Monday, April 30, 2007
Vive la France, part trois
Starting here, Polistra has made it clear, (most powerfully here), that she loves France and considers the French way of doing things to be an example that we should follow.
With the latest election results, it appears that Sarkozy will become the French president. He has been serving as Interior Minister, and is the only Euro leader who takes the threat of Mohammed seriously. He is also verbally pro-American, which could mean that France, already a strong ally, will become a partial friend as well. Who knows, maybe some of our politicians will even .... no, they won't learn anything from him.
We could also learn from the French - more generally the European - system of party politics. France has four major parties, each representing an actual set of ideas; typically no party wins an absolute majority, so they must negotiate in Parliament to get things done. And they do in fact get things done, because each party's leader knows what he wants, thus has a firm basis for negotiating.
Our system currently consists of one organization operating under two brand names. There is no party with a set of ideas, nor any party that serves the interests of America.
Despite this complete lack of representation, our people still fall into the same categories as the four Euro parties. These four sets of ideas could be described monosyllabically as Mao, Dow, Home, and Rome.
Mao is the hard left: abortionists, environmentalists, feminists, judges.
Mao's platform is simple: Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Dow believes that the bettors in the Wall Street Casino are the only important factor. In other words, China and Mexico should benefit from every move made by America. Both of our political brands are primarily Dow-worshippers.
Home is the old Populist position; its platform is that every move made by the government of this nation should favor the people of this nation, not some other nation. In European terms this is called the 'far-right', and Sarkozy decidedly fits here.
Rome is Catholics and some evangelicals; in Europe they would be the Christian Democrats. They tend to favor the welfare state but dislike the culture of the Left. They disagree firmly with the Maoists on abortion and feminism, but stupidly and suicidally agree with Mao on the environment.
Polistra consists mainly of Home, with a sizable dash of Rome.
= = = = =
Afterthought: The new 'Unity 2008' is an actual third party with some prospect of success, but unfortunately it proves my point about the utter insanity of modern American politics. You'd think a new party would try to capture a specific set of ideas, but Unity is trying to be EVEN LESS IDEOLOGICAL than our two brands. I honestly don't see how that's physically possible. It's like trying to be less spicy than water, or less dazzlingly colorful than fog.
However, if Unity wants to find a middle position, that would be easy to locate with absolute precision. The only difference between R and D is that many R politicians (say 70%) are against abortion, while only a few D's (say 20%) are against abortion. So Unity can simply count those groups precisely, find the average, and insure that its politicians adhere to that average. ¶ 9:53 AM
Starting here, Polistra has made it clear, (most powerfully here), that she loves France and considers the French way of doing things to be an example that we should follow.
With the latest election results, it appears that Sarkozy will become the French president. He has been serving as Interior Minister, and is the only Euro leader who takes the threat of Mohammed seriously. He is also verbally pro-American, which could mean that France, already a strong ally, will become a partial friend as well. Who knows, maybe some of our politicians will even .... no, they won't learn anything from him.
We could also learn from the French - more generally the European - system of party politics. France has four major parties, each representing an actual set of ideas; typically no party wins an absolute majority, so they must negotiate in Parliament to get things done. And they do in fact get things done, because each party's leader knows what he wants, thus has a firm basis for negotiating.
Our system currently consists of one organization operating under two brand names. There is no party with a set of ideas, nor any party that serves the interests of America.
Despite this complete lack of representation, our people still fall into the same categories as the four Euro parties. These four sets of ideas could be described monosyllabically as Mao, Dow, Home, and Rome.
Mao is the hard left: abortionists, environmentalists, feminists, judges.
Mao's platform is simple: Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Dow believes that the bettors in the Wall Street Casino are the only important factor. In other words, China and Mexico should benefit from every move made by America. Both of our political brands are primarily Dow-worshippers.
Home is the old Populist position; its platform is that every move made by the government of this nation should favor the people of this nation, not some other nation. In European terms this is called the 'far-right', and Sarkozy decidedly fits here.
Rome is Catholics and some evangelicals; in Europe they would be the Christian Democrats. They tend to favor the welfare state but dislike the culture of the Left. They disagree firmly with the Maoists on abortion and feminism, but stupidly and suicidally agree with Mao on the environment.
Polistra consists mainly of Home, with a sizable dash of Rome.
= = = = =
Afterthought: The new 'Unity 2008' is an actual third party with some prospect of success, but unfortunately it proves my point about the utter insanity of modern American politics. You'd think a new party would try to capture a specific set of ideas, but Unity is trying to be EVEN LESS IDEOLOGICAL than our two brands. I honestly don't see how that's physically possible. It's like trying to be less spicy than water, or less dazzlingly colorful than fog.
However, if Unity wants to find a middle position, that would be easy to locate with absolute precision. The only difference between R and D is that many R politicians (say 70%) are against abortion, while only a few D's (say 20%) are against abortion. So Unity can simply count those groups precisely, find the average, and insure that its politicians adhere to that average. ¶ 9:53 AM
