jeffereson hired a propagandist and created a newspaper with public funds dedicated to smearing Hamilton and the Federalists. Hamilton responded with a long series of anonymous essays in the papers that personally attacked Jefferson. Each accused the other of treason (more or less) and sexual misbehavior (rather more than less). Personal attacks led to duels and there were at least some deaths including of course Hamilton at the hand of the sitting US Vice President.

Our political tradition from the very begining was for extremely vicious partisanship. Certainly no modern president has suffered the depth of criticism that Lincoln endured.

The high minded non-partisanship of Washington and Adams never reappeared again in American politics (or anywhere else). If you think America is OK then you must accept the fact of political partisanship.

What you have today is the use on non-partisanship as a ploy. If you can convince your opponent to be non-partisan you can make your scurrilous charges against him with impunity.

Brent Lane said...

Well, that's not really fair. . .after all, bipartisanship over the past 8 years brought us many positive things, like NCLB, and Medicare expansion, and the authorization to use force in Iraq, and it almost brought us comprehensive immigration reform too.

Isn't it nice when people work together?

Isnt' it?

Hyena Con said...

Steve was mentioned in an article by Steven Stark at Real Clear Politics:

"But already there are arguments from such political theorists as Michael Barone and Steve Sailer that the cheap mortgages, which led to the housing crisis, which precipitated the financial crisis, were directly related to the immigration boom."

Full Article

Reg C├Žsar said...

Nothing wrong with bipartisanship per se. Our problem is the parties available.

It's like cars-- I want to buy American, just not a GM, Chrysler or Ford.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

The fact that bipartisanship is little more than gilded manure is perfectly evident here: Barney Frank speaking at a fundraiser in New Hampshire, lamenting the decline of moderate New Hampshire Republicans - you know, the ones who used to be proud of fellow Republicans like David Souter!

A "bipartisan" meeting is one where Democrats come to the table with ACLU membership cards in their wallet and Republicans bring them, too.

Blode said...

Bipartisanship is not necessarily a bad thing. If we had two major parties, one a liberal party like the Libertarians and one a conservative party like the Constitution Party, we could have great compromise policies like "legalize pot but tax it!" and "allow free trade in general but keep tariffs in reserve to punish the worst outsourcers!".

Instead, we have two socialist parties. Bipartisanship amounts to trying to get something nutritious out of a Taco Bell menu by mixing ingredients. "Maybe if you took the double-decker taco and mixed it with the ordinary taco, you could get a food source that allows you to keep the corn-and-beef that isn't touching the flour-and-beans, while ALSO having the corn-and-beef that IS touching the flour-and-beans."

I prefer to think of the Democrats as the neo-hippy party while the Republicans are the ex-hippy party. Can't we cobble together any parties out of people who weren't druggged-out 60s-radicals back when it "was hip"?

Anonymous said...

The response to local and national disasters is great but it's a real shame that so many citizens take advantage of the sad situations.

I mean everytime there is an earthquake, a flood, an oil spill - there's always a group of heartless people who rip off tax payers.

This is in response to reading that 4 of Oprah Winfreys "angels" got busted ripping off the system. Shame on them!

Anonymous said...

I congratulate, you were visited with a remarkable idea