<Ending on an Optimistic Note in New OrleansThe Oil DrumRussia and the Ukraine have not yet resolved the issues>

81 comments on Stuart's 2006 predictions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Whitehall on January 4, 2006 - 12:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Stoneleigh,

Take a look at Dick Morris' analysis - you seem to be in the same self-delusional bubble that many Democrats have created for themselves the last few years:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60838.htm

Remember that Dick Morris was, roughly, Bill Clinton's Karl Rove for many years.  He's got a hard-boiled understanding of real world politics.  He's not very likable but he usually has something cogent to say.

Frankly, it's the Democratic Party that is risking irrelevancy although I'd think that premature to assert dissolution or replacement of either party.

I agree with your general prediction that the political center will shift away from liberalism, political correctness, and multiculturalism as the challenges to the American way of life grow stronger and more visible.  The Democratic Party seems to want no part of that shift and so will be the relative loser.  We are in for a period of political turmoil but politicians are either adaptable or become FORMER politicians quickly in a democracy.

However, your use of the word "fascism" is inappropriate.  Suggest you read Boswell's recent biography of Mussolini to see why.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on January 4, 2006 - 9:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, and have little respect for either party. Fortunately, as I am not an American, I will never have to vote for either of them.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 5, 2006 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Stoneleigh is predicting the obliteration of both parties.  I think he's right.  Neither the Democrats or the GOP have the answers to the problems of peak oil.  And whoever is in power at the time TSHTF is going to get the brunt of the outrage.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Whitehall on January 5, 2006 - 10:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If the Kos energy proposal we've discussed on this board is representative of the Democratic Party's approach, and I think it is, then we have two broad philosophic alternatives:

Democrats - tax and spend and regulate

Republicans - let the market work

Of course, in power neither would be able to implement a purist approach but I'd think they will follow these general approaches.

In this case, I'd argue that the Republican approach would be more effective in allowing the economy to adapt with the least pain.  We have the experience of the Carter years to show that the Democratic approach certainly has its problems.

I will agree in advance that even the Republican approach will still require a reduction in standards of living and a lower economic growth rate. However, the central planning approach of the Democrats would surely lead to maladaptations and snafus at the system level.  I think American voters understand that.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 6, 2006 - 7:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
IMO, you're arguing about who will do a better job of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  

As for what the voters will think...Stoneleigh's right: they will support whoever is NOT in power.  Whenever times are bad, they "throw the rascals out."  

Based on what has happened in other collapsing societies, I expect taxing, spending, and regulating to increase no matter who is in power.  The government has grown more under Bush and a GOP congress than it has since FDR; the GOP has not had real Libertarian leanings since Newt Gingrich was ousted.  

People and corporations say they want less government, but it's not true.  They want government programs, especially when times are bad.  They want their jobs and markets protected.  They want infrastructure built, to generate jobs and help business.  

The Great Depression resulted in the New Deal, and I'd bet the farm something similar will happen again.  

Of course, it won't work this time, but I seriously doubt any party that tries to "let the market work" will gain any traction when "the market" is letting children starve and little old ladies freeze to death.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on January 6, 2006 - 12:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The important point, as you say, is that the party in power takes the blame. The problem is larger than any party and has been building for decades, during which both parties had spells in office. The electorate, however, seems to blame the party in power whether or not it is reasonable to do so (and whether or not the opposition has a viable alternative plan).

For instance, I don't think Herbert Hoover deserved the reputation he ended up with for presiding over the Great Depression. He couldn't prevent it, but no one else would have been able to do so either. It was the inevitable aftermath of the roaring twenties. In the current case, the party in power has acted as the aggressor in a 'pre-emptive war', disregarded the Geneva Conventions and undermined the rule of law, among other dubious activities. They seem far more deserving of their fate than Hoover.

Neither party has a viable strategy to address the coming crisis. Both are completely out of touch with reality in my opinion. Both are likely to try and fail in turn, and both will probably disintegrate. My fear is that a vengeful electorate determined to blame the rest of the world for their continuing misfortunes (probably not realizing that others are sharing in those misfortunes) may eventually chose a complete maniac - some sort of populist strongman bent on maintaining American hegemony at any cost. It's hard to imagine a rational Powerdown scenario under those circumstances.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.