Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Transcript of Mary Kissel’s Wednesday evening speech

20 comments

Up at Quadrant Online.

The second reason Americans voted for Obama is because Republicans never deconstructed or explained what he meant when he said things like, “The question we ask today is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs and decent health care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified.” My gosh! Who is going to object to that?

But this is very dangerous language because what it actually says is very radical language cloaked in conservative rhetoric. The only way to counter that kind of rhetoric and language, is to force people to be specific, how often was Obama asked, ‘How are you going to get people health care they can afford? Can you put a dollar number on that for me?” Did you ever hear that asked in the first Presidential campaign?

Nor do Republicans counter another very important fiction, which is why we found ourselves in this financial crisis in the first place — the narrative that the big bad banks got together with the big bad rating agencies to force those poor, largely minority, easily hoodwinked Americans to buy McMansions they could not afford but they really should own. And the solution is to pass something called the Dodd Frank Act, an incredibly innovative law that eliminates all financial risk from the entire economy at all times!

Now you know that is nuts. I know it is nuts. Even a lot of Democrats know it is nuts, but when was the last time you heard a Republican stand up and say, ‘Actually it was Congress’s fault that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-backed agencies, decided to lend a lot of money to people who could not afford a mortgage.’ When did you hear them say, ‘Gosh, banks are a little over-regulated, so they all take the same risks at the same time, maybe that is a bad idea? Gee, people who work at ratings agencies are people who can’t get jobs at Goldman Sachs.’

When was the last time you heard that poor people, even if minorities, should not be burdened with mortgages they can’t afford, because that actually keeps them impoverished in the long run. Maybe they should rent. Wow, radical!

You have to combat this kind of rhetoric or else people will believe it.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

March 8th, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Posted in Libertarians don't live by argument alone

«
»

20 Responses to 'Transcript of Mary Kissel’s Wednesday evening speech'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Transcript of Mary Kissel’s Wednesday evening speech'.

  1. Most of the problem is the lack of philosophical nous among our, so-called, political conservatives. How many deep thinkers aree there in the Liberal Party? You only need one hand.

    It get’s depressing when friends who were committed Liberals think that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, politically. The valium comes out when a congregation of liberal supporters can’t stand Abbott. Why? Because to an individual they all watch the ABC religiously and their minds stop working when they learn that I don’t. The look of incomprehending blankness they have causes one to down a large glass of scottish stimulant on top of the valium.

    It’s said that the US is about 50 years behind the UK in its journey to socialist utopia. To that we can add Australia which will arrive 100 years later because most of us are too thick to figure it out. And those who do are quickly decapitated for being tall poppies.

    Louis Hissink

    8 Mar 13 at 2:03 pm

  2. We don’t really drift back to the ‘centre’, because the centre inexorably drifts to the left. Even if the Libs win, they’re already committed to big government.

    Is there any area of our lives where they believe the government has no business?

    Ellen of Tasmania

    8 Mar 13 at 2:33 pm

  3. It s very difficult to disbelieve someone who you desperately want to believe. Especially when they want him to take care of them.

    For example, single women voted for Obama in a large majority. I think this was a reflection of the demolition of society, especially the loss of security in marriage (or the equivalent). If you get stuck with a 2 year old when the guy takes off you want to know you’ll be taken care of. Obama was saying “I will take care of you, and here’s a free phone to prove what I say”. Very very hard for those disposed to believe to realise he lies most of the time.

    Gillard is pushing the same psychology. “Who cares if we can’t fund it, if we make enough promises the idea that we care for people will take root in their skulls and they will vote for us and not for that terrifying Mr Abbott”.

    Unfortunately, in a portion of society especially those who are scared for themselves, it works.

    Bruce

    8 Mar 13 at 2:33 pm

  4. If “You didn’t build that” and four miserable years weren’t enough to convince Americans that Obama was the wrong person to be president, then they’re too stupid to be convinced by any winning argument.

    50.1% of the country wouldn’t recognize a bad idea if it was raping their face. They’ve decided they can vote themselves rich. It’s all downhill from here.

    Craig Mc

    8 Mar 13 at 3:02 pm

  5. But this is very dangerous language because what it actually says is very radical language cloaked in conservative rhetoric.

    Radical? He’s re-asserting social democracy. Or he attempting to persuade Americans that that is what he is doing.

    He is also attempting to persuade a segment of the US conservative base to support a new consensus on a New Deal era notion of the good old days. Outside of groups who adhere strictly to the laissez-faire creed the explanation of the GFC as being a consequence of ‘government interference’ and not at all about the ruthless myopia of the financial industry doesn’t really wash. This is one of the reasons he was re-elected.

    Adrien

    8 Mar 13 at 3:16 pm

  6. Outside of groups who adhere strictly to the laissez-faire creed the explanation of the GFC as being a consequence of ‘government interference’ and not at all about the ruthless myopia of the financial industry doesn’t really wash.

    A shame really, conservatives/libertarians should be countering this falsehood with all their efforts. The left tried to blame the great depression on capitalism as well, but at least the right fought against it back then. Why not do so now?

    The GFC was clearly a result of government interference causing a misallocation of resources, and over investment, a bubble and an eventual crash. Classical economists said this would happen 200 years ago, they were so right, yet conservatives basically lied down and let the left rewrite history.

    Such a shame.

    MattR

    8 Mar 13 at 3:28 pm

  7. I watched Murray Rothbard’s explanation of how the US Fed came to be a couple of days ago – his angle was that it basically a banking cartel that survived because of government support. Earlier cartels in the US collapsed as a result of commerical competition. Those cartels which did flourish did so because of government sanction. So cartels only survive when they are supported by government.

    What if we started to accuse the RBA of government sanctioned price fixing? That’s what setting the cash rate is all about. What if we change the rhetoric to minimum wage laws as union price fixing and monopoly power, rather than a minimal living standard? Where does the belief of the free-lunch come from? From a society that believes reality was created by the Deity from nothing? The welfare state, remember, was first described by the English Fabians as a rhetorical tool to gull the mob; in this they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

    Or are our conservatives/libertarians too dense to work this out.

    Louis Hissink

    8 Mar 13 at 3:40 pm

  8. Radical?

    Yes ‘radical’ you nonsensical leftist dimwit.

    Do you even know what the word means?

    Here’s Senator Ted Cruz just 6 weeks ago:

    I think President Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever seen

    This is one of the reasons he was re-elected.

    LOL

    JamesK

    8 Mar 13 at 3:41 pm

  9. The GFC was clearly a result of government interference causing a misallocation of resources, and over investment, a bubble and an eventual crash.

    The government interference was part of it, so was the artificially low interest rates at the beginning of the 2000s, the scrapping of Glass-Seagull, the use of models that assumed things that don’t exist and short memories. Crashes are part of the system, they happen.

    Adrien

    8 Mar 13 at 5:45 pm

  10. Do you even know what the word means?

    Yeah. And resorting to policy instruments that are well over a hundred years old is not radical, it’s standard. What’s also standard is that people forget they don’t work.

    Adrien

    8 Mar 13 at 5:46 pm

  11. This isn’t a left/right argument, it’s just one of the side effects of successful capitalism. Consumers groomed by companies and governments over 2 or 3 generations to look for a product that will bring almost instant happiness, cure what ails you and beautify you too have queued up to purchase some of that for themselves. Once you’e bought it you don’t want to say ” It’s crap what have wasted my money on this thing for?” you start listening to all the positives it might be good for in the future. It takes a while (and a few more impulse buys) before the thing makes it to the back of the shed. You don’t win market share by explaining how crap the current product is you gain it by creating another got-to-buy product.

    Simon

    8 Mar 13 at 5:48 pm

  12. Yeah. And resorting to policy instruments that are well over a hundred years old is not radical

    So I was right.

    You don’t know the meaning of the word ‘radical’

    Actually Karl Marx was born 193 years ago but Marxism can be dated from roughly 130 years ago.

    Marx’s ideas are just as ‘radical’ now even by most radical progressive standards.

    JamesK

    8 Mar 13 at 5:58 pm

  13. Dunno….if a fantasy Christie could get reeducated on Illegals and the 2nd and cease his so far brief but silly tonguing of Obama….then his ‘screw the MSM’ rhetorical demolishing of the Teacher’s Union is a memory for the ages.
    He passes the ‘want to have a beer with’ test.

    Alfonso

    8 Mar 13 at 6:13 pm

  14. He passes the ‘want to have a beer with’ test.

    He’ll run in the primary and will not win anywhere near enough support, I suspect.

    He’s not a conservative but he is an effective leader and he sounds like one when he’s on song.

    JamesK

    8 Mar 13 at 6:16 pm

  15. Yeah, I know.
    But blue collar America would be all the same blue collar NJ….dey love him. No other near conservative comes close.
    His straight talk is the way to counter slime, maybe a week drinking with Mark Steyn could fix him up.
    But I’m babbling…..

    Alfonso

    8 Mar 13 at 6:37 pm

  16. The government interference was part of it, so was the artificially low interest rates at the beginning of the 2000s, the scrapping of Glass-Seagull, the use of models that assumed things that don’t exist and short memories. Crashes are part of the system, they happen.

    The low interest rates were the result of the government as well.

    Crashes are part of the system yes, but in most cases they are caused by an initial government intervention causing a misallocation of resources and a glut of products, in this case financial products, that results in an eventual crash.

    Boom/busts happen without government intervention yes, but intervention makes the bust worse. That’s what happened this time.

    Then, in their infinite wisdom, when the capitalist system showed us it was working and weeding out poor firms, the government bailed them out and proposed MORE regulations to make banks BIGGER and the next bust even WORSE.

    The GFC was a crisis of government intervention.

    MattR

    8 Mar 13 at 6:59 pm

  17. this idea that the gfc was caused by govt intervention seems a bit desperate to me . some markets tend to concerntrate power over time – reducing competition . look at our supermarket and banking industries . how would it be if there was only one privatly owned bank in aust (with no reserve )?
    i would rather a govt having influence than leave it up to private companies (which may be owned by just one person ) . business is only interested in short term money – at least govt is supposed to have our interest at heart .
    why cant conservatives compromise ? the left have moved to the right over the last 30 years when it seemed appropriate to do so . now it seems appropriate to move back a bit and the right seems to prefer to drag our political system down than to compromise at all .

    sunshine

    8 Mar 13 at 8:12 pm

  18. this idea that the gfc was caused by govt intervention seems a bit desperate to me

    It is, but that’s standard fare in the parallel universe known as Catallaxy where virtually any suggestion that market forces might be responsible for creating some problems that government intervention could reduce cannot be tolerated. Thus, you will often find Cats seeking to defend the indefensible, which is why they are so easy to debunk.

    William Bragg

    9 Mar 13 at 2:22 am

  19. ..

    .which is why they are so easy to debunk.

    Then why are you so bad at it?

    Squawkbox

    9 Mar 13 at 2:40 am

  20. So I was right.

    Aren’t you always?

    You don’t know the meaning of the word ‘radical’

    Something that is radical proposes some fundamental change in the political structure. Enfranchising women, for example, was thought ‘radical’. There were concerns amongst the power elite at the time that it would alter the political balance of power. In the end it didn’t because women, like men vote according to economic interest. I expect you to derive as much benefit from that as my goldfish does from French lessons.

    Actually Karl Marx was born 193 years ago..

    So what?

    Marx’s ideas are just as ‘radical’ now even by most radical progressive standards.

    Marx’s ideas have had two manifestations. One is Social Democracy which did not lead to the ‘dictator ship of the proletariat’ that Marx and Engels envisaged because, as Frank Zappa said, ‘communism doesn’t work because people like owning stuff.’

    The other one was the Communist movement and what a bunch of fun that was. It was radical. Or pretended to be. Actually Communist regimes bear a great resemblance to Babylonian god-king cults. Been there done that. Anything new?

    I wasn’t talking about Marx.

    In terms of US presidencies there have been presidents of whom one could speak of some kind of radical transformation or at least a change of paradigm. Do you seriously think that Obama takes after Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt? Of these presidents you could say some thing fundamental shifted under their watch, something new was added. Not necessarily good either.

    But Obama?

    Adrien

    10 Mar 13 at 2:12 pm

Leave a Reply