OWS vs. the Iron Lady
This is easily one of my favorite Thatcher moments, and it is every bit as important now as it was then. It is the fundamental problem with the leftist complaint about income inequality: if they truly are worried about income inequality, then they are not worried about the actual welfare of real people. They are just mad that some people have more than others. If they take this seriously, it means that fixing poverty is no less an acceptable policy goal as making everyone poor. After all, if the gap is what is important, it shouldn't matter how much anyone has so long as nobody has more than anybody else.
This goes right back to George Will's point on the difference between the right and the left; the right wants equality of opportunity, the left wants equality of outcome. The whole Occupy movement, in fact, smacks of an irritating "it's not fairism." It's not fair that there are winners and losers, so let's make everyone a loser. This doesn't apply just to the left's views on wealth inequality. Check this beauty from Ezra Klein:
Markets and outcomes be darned. It's not fair!
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
I've often wondered how her hand gestures were recorded in Hansard.
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
That was awesome! And I love how rowdy British parliament even (especially?) during PMQs is.
Aug '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Ironically, the British parliament is usually cited as a role model when Canuckistani opposition politicians start to complain about "incivility" in Canada's House of Commons. They do tend to cherry-pick their examples of UK HoC "civility" by referring to days when there simply wasn't much going on in UK politics.
Of course, parliamentary debates (and Question Period/Question Time in particular) are SUPPOSED to be raucus affairs. The parliamentary process was invented as an alternative to armed insurrection! It's a forum for factions that would otherwise be killing each other to vent their anger at the government in a non-violent way, but not in a non-emotional way.
Edited on November 15, 2011 at 6:01pmApr '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
What I love is that the MPs who speak, along with the PM, must have their position, right or wrong, down cold. It forces each individual to have at least thought out an argument without it being reduced to a just a sound bite.
It may not be a better system than ours but it is certainly never dull.
Apr '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
I have a hard time processing anything that comes out of Ezra Klein's mouth. He seems to lack all self-awareness about what a tremendously pretentious blow-hard a-hole he appears to be frequently. I'm sure he has many wondrously intelligent insights, but I just can't get past his condescending presentation. Perhaps age will improve him or he'll be doomed to the printed page.
Mar '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
It would do Mr Obama good to have to stand in front of Parliament once a week and defend himself, under fierce attack - I don't think he would last more than a week up against Mr Ryan, for example.
It's a flaw in the US system that there is no such equivalent, other than three pseudo-debates before an election.
Edited on November 15, 2011 at 7:45pmApr '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
David Williamson: It would do Mr Obama good to have to stand in front of Parliament once a week and defend himself, under fierce attack - I don't think he would last more than a week up against Mr Ryan, for example.
It's a flaw in the US system that there is no such equivalent, other than three pseudo-debates before an election. · Nov 15 at 10:42am
Edited on Nov 15 at 10:45 am
The length of the questions and responses, though, means that they're mostly like electoral debates, only with hundreds of participants. There isn't time to properly explore issues and most of the time is taken up with insults. Lots of Americans love the insults, but I figure you're better off with policy contests.
Oct '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
The British Parliament: Just like Congress, only with a 2-drink minimum (stolen from Robin Williams)
My parents are from Scotland, I lived there as a young adult and I travel there frequently. I regret to say the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" meme is alive and well.
Here in California, my mother has wonderful healthcare. The care my father received when he was dying was magnificent. Yet she is very enthusiastically for Obamacare.
After much discussion, I finally realized it's not that she is unhappy with her healthcare, it's that she suspects someone somewhere is getting BETTER care. And that's unacceptable.
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
What's interesting is that the small handful of UK nationals I've spoken to have said that Question Time is useless, or have expressed some degree of envy at how comparatively civil members of the US House are.
Jan '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
I wish we had a Margaret Thatcher running for POTUS, but perhaps they don't make them like her anymore. Right now, the closest candidate, in both temperament and intelligence, for nomination is Newt Gingrich.
It would be instructive to imagine each of the Republicans now running in the same circumstance as shown in the clip. Which of the lot would be most like Thatcher in dealing with the opposition party?
Apr '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
It's only useless because in the West in general, rational argumentation has gone the way of the dodo. IF, and that's a big if, the education systems on both sides of the pond were geared toward promoting liberty, it would serve us all well since it would prepare politicians to make their cases on their own two feet instead of crafting everything with a team of writers and phalanxes of focus groups.
The problem in the UK is that it attracts true believers in their causes, who eloquently, if only officially "blow off steam" (apparently, but at least it makes good telly). The problem in the USA is its absence, combined with the dismal public indoctrin...er, education system here makes politics attractive to a practically illiterate criminal plutarchy.
May '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
This does remind me of the time Obama was asked if he would raise capital gains rates even if he KNEW it would bring in less tax revenues. He said yes, because it would be the fair thing to do.
Aug '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Canuckistani politicians also sometimes bring up the US House of Representatives as a model largely, I theorize, because they like the idea of no longer having to take any questions from the legislature once they are ministers of the government.
Whenever someone suggests to me that Question Period/Question Time is useless, I usually ask them how often they watch any parliamentary debates OTHER THAN the daily 45 minutes set aside for QP. Invariably, they have to admit that QP/QT is the only part of the parliamentary debates they have ever watched. Some admit that they didn't even know that the House of Commons did anything OTHER than QP/QT.
QP is covered much more extensively by the news media in Canuckistan than House of Representatives debates are covered by the MSM in the USA (other than C-SPAN, of course). Without QP, the media would most likely ignore the debates entirely.
It's a lot like "negative campaigning" and "attack ads". Voters say they hate them, and yet it's often seems like the only thing that motivates people on election day. Similarly, many people say they hate QP, and yet it's the only part of the system they pay any attention to.
Famously, when Preston Manning's Reform Party was the official opposition, they kept a promise to conduct themselves with more civility. They refused to heckle, and they submitted their questions to ministers in advance, and in writing, so that ministers could formulate real answers.
It was an utter disaster. The government consistently cleaned their clocks in debate.
The lesson had been learned. It's not about "looking good" for the audience at home or the people in the visitors' gallery, it's about holding the government benches to account.
Edited on November 15, 2011 at 9:03pmFeb '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Someone who thinks the Constitution is impossible to understand because it's over 100 years old (gasp!!) is beyond help. He should be digging ditches somewhere rather than pontificating on subjects obviously far beyond his intelligence.
Aug '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Please note, I am not arguing for the superiority of one system over the other.
Rather, I'm attempting to illustrate that the two systems rely on different dynamics, and for politicians of one system to long for ONE ELEMENT of the other system while ignoring how it would affect the rest of the system is a classic case of ignoring unintended consequences.
It isn't really about whether the MPs are on the opposition side or the government side. It would be more accurate to say that MPs only ever seem to complain about civility when they're on the losing side the debate. In their minds it's obvious that they only lost because the rules are stacked against them, or because they're simply too nice for parliament and the other side to too mean.
Aside: Another big difference between the two dynamics. During House of Reps debates, how many Reps are actually in the chamber to listen? Is it not a running joke that Reps speak to an empty room?
By contrast, unlike the rest of the legislative debates or the routine proceedings (which are indeed sparsely-attended), Question Period is a command performance. An MP better have a damned good reason for missing QP or else the Whip will be very ... um ... "cross".
Edited on November 15, 2011 at 9:18pmDec '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Ezra "we're going to have to inflate our way out of this" Klein. I'd call him an s.o.b., but my intent isn't to insult his mother.
We'll be thinking of you, Ezra, when our life's savings dwindle to nothing, you little... twerp.
Mar '11
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Well, I am a UK expat and I don't think Question Time is useless - maybe because I now watch the US system in all its dysfunctionality.
What Question Time does is to give the Prime Minister a weekly reminder that he (or she) is not a King or Emperor, but rather a servant of the people. At any time, a vote of no-confidence can remove him (or her) from power. Mrs Thatcher met her downfall in the House of Commons, for example, not at an election.
It's true that you do have to watch more debates, rather than just Question Time, to get the point. The debates go into much greater depth, and are in the great tradition and style of the Oxford Union.
In contrast, Mr Obama, when he deigns to appear before Congress, can read what he likes from the teleprompter, and nobody can cross-examine him. He can insult the Supreme Court, or Mr Ryan, and they have no way to respond.
That's what I mean by dysfunctional.
.
Edited on November 15, 2011 at 10:42pmJun '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
Misthiocracy
...
The parliamentary process was invented as an alternative to armed insurrection! It's a forum for factions that would otherwise be killing each other to vent their anger at the government in a non-violent way, but not in a non-emotional way.
What a beautiful way to explain it.
We must remember our history. We must remember the alternatives to our way of life. We are so much better off than in days of yore.
Thanks, Misthiocracy.
Jun '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
David Williamson
...
In contrast, Mr Obama, when he deigns to appear before Congress, can say what he likes, and nobody can cross-examine him. He can insult the Supreme Court, or Mr Ryan, and they have no way to respond.
That's what I mean by dysfunctional.
Please don't get confused over who is who in the U.S. system. The president is a co-equal branch of the government with the congress. The congress has no right to cross-examine him. (Is this what you lament?) The congress needn't invite the president into their chambers for the state of the Union speech. He could be forced to present a report to them and that's all.
When all is is said and done about the presidency in our republic, I think the blame for most of our problems resides in the congress. They have not upheld their prerogatives sufficiently.
Think about just giving up on the their power to declare war -- and think about their rolling over when the ridiculous notion was declared that the Supreme Court is the final (or only) arbiter in Constitutional matters. What is wrong with this cowardly institution?
Oct '10
Re: OWS vs. the Iron Lady
That Margaret Thatcher footage alone justified the cost of my annual coffee dues to Ricochet, and a few times over. Thanks for that.