Isolationism and Rand Paul

In America, isolationism grew up in the years between the wars, 1919 to 1939.  People who were horrified by the casualties of WWI or dissatisfied with the outcome of the Versailles Treaty began to preach that America should  stay at home, build up business, and let the rest of the world sink or swim. A luxury permitted to a continental power with abundant domestic natural resources. Isolationism prevented the US from joining the League of Nations, allowed Hitler to do what he liked, and prevented the US from entering WWII until the Pearl Harbor attack
   WWII discredited isolationism, and the Anglosphere, led by America, set up the post war world and has run it ever since.  It's been a fairly decent world, far more decent than a world run by the Communists or Islam would be.  We have insisted upon the sanctity of international borders, free trade, freedom of the seas, liberating colonies, reasonable stability in international currency exchange, self determination, i.e. no messing around in the internal politics of other states, and human rights.  The Pax Americana has been successful, it outlasted the Soviets, avoided WWIII, and has not been unduly expensive for us to maintain.  The bulk of the world has been happy with it.  They trust the Americans to uphold international order and not take them over. 
   Counterexamples, Putin in Ukraine, ISIS, and others serve as horrible examples of what could happen without the Americans. 
   And now we have Rand Paul running for President and preaching a return to isolationism.  Let us hope the American voters have a better grasp of modern history than Mr. Paul has. 

More Polarization

In addition to the vast democratic majorities in the "good old days"  (50s-60s) the United States faced an existential enemy, a communist, nuclear armed, superpower bent on world domination.  "We will bury you" quoth Nikita Khrushchev.  Communism is about as left as politics can get.  Communism stood for ownership of the means of production (companies) by the state.  In practice that meant liquidation of company shareholders, owners, and for good measure anyone else who stood in the way. 
   This was opposed by all the targeted groups in the US, and by American labor.  Coming out of the 1930's, American workers had organized strong unions and collectively bargained some pretty decent contracts.  The rank and file figured that they had things under control, and any move toward state ownership of the means of production would break their contracts and leave them worse off.  The Democratic party was (and perhaps still is) the party of organized labor,  the Republicans were (and still are) the party of businessmen, who were as hostile to communism as the union men were.
   Which meant that the lefty impulses in the body politic could not move too far from center if they wanted to win an election.  In fact both Democrats and Republicans supported the Cold War, with such effect that the existential enemy suffered political collapse by 1991.
    Now, with communism being pretty dead for the last 25 years,  it becomes possible for American lefties to say things and do things that would have gotten them tossed out of the party in the old days.  "You want to share the wealth don't you," would have branded Obama as a commie back in the day.   In short, the fall of Soviet Communism allows the modern US democrats to go way farther to the left than would have been possible during the Cold War, when communist sympathizers were branded as traitors.  The Republicans have pretty much stayed in place, ideologically.  You don't hear any modern Republican going farther right than good old Barry Goldwater did in 1964. 
   In short, defeat of Soviet Communism has allowed the lefties out of the box and into the body politic where they attract flak.  
  

Polarization of US politics.

I've seen countless whines on this subject.  No bipartisanship, too much bickering, gridlock, yada yada.  Usually by democrats.  And, I gotta agree with them.  Over my memory span, the Congresscritters have grown meaner and nastier, far more likely to do ad hominem attacks upon the other party. 
  How come?
  Well, back in the good old days (50s,60s) the Democrats had an overwhelming majority just about everywhere, Congress, state houses, city halls.  You don't squabble with members of your own party.  And if you are a real small Republican minority party you know you have to get along with the majority Democrats if you ever want to get any of your stuff passed.  So things ran a bit smoother, and with more politeness under a one and a half party system. 
  Starting with Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, the Republicans finally gained enough strength nationwide to draw level with, or even ahead of,  the Democrats.  When you have the votes to push thru your program, you don't have to be polite to the opposition, you just vote it thru.  The opposition hates that, but that's democracy for you. 
   So, the "polarization" so decried by the democrats is actually a sign of the return of two party politics. 

Inspections.

Obama's murky deal with Iran does some talking about inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities to report when Iran starts building an atomic bomb.  Apparently we don't get to do no knock inspections. 
But, the question is, should the inspectors catch the Iranian cheating and bomb building, do we, the US, have the stones to do anything about it?  Obama probably doesn't. 
   I have been reading Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm".  After WWI the victors disarmed Germany and set up an inspection regime to make sure the Germans didn't cheat.  Well, the Germans did cheat, and when they created a new Army and new Air Force, completely in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, the French and the British lacked the stones to do anything about it.  The Americans were into isolationism and coping with the Great Depression.  And WWII happened. 
   I fear that only military action will keep the Iranians from the bomb. 

Pease Flap

NHPR ran a story this morning about pollution at Pease Tradeport (the former Pease Air Force Base).  I never heard of this pollutant before (PFC's I think they were talking about).  NHPR did admit that there were no human studies proving that the stuff was harmful.  Actually, running such a study has severe ethical problems but never mind. 
   The stuff had been detected in the water of test wells drilled to look for it.  NHPR, continuing its tradition of innumeracy, didn't mention how much had been detected.  Modern laboratory technique is sensitive enough to detect a little bit of anything just about anywhere.  No mention was made about tests on tapwater.  They were hot to trot to test the blood of residents, workers, and former workers, but nobody had volunteered to pay for all this medical work. 
   Could it be that the greenies are out to shut down Pease by inventing a new hazard?  I mean the greenies invented Bicknell's Thrush just to prevent skiing on the Mittersill trails. 

Retail Politics in the North country.

George Pataki came to Littleton this morning.  Despite a couple a hundred emails announcing the event, turnout was light.  We had nearly as many people from the local papers as we did voters.  George Pataki was looking and sounding good.  His hair hasn't turned gray yet, he is tall, erect carriage, looks good speaking.  In reply to my question "What should we do to get GNP growth up from 2-2.5 percent to 3.5-4 percent, the governor mentioned income tax reform to bring off shore corporate money home, scrapping Obamacare, and reducing government regulation.  He asked the audience how they felt about the future of America, received equivocal answers, and then went on to say that that government meddling was the cause of universal American pessimism.  He is against Common Core.   He wants stronger American armed forces.  He wants to control the borders, but expressed pride in his own immigrant roots.

Crowd was sparce.   Judy Clews and Silvia Smith in the front row.

Bob Menendez, Senator, DOJ target

All I know is what I see on TV.  But the charges against Menendez sound like constituent service to me.  You take care of your constituents, your voters, your donors, your friends.  People only donate money to your campaign 'cause they want something from you.  There is little difference between campaign contributions and bribes.
   Anyhow, the Obama administration has decided to prosecute a democratic senator on shaky grounds.  Maybe they want to silence a critic.  Maybe some DOJ people have a grudge.  Who knows?  But life in the United States is becoming dangerous when even US Senators can be attacked by their government.