French voters have overwhelmingly rejected the EeeYeww's constitution. So have the Dutch. Now, everyone expected the French to do so, I mean they were worried about placing the decision-making power for their country in...Brussels! Oh the horror! I mean Belgians are so much different than the French, after all, mon dieu! But even the Netherlands can't abide by the EU constitution. I wonder why?
According to Voice of America News, the reason most cited by French voters for the rejection was that the constitution referred to opening the EU market to competition. This would endanger the plentiful French job market, unemployment now languishing at around ten per cent. The French are worried that the new, low taxed Eastern European countries will take their jobs away. And they will! Because they will work cheaper, harder and do the job better and more efficiently. And in the process, they will not strike to get 40 hours pay for 32 hours work, a month or two of vacation time a year, a nice two hour lunch/drunkfest paid by the employer, etc.
It appears that a few of the EU countries think it is a good idea to open up the market to free trade: Britain, Scandanavia, Eastern Europe. The French want the state to take care of them. In insisting upon this for the past twenty years, they have pretty much bankrupted their state and economy. Now they think it is a good idea if the combined countries of Europe take care of them in the style to which they have become accustomed.
I hope the EU doesn't get it together, because they could be a great competitor to the US, but if they do it right: free markets and no welfare state, I wish them luck and good fortune. And if they do, I hope they boot France out and keep them there.
Oh and I hope Dominique de Villepin ( who is a man) takes over for Chiraq. He deserves it.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Progressive?
Liberal Democrats have taken to using the term "progressive" to describe themselves and their policies. Now, understand that I am not in the least interested in attacking these people as disingenuous or as harboring any evil intent. I truly believe that they feel the term is an accurate and genuine descriptor of their ideology. It struck me, this morning as I read a quote from an article by Bob Tyrell, that it is the conservatives in this country that are the true progressives. I realize the terms seem to be in complete opposition, but let me explain.
Progress is the moving forward toward a positive goal. It could be argued that the term "conservative" means the resistance to change. If change were always the "moving forward toward a positive goal", it would certainly mean that conservatives would be in opposition to progress. This is, apparently the context in which progressives (liberals) tend to view the two words. The problem with this view is that the term "positive goal" is subjective. What some people think is positive, others find objectionable.
Today, we find America embroiiled in a controversy regarding the appointment of judges to our nation's courts. Democrats are doing everything they can to block certain judicial nominations from being brought to a vote. The level of the obstruction of these nominees is unprecedented. Democrats are doing this because they feel the nominees will interpret the law in a manner they feel is regressive. They feel the country has proceeded toward this day in a progressive manner and that it should continue in that direction. The appointment of strict constructionists or judges with strong moral or religious temperaments would be antithetical to those progressive ideals.
The moral and political climate of the country's electorate is changing, however. The country as a whole is moving toward the center. This is evidenced by the "redness" of the political map and by the "Republicanization" of our elected officials. Few would argue that fact, since the population of both houses of the legislature is predominantly Republican as is that of the presidency and a majority of the legislatures of the states. As a conservative, I would argue that this is progress.
The people are progressing toward a more conservative allignment. The views of our elected officials are following suit. The positions in the judiciary are appointments. They are not elected by the people but, rather, are appointed by the elected officials. For this reason, in terms of the flow of ideology from the more liberal electorate of the past to the more conservative electorate of the present (and future, I believe), the judiciary is the slowest to move and the last to follow suit. As the country moves to the right, it is the judiciary which is clinging to the ideology of the past; resistant to the ideas that have won the electorate over in much of the country; conserving the ideas of a previous electorate.
I do not begrudge the minority party it's attempts to hold onto that which they think is best for the country nor do I feel that this process is anything but good, in the strictest "checks and balances" sense. I do feel that it is doomed to failure and that the enmity which results will further dampen the cooperative climate between the two parties. This is also inevitable and perhaps good for the country.
It may even be progressive.
Progress is the moving forward toward a positive goal. It could be argued that the term "conservative" means the resistance to change. If change were always the "moving forward toward a positive goal", it would certainly mean that conservatives would be in opposition to progress. This is, apparently the context in which progressives (liberals) tend to view the two words. The problem with this view is that the term "positive goal" is subjective. What some people think is positive, others find objectionable.
Today, we find America embroiiled in a controversy regarding the appointment of judges to our nation's courts. Democrats are doing everything they can to block certain judicial nominations from being brought to a vote. The level of the obstruction of these nominees is unprecedented. Democrats are doing this because they feel the nominees will interpret the law in a manner they feel is regressive. They feel the country has proceeded toward this day in a progressive manner and that it should continue in that direction. The appointment of strict constructionists or judges with strong moral or religious temperaments would be antithetical to those progressive ideals.
The moral and political climate of the country's electorate is changing, however. The country as a whole is moving toward the center. This is evidenced by the "redness" of the political map and by the "Republicanization" of our elected officials. Few would argue that fact, since the population of both houses of the legislature is predominantly Republican as is that of the presidency and a majority of the legislatures of the states. As a conservative, I would argue that this is progress.
The people are progressing toward a more conservative allignment. The views of our elected officials are following suit. The positions in the judiciary are appointments. They are not elected by the people but, rather, are appointed by the elected officials. For this reason, in terms of the flow of ideology from the more liberal electorate of the past to the more conservative electorate of the present (and future, I believe), the judiciary is the slowest to move and the last to follow suit. As the country moves to the right, it is the judiciary which is clinging to the ideology of the past; resistant to the ideas that have won the electorate over in much of the country; conserving the ideas of a previous electorate.
I do not begrudge the minority party it's attempts to hold onto that which they think is best for the country nor do I feel that this process is anything but good, in the strictest "checks and balances" sense. I do feel that it is doomed to failure and that the enmity which results will further dampen the cooperative climate between the two parties. This is also inevitable and perhaps good for the country.
It may even be progressive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
