Tonight's Lineup
On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:
We will begin the program with an emphasis on taxes and spending in light of President Bush's speech earlier this morning.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will square off on these issues, followed by a debate between former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, who will also address the current energy crisis and mixed messages from the Fed.
We will discuss the markets with Jeffrey Kleintop, Chief Investment Strategist of PNC Advisors; Barry James, President of James Advantage Funds, and John Augustine, chief investment strategist at Fifth Third Asset Management.
Also, Hunter Harrison, Canadian National Railway CEO will discuss railroads and CNBC's Jim Goldman will talk tech.
TONIGHT'S POLL QUESTION:
Does patriotism play a role for you when purchasing a car?
Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.
We will begin the program with an emphasis on taxes and spending in light of President Bush's speech earlier this morning.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will square off on these issues, followed by a debate between former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, who will also address the current energy crisis and mixed messages from the Fed.
We will discuss the markets with Jeffrey Kleintop, Chief Investment Strategist of PNC Advisors; Barry James, President of James Advantage Funds, and John Augustine, chief investment strategist at Fifth Third Asset Management.
Also, Hunter Harrison, Canadian National Railway CEO will discuss railroads and CNBC's Jim Goldman will talk tech.
TONIGHT'S POLL QUESTION:
Does patriotism play a role for you when purchasing a car?
Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.
posted by Money Politic$ at 3:11 PM
115 Comments:
Yes, can't help it.
I'm shocked, Rufus. I was thrilled when Japan rescued us from Detroit and have own Hondas since. Of course, my Accord is now made in OH.
someone tell Kudlow the story of the day is the verdict in the trial of one of the 9/11 hijackers. Not Bush's speech.
I was thrilled, also, Sharp. The trouble is, when I'm ready for a new car my old car (invariably, a Ford) just automatically pulls into the nearest Ford Dealership.
It just does it. I have no control. "No Control." You hear me? I have "No" Control!
I'm with you, Rufus.
I love it! Robert Reich doesn't want us to foul our nest by drilling in the Cuban Straits.
He wants China, and Venezuela to "foul our nest," I guess.
BTW, Who would you rather have drilling off the Coast of "Your" house, Venezuela, or Exxon?
Sharp, that was an "amazing" post on the number of people the railroads have to hire in the next 5 years.
Those are GOOD jobs.
Yeah, Larry; Let's put the country into Recession to "Protect the Dollar."
You never know when you might want to buy another Peugeot, or something.
I mean, Herbert Hoover thought that was a Great Idea.
No one has to foul his nest to drill for oil and natural gas with today's technology. All this talk of the environment is bunk to cover the fact the powerful and rich environmental groups support the Democrats much more than the oil companies do Republicans. Actually corporations quit donating much after the campaign reform McCain loves. The environmental groups are radical and expect total loyalty. The GOM withstood the hurricanes last year with minimal damage from spills. Why is it a trade off? Windmills aren't going to run my car in the next ten years.
I will take Exxon off my shore. I will take the CEO of Exxon solving problems instead of politicians.
I heard a 20-year vet of futures trading in energy call Rush today and say the oil companies are out of the loop in setting prices for anything. It is all done by the traders. Why don't the Republicans educate the public instead of pandering to ignorance. Why doesn't CNBC interview these guys? The MSM is helping Democrats push the issue of the price of gasoline for all it is worth. CBS even has one guy traveling around to find any senior that will say he has to do without drugs or food because of the price. The quoted AARP poll is from after Katrina. I know one can join the AARP socialist org. at 50, but if one is on a fixed income, why does he have to drive so much. I assume he is retired and absolutely required to drive for appointments and pleasure.
The Republicans are being stupid.
rufus, the biggest traders in oil futures are oil companies, not wall street firms such as GS.
Tax, I think you are confusing my post with Sharp's.
Refinery utilization rose to 88.8% of capacity last week, from 88.2% the prior week, the Energy Department said.
Rigzone
yeah, i was confused. it's been a confusing week so far.
Cramer and crew become more valuable as among the few that share research on companies and views on the market that I know and trust.
In a sharp move from tradition to try to win more customers, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has asked some stock analysts to abandon writing and distributing research reports in favor of discussing stock picks and strategies directly with select clients such as hedge funds and the brokerage firm's traders.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114671158604343495.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Tax, is there a reference that oil companies are the biggest traders of futures in oil and gasoline?
sharp, the data is publish by the commodity futures trading commission.
The producers are always the largest traders in commodity futures. They use futures for hedging and have no limit on how much of a commodity they can buy or sell. They are so big that they can take actual physical delivery. In contrast, only one or two wall street shops have their own oil storage tanks.
Thanks, Tax.
US Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat-Florida, said Wednesday he still plans
to block the nomination of Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, a Republican, to be
Interior secretary unless the senator receives assurances Florida will be
protected from expanded offshore oil and natural gas drilling.
Nelson pledged to place a hold on Kempthorne from the moment he was
nominated by the White House in March to replace Gale Norton, but on Wednesday
it became clear what it would take to get Nelson to back down from the threat
Platts
Oil companies are known far and wide as the biggest traders in oil and gasoline.
Is this the bill the President asked them to cut?
May 3rd, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Norm Coleman today announced he is an original cosponsor of legislation to extend the 2002 Farm Bill beyond its expiration date of 2007 until the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round negotiations are complete. A member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Coleman endorsed a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Jim Talent (R-MO) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) to postpone changing the Farm Bill until WTO negotiations conclude and the resulting new trade rules go into effect...
The bipartisan legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Kit Bond (R-MO), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AK) and David Vitter (R-LA).
Coleman
Sure. Might be some political horse-trading going on. Bodman's talking about removing the tariff on imported ethanol.
But then you've got the "enhanced" alternative energy bill.
I don't think the (above) "Farm Bill" will make it.
Bill just said Bodman wants more ethanol and was asking help to produce more. I thought that was more money to put the pumps in and all.
Who would be trading with both MO as corn ethanol, Dorgan corn/beets, LA sugar/is AK sugar? Looks like ag states to me. I think they should pass an anti-gouging bill for sugar.
The Ag states will, rightfully, look at removing the import tariffs as being damaging to their nascent ethanol (and farmning) industries.
They will try to trade continuing the farm subsidies for removing the import tariffs. I don't think Dubya will go for it.
The administration will point to the new enhanced energy bill, and tell them that that's their trade-off.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060417/SCANNERS/60417001
Does patriotism play a role for you when purchasing a car?
No. I'm a really free market when it comes to cars. Offer me a quality product at a fair price and I'll look at what you've got.
After watching the garbage that my father bought from U.S. automakers in the 80s, and the vast difference when he bought his first Toyota, I was hooked on Japanese. I've had nothing but good experiences with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Mazda (about 10 vehicles in all between me and the wife).
In my lifetime, I've also purchased two VW's. After the last one, I'll never do that again. It was a pig, and I dumped it at 50K miles with it approaching the need for a new clutch and a 2nd set of brakes. Total junk.
Enron as a musical? Was it Sempra that bought Enron's metals trading business?
I'm remembering the catango effect now where it is cheaper to store oil at the refineries than to buy it in the futures market where it has been higher.
Does everyone know gasoline is higher than it used to be?
I decided I'd buy at Exxon this week instead of Hess because of all the hype, but I find all of the Exxon stations in my area are gone. The corner where I used to buy has Texaco on one side and Chevron on the other. I don't know how far I would have to drive to protest.
Speaking at a conference of central and eastern European leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday lamented Russia's use of its oil and gas resources as an instrument of coercion.
"America and all of Europe also want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies," said Cheney. "Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade." He noted that the Russian government has "unfairly and improperly" curbed the rights of religious groups, journalists, advocacy groups, and political parties
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31863
Say what you want about this administration(and, I know some of you will;) They DO call a Spade, "A Spade."
It is good to see Noah back. I like his view of economics and his stock picks. He is still a growth stock manager who does not own commodities or oil stocks.
One might think commodity or energy stocks are expensive, but the companies cannot be compared to the companies which had no product, no revenue, no profits of the dotcom era. I think most commodity companies have assets and have had profits. Supply and demand should be examined. I think saying what is up must come down and what is down must go up is easy, but it is not reasoning.
Two things are going to happen in 08'. China's pre-Olympics spending will slow down, and a lot of Copper,etc. will start to come on-line.
At some point the market will start to anticipate this. When? ?
rufus said...
Say what you want about this administration(and, I know some of you will;) They DO call a Spade, "A Spade."
It might be time for George W. to take second look into Putin's soul.
Better yet, maybe he should just get out of the eyes/soul reading business, period. He doesn't seem to be too good at it.
Sen Coburn has a gooded article posted on Realclearpolitics.com title "Mr. President, Veto This Bill"
This blog malfunctions more than the other. I agree China will slow after the Olympics. They are trying to slow it down now. I agree that commodities will drop and stay down at some point, but I see little value in listening to five people discuss them when Barry is the only one who even owned or owns an oil stock. I have never seen a column by Herb on the faults of a commodity based company. His work is great, but it is in other areas. Cody writes a telecom newletter, and has been predicting the crash of oil for over a year. Noah works in a shop where others invest in such stocks, but it is not his area. He is smart enough not to have an opinion. Larry does not buy stocks or research companies. I think it wise to match the topic to the panel.
And it is earnings season, and there must be 100+ companies who's CEO would come on. I like the opinion of business people. Their view is different from those who are not players.
I think Bush took a second look if Cheney is saying it in such plain language.
I wonder how many earmarks went to Oklahoma last year?
Sharp said ..
drop and stay down at some point, but I see little value in listening to five people discuss them when Barry is the only one who even owned or owns an oil stock. I have never seen a column by Herb on the faults of a commodity based company. His work is great, but it is in other areas. Cody writes a telecom newletter, and has been predicting the crash of oil for over a year. Noah works in a shop where others invest in such stocks, but it is not his area. He is smart enough not to have an opinion. Larry does not buy stocks or research companies. I think it wise to match the topic to the panel.
=======================
might be time to change the channel ?
Stix, I thought you had.
I see little value in listening to five people discuss them when Barry is the only one who even owned or owns an oil stock.
Good post, sharp. But don't forget that it's all just entertainment. No body should take these things seriously.
agreed Tax -- sharp has little patience or curiousity for opinions he doesnt agree with. He'd prefer hearing Larry scream and holler for one hour every day.
sharp said...
Stix, I thought you had.
=============
No Sharp I actually enjoyed the segments. Its interesting to hear different viewpoints and do my best to try and learn from each. I found it especially interesting to hear Blackstone actually weave in to the discussion Bill Miller latest Fund commentary about the commodities explosion.
My mind is open to listen and learn ---yours seem closed and unpenetrable and you just want to hear people speak the same opinions you have. Just because you dont own any oil stocks has no bearing to the relaevance of your opinions on commodities.
any luck getting any radio on the car radio or has civilization still not reached you yet.
stix, I like and respect the work of every single guest tonight. I respect the opinions, but I will not make investment decisions on them. I would prefer to know what Noah is buying. I can read some of the work of Cody, Barry, and Herb. It might be fun with nice, intelligent people, but I will still listen to the experts on commodities and energy to make my decisions. I bet every guest tonight knows that.
My radio gets talk radio and church on AM. I gave up on FM. There are only two talk programs I can take for more than a few seconds.
sharp said...
Speaking at a conference of central and eastern European leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday lamented Russia's use of its oil and gas resources as an instrument of coercion.
"America and all of Europe also want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies," said Cheney. "Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade." He noted that the Russian government has "unfairly and improperly" curbed the rights of religious groups, journalists, advocacy groups, and political parties
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31863
It is obvious that the Bush administration's objective is to isolate and weaken Russia. Either that or they are incredibly ignorant of both history and key elements in the Russian character. One of the the defining characteristics of the Russians is their paranoia. Ever since the nation was formed in the 12th century they have had to fight to survive. They were basically a land-locked country surrounded by enemies. After throwing off two centuries of mongol domination, they began expanding through conquest. One of the key reasons was to provide a buffer between them and the other major powers around them.
Today, after the breakup of the USSR, Russia occupies about the same amount of land that it had in the 17th century but it has lost major raw material and food producing regions. In addition, it is contiguous with 14 separate countries including China, North Korea, Mongolia, and some of the Nato countries. In addition, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan are all in the neighborhood. This would probably tend to make us a little paronoid to.
The US National Security Policy states that "the goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system." GWB has stated that is his goal and he has followed thru with it in his support of the colored revolutions in the Ukraine and other former states of the USSR. Then Cheney goes to Lithuania, the first country to break away from the old Soviet Union and now a member of both Nato and the EU and starts badmouthing Putin about democracy.
If you understand the Russian character and their long history of paranoia, you can understand why they might be concerned with a US policy that is pushing for new democracies in states contiguous with Russia.
Nuclear weapons aside, Russia has basically become a second tier player on the world scene. Two cards that they do have left, however, are oil and the UN veto. Given that they view the US as a competitor rather than a partner, it is unlikely we can count on them for any help on oil or Iran.
You know, we've seen it all over the globe. Democracy is just awfully hard to do.
Moving from Dictatorship to Democracy is just fraught with difficulties.
A dictator by any other name...
As we have seen in a number of countries, "democracy" does not preclude what is, in effect, a dictatorship, whether secular or clerical or whether of a person or an oligarchy..
I guess the next step is to define what is "an acceptable" democracy.
My definitiion would be a situation in which the people can go to the polls on a prescribed basis and, through fair elections, retain or vote out the reigning government. Everything else is "icing on the cake."
Rufus, your definition of democracy is descriptive but insufficient, at least in terms of your previous statement that moving from dictatorship to democracy is fraught with difficulties. The word "democracy" has aquired a positive connotation. Everyone is "for" democracy. Just ask Putin and Hu. However, there are many kinds of democracy and some of them look very much like dictatorships.
The only reason I press the point is that we have a national security strategy that says we will be pushing for "democracy" throughout the world. The question I ask myself more and more is how much blood and treasure should we as a country be expending promoting "democracy" when the end results of our efforts are, at best, iffy. Especially, when, it seems to me, the acceptable definition of democracy appears to vary significantly from East to West and from North to South.
And I repeat my question, is the next step to define and "acceptable" democracy? And if we do that, isn't that in effect negating the very meaning of democracy as you laid it out?
Just musing, Ruf. It has been a slow couple of days on the blog.
Q, I think the message to Russia is it has nothing to fear from free countries on its borders. It is a definite obstacle to dealing with Iran, and I imagine it would favor Venezuela over us. I don't know the reason for the speech since so much goes on in the shadows of diplomacy. I know Putin has a big ego and will answer. The worst thing is Cramer thinks Cheney blew it for Halliburton and Baker Hughes for all that work that needs done on their neglected oil fields. It will all go to Schlumberger and the French. That's humor before someone yells. Besides I own Baker Hughes and am loving it.
Rufus is right. There has to be a vote that is fair and presents a choice. A vote like the one in Palestine presented no choice since both parties were crooked and radical. It can't be a vote once either. I think it is better to push for freedom than democracy, but I understand true democracies do not attack each other.
12:55 COMDX U.S. ethanol prices averaged $2.7937 a gal today, up 6.3% - Bloomberg -Update-
Bloomberg reports that U.S. ethanol prices averaged $2.7937 a gal today (up 6.3% from the end of last week and the highest price since at least 1997 -- the average was more than double $1.1960 a year earlier).
What are the WH changes? I spent the morning in isolation.
Q, I agree. It seems like it's been a "long" week. I know I'm tired (I don't know why.) In fact, I'm almost too tired for pontificatin, and hyperbolitatin.
Old Ben Franklin had it right when he said (and I'm paraphrasing,) "You have a Republic, Ma'am; if you can keep it."
It's said that FDR was very afraid that we would lose our Democracy in the Great Depression.
I'm babbling.
I think I'll start my Friday happy hour a bit early, today.
Gateway Pundit has the story on Ray McGovern, the man who heckled Rumsfeld yesterday.
I'm going to go buy me a "cooker," and some copper tubing. At $2.79/gal, that cottonwood tree behind my house is starting to look very "refinable."
Porter Goss told'em to go "Stuff it." I don't blame him.
Thank's Sharp, I was trying to get someone engaged this afternoon. Larry, must be busy working on his interview with GWB.
You say Russia has nothing to fear from free countries on it's borders; however, as I mentioned in my initial post, Russia has a long history of paronoia. You may also remember that at the time of the breakup of the USSR that the US indicated to Russia that they would not be encouraging former Soviet states to join Nato. It was only a couple of years later that Lithuania became the first to join. It is easy for us to say "Trust us", you "have nothing to fear from free countries" on your borders but this ignores the Russian psyche and the fact that with the ongoing "color" revolutions (supported by the US) and the US movement into Iraq and Afghanistan along with former Soviet states seeking membership in Nato and the EU, Russia actually is becoming surrounded. Sometimes paronoids actually do have something to fear.
Regardless, Bush administration "tough talk" is not going to effect Russia other than to solidify the Russian's belief that they are in fierce competition with the US. Looking at it objectively, it is easy to see why Russia (and China for that matter) are seeking bilateral alliances with countries that are on the outs with the US.
I won't go into your emphasis on the commercial aspects of these matters now since I have to run out for a while; however, when you start using words like "fair..., crooked..., radical..., and true democracy", it gets back to my question of who decides what is a "true democracy". How do you objectively define a subjective term? And who gets to decide? And do we support all democracy or just true democracy? And once it is decided, how much blood and treasure do we expend promoting true democracy? And what if a majority of people in the US think we shouldn't be spending blood and treasure in expanding true democracy worldwide? Do we continue to do it because it is the "right" thing to do? If so, is that democracy?
BTW, Q, I do think our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were the correct ones. But, I don't think we can do this very often. It's just too mentally, and emotionally exhausting.
Taking part in our own Democracy, and it's politicians, is infuriating enough. Trying to kibbitz a couple of down-trodden, impoverished, backward, sectarian strife-ridden Middle East Countries at the same time is too much.
Then comes Iran. G_D, I need a break.
Patriotism when buying a car? Are you nuts?
I was driving through Detroit in 1988 on a baseball roadtrip weekend with my 1984 Mazda B2000. I parked the car in the lot and went in to enjoy the game. When the game was over I came out to the lot to see my car surrounded by everything American-made. You name it, the brands were all represented. My little truck was the only foreign car I could see in the midst of thousands of cars, and on the Ford Pickup parked next to me was this bumber sticker: "Hungry? Out of work? Eat your rice burner!"
I giggled, of course, because I was not in a union job worrying about a dying American industry in which the Japanese were eating our lunch.
I feel bad for those UAW workers that are going to come onto hard times; but, their union leaders have robbed them blind. With the money their leaders have had to work with, they should all be able to retire to their own Pacific Islands.
I'll add to rufus' original definition of an "acceptable democracy", with a caveat (explained below).
If we want to distinguish between "real" democracy/republics (i.e. US or Britain) and "fake" democracy (i.e. China or Sadaam's receiving 100% of the vote) beyond rufus' definition, I'd say the important distinction actually lies in the mechanics of the campaigns and elections. Specifically, "real" democracy is further characterized by two things:
(1) a peaceful transfer of power from the losing/retiring politicians to the newly elected politicians
(2) an absolute prohibition against the reigning government dictating who can or can't be a candidate, or how they organize in political parties, or how much they can criticize the current government.
On top of the basic "one man, one vote" requirements for democracy, the two features above ensure that the ruling government can not hold on to power against the wishes of the governed, either through preemptive censorship or through violent resistance to the popular vote. Because control over standing military, police forces, and other law enforcement apparati is ceded to the central government, there is always the danger that these institutions of power will be used against those wishing to change or reform the government. (Incidentally this is also why militia are important to freedom in addition to a standing army.) Thus Sadaam prevented any non-Baath party members from running for office, and China oppresses anyone who disagrees with the current rulers' policies, so they can hold elections without allowing the people a non-government sanctioned option.
UB, you're right, of course; but, I did say "Fair" elections, and I did throw in that they could "retain" or "throw out" the bums.
Oops, forgot to include my caveat:
It should be noted that the above features are not necessarily enough to ensure the people get the government they want. If freedom of speech, press, or assembly is hampered to the point of non-existance, then dissenters will not be able to get their message out even if they are allowed to run for office. Whether or not such restrictions entail the actual destruction of democracy is open for debate.
For example, suppose the US took various campaign finance reforms to an extreme and banned all political advertisements not delivered by the candidate himself. (People living in battleground states know how tempting this proposition can be, especially close to election day!) Freedom of speech would be sharply curtailed, but the election itself is still democractic so long as the candidates can make whatever criticisms they please. This would be a dangerous step to take since it is possible that some issues could be completely ignored by the candidates (either through ignorance or collusion); but it would not inherently undermine the ability of the people to democratically elect whatever government they chose.
Just clarifying for the record, rufus. "Fair" is a hard word to quantify, especially when political philosophy meets reality. (Plus too many law courses and philosophy papers back in college might have drilled an aversion to "short answers to broad questions" into me. I'm just glad I managed to avoid slipping into the democracy vs republic rant!)
For a good breakdown of the distinctions between real and "fake" democracies, Wikipedia has a great map showing the different political forms around the world, and a decent summary of the theory behind the distinctions.
rufus said... I'm going to go buy me a "cooker," and some copper tubing. At $2.79/gal, that cottonwood tree behind my house is starting to look very "refinable."
And if you throw in some fruit, sugar, molasses, etc., it can save you money on Friday nights. Happy hour will soon be upon us, plus it's Cinco de Mayo!
This was not a Good jobs report. While it's true the big companies were adding a few employees, the small companies were hemorraging employees. That's not Good.
159,000 people entered the labor force, according to the "household" survey. Employment only increased 47,000. The unemployment rate, if carried out to two decimal points, was considerably worse than last month. This is probably about as good as it's going to get for awhile.
The Fed has already gone too far. We might be back to 4.9 or 5.0% unemployment before the Fed wakes up, and starts cutting.
Yeah, UB; but it looked like a choice between writing "Fair," and writing a book. I chose Fair.
Okay, I'm Lazy. Sue me.
Later Guys, "Bud's" calling.
Porter Goss has resigned! Can't wait for the explanation for this one.
School is not out and all of the students are not in the unemployment figures yet. It is good that wages came up some.
I'm tired of hearing everyone guess the Fed.
While the President worries about quotas on items the country needs, he could remove the quota on cement and sugar.
Rufus-- you arent lazy --- UNB is just extremely verbose. Noone really cares as much about the subtle nuance like he does. Quantifying the word fair is a useless exercise.
Is the sky blue today or is it gray ? Accuweather has a GREAT map showing where the sky is both colors or sometimes neither and a decent summary of the theory behind the distinctions.
stix isn't being fair.
I had to leave this morning. Did anyone hear Mark Haines pick The Derby, or is Squawk too dignified for the sport of kings now?
Here you go Sharp -- read this crap to your hearts delight -- It goes on and on and on and caveats and clarifies the record ? What a bunch of useless hyperbole. Blah buh blah buh blah . Time to grow up UNbeleiever noone gives a crap about your subtle distinctions.
====================
I'll add to rufus' original definition of an "acceptable democracy", with a caveat (explained below).
If we want to distinguish between "real" democracy/republics (i.e. US or Britain) and "fake" democracy (i.e. China or Sadaam's receiving 100% of the vote) beyond rufus' definition, I'd say the important distinction actually lies in the mechanics of the campaigns and elections. Specifically, "real" democracy is further characterized by two things:
(1) a peaceful transfer of power from the losing/retiring politicians to the newly elected politicians
(2) an absolute prohibition against the reigning government dictating who can or can't be a candidate, or how they organize in political parties, or how much they can criticize the current government.
On top of the basic "one man, one vote" requirements for democracy, the two features above ensure that the ruling government can not hold on to power against the wishes of the governed, either through preemptive censorship or through violent resistance to the popular vote. Because control over standing military, police forces, and other law enforcement apparati is ceded to the central government, there is always the danger that these institutions of power will be used against those wishing to change or reform the government. (Incidentally this is also why militia are important to freedom in addition to a standing army.) Thus Sadaam prevented any non-Baath party members from running for office, and China oppresses anyone who disagrees with the current rulers' policies, so they can hold elections without allowing the people a non-government sanctioned option.
Oops, forgot to include my caveat:
It should be noted that the above features are not necessarily enough to ensure the people get the government they want. If freedom of speech, press, or assembly is hampered to the point of non-existance, then dissenters will not be able to get their message out even if they are allowed to run for office. Whether or not such restrictions entail the actual destruction of democracy is open for debate.
For example, suppose the US took various campaign finance reforms to an extreme and banned all political advertisements not delivered by the candidate himself. (People living in battleground states know how tempting this proposition can be, especially close to election day!) Freedom of speech would be sharply curtailed, but the election itself is still democractic so long as the candidates can make whatever criticisms they please. This would be a dangerous step to take since it is possible that some issues could be completely ignored by the candidates (either through ignorance or collusion); but it would not inherently undermine the ability of the people to democratically elect whatever government they chose
Just clarifying for the record, rufus. "Fair" is a hard word to quantify, especially when political philosophy meets reality. (Plus too many law courses and philosophy papers back in college might have drilled an aversion to "short answers to broad questions" into me. I'm just glad I managed to avoid slipping into the democracy vs republic rant!)
For a good breakdown of the distinctions between real and "fake" democracies, Wikipedia has a great map showing the different political forms around the world, and a decent summary of the theory behind the distinctions.
======================
IS THERE A POINT HERE that could not be made in 4 sentences.Get a life UNB.
So, Mark didn't pick The Derby?
No Magic, he's right; and, I AM Lazy. Oh well
Sharp, I'm not second guessing the Fed. I'm just saying they're Stupid. They're following a 1950's Keynesian "Socialist" Model to screw up a 21st Century Economy.
The "Small" Companies are where the under-educated, under-skilled worker goes to get experiance, and develop job skills. I'm afraid the next set of loan demand figures will show that Small Businesses are retrenching.
For the last week we've been seeing big employers bemoaning the fact that they can't find anywhere near enough skilled workers. We're not talking about Computer Engineers. We're talking about someone who can operate a back-hoe, or drive a fork-lift. These are skills that are developed working for mom and pop shops.
MS, since my response is a little verbose and mainly directed to UB, please pass over it. On a slow news day, I tend to nit-pick.
UB, you are missing the key point I am trying to make. Who gets to decide whether the criteria you estasblished for free elections is in place? The "Decider"? Jimmy Carter? The UN? And regardless, of the mechanics of the democracy/republic we are talking about who gets to decide whether that democracy/republic is legitimate? Us?
Sharp seems to indicate that you can't have a legitimate democracy if both parties running are corrupt. My question is what do you do in that case given the precepts of the Bush Doctrine. How much blood and treasure, or political capital if you will, should we expend to achieve "legitimate" democracy throughout the world.
I think it is an important question given that there doesn't appear to be a broad consensus in this country at the moment towards being overly agressive in this area.
But maybe I am talking too theoretically. Let me give you an actual example. According to the CIA assessment, "free elections" (their words) have been held in Nicaragua three times since 1990. New elections are coming soon and many are predicting a victory by the socialist Sandanista's. Would their government be legitimate? Would it still be a democracy?
An associated question is does the Bush Doctrine and our National Security Policy require consistency in order to avoid cynical sniping about hypocrisy. Another example. Morocco, a constitutional monarchy, has been moving more and more towards a representative form of government beginning in the 1990's. This does not change the fact that in the 1970's, Morocco annexed Western Sahara. A war which has settled into a low grade conflict has been carried on between Morocco and SADR ever since pending a diplomatic resolution of the dispute. The US has supported Morocco's position in the UN. (Many think it is because Morocco similar to Sudan has been helpful in the WOT). Does our position on the Western Sahara jive with our position on the "Colored Revolutions" in the former Soviet states. Does consistency even matter? Or is what we are looking at idealism tempered by realpolitik?
And on a slightly less serious note, before we begin talking about legitimacy of government being negated by corrupt parties, it might be wise to note how many times the word corrupt has been used in the media over the past year in talking about the two parties in our system. And what can we say about free elections here when through gerrymandering by both parties, in any given election over 98% of the seats are usually considered safe.
Just a little humor, Sharp. Don't get upset.
Finally, I guess I am just more comfortable with what I remember of Reagan's foreign policy than of Bush's. Rather than nation-building, I would like to see a return to a policy that says America is a "shining city on a hill" and if you like what you see, we invite you to come along. However, if you don't like what you see and want to do something about it, we will out-arm, out-spend, out-whatever-ever-it-takes to defeat you.
LFC, I think $2.79/gal is a little more than I normally spend for my happy hour beverages. (I'm kind of a low-maintenance rufus) Maybe, I'll just sell my "Dogwood" Ethanol, and buy my standard (swill) fare.
Q, UB, after reading your posts I think we had better just stick with my definition.
BTW, that "Shining City on the Hill" was fine, soaring rhetoric, but it wasn't really policy. We slinked out of Lebanon with our tails between our legs, and we our "covert" hijinks in Central America were pretty messy at best.
rufus said... LFC, I think $2.79/gal is a little more than I normally spend for my happy hour beverages.
Maybe now, but what happens when it's more profitable to distill into fuel rather than cheap booze? And think of all the moonshiners coming back into the biz to sell untaxed ethanol to gas stations.
Rufus, sorry, I didn't mean you. I was listening to the tv and wondering how many people can say the same things, and how often they can say them.
Careful that cheap happy hour can cause a heck of a hangover. Splurge.
A Democrat is always a Democrat first. Bernanke did not LEAK.
Sharp seems to indicate that you can't have a legitimate democracy if both parties running are corrupt. My question is what do you do in that case given the precepts of the Bush Doctrine. How much blood and treasure, or political capital if you will--------
Q, it can be called a democratic election, but the choices were dismal. Now that Palestine elected a terrorist organization as the legitimate government, it encourages other terrorists when it should not. My only point was it is not much of an election w/o choice. I'm willing to let it stand if they are. I do not want to pay for the society that resulted. Blood and treasure has nothing to do with it. Iran does not have much of an election when most of the candidates are prevented from running.
I agree that many of our states, if not every state, need to reform the election process. Republicans do not dispute that. John Fund has written and spoken to it more than anyone else. I will not call our elections invalid because of the irregularities that have existed for years, and I will not say they should not be corrected.
My main question on the Cheney speech is why now?
Look, let's be honest; a couple of single-malts, a tuxedoed night with the hoi-poloi, and Maria in a black evening gown would make the sphinx leak.
How can Reich blame the MediCare expense on the drug benefit when it just started?
Well, maybe "leak" wasn't the right word, but you get the picture.
Uh, Sharp, Reich IS a Democrat. Ya know?
He might have heard there could be some job openings in his favorite town in a couple of years.
Lifetime Fiscal Conservative said...
Porter Goss has resigned! Can't wait for the explanation for this one.
I can't wait to hear Larry tell us what a great and necessary move this was by the Bush administration. How Goss was standing in the way of the true reforms needed to effectively fight the war on terror and how his appointment was the fault of the congress who ok'd him.
Rufus I agree. your definition will suffice . I got a headache reading UB's posts. What a bunch of menusha .
Sharp, some of the "Conservatives" have been wanting him to skip the trip to the G-8, at St. Petersburg. This was kind of a "consolation" prize.
Of course, if you'll remember, Condi whipped up on Russia pretty good when she was down in the 'Stans a couple of weeks, ago.
Rufus, I was thinking G8.
I see the Brits fired useless Straw and appointed an anit-American environmentalist. Poor Condi.
wash, some just cannot digest abstract information. I imagine it does appear unnecessarily complex.
rufus said...
that "Shining City on a Hill was fine, soaring rhetoric, but it wasn't really policy.
No but it beats:
"I know the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully"
or
"When we are talking about war, we are really talking about peace."
Although, I have to admit, I am not sure whether either of these are or aren't policy.