The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
— Margaret Thatcher
March 8, 2010
November 9, 2009
Twenty years ago today, I sat in front of the TV with my dad, watching the Berlin Wall fall. It was one of the defining moments of my youth. He had served in the U.S. Army in West Germany in the early ’70s and had walked along the wall, seeing first hand the division it represented. That night, we sat watching the events unfold, and both of us had tears rolling down our cheeks. Seeing my father’s reaction more than anything else impressed on me the enormity of the changes unfolding in Eastern Europe. I hope we never forget that we defeated a real enemy in that war, not just a philosophical paper tiger.
It took the courage and insight of an entire generation to defeat that evil. While the war may not have been as obvious, these heroic men and women defeated an evil just as nefarious as the Naziism defeated a generation earlier.
It is a tribute to Reagan’s moral and strategic determination, as it was to everyone else who played their part in bringing down the Wall, that they could see through the sophistries of Soviet propagandists, their Western fellow travelers, and the legions of moral equivocators and diplomatic finessers and simply look at the Wall.
My children likely will not understand. It will be just so much ancient history—like Vietnam, WWII, the British Empire, Rome and the Pharaohs. Already the memory is fading. But, in case anyone needs reminding, communism is not merely an alternative political lifestyle, it is evil.
Considering the enormity of what it commemorates, the Memorial to the Victims of Communism, dedicated by President Bush yesterday, is striking for its modest proportions: a 10-foot female figure raising a torch at a busy intersection in Washington, D.C. That’s a fitting rebuke to an ideology that made a fetish of statuary, and murder, on a monumental scale.
The numbers are almost beyond reckoning. Mao Zedong was responsible for 70 million peacetime murders, according to his biographer Jung Chang. The middle estimate of Stalin’s victims is 40 million. Pol Pot slaughtered nearly three million fellow Cambodians in only four years. Ethiopia’s Mengistu killed some 1.5 million opponents in the late 1970s, and contributed to the death by starvation of a million others in the 1980s.
Throughout these and other horrors, Communists always managed to find high-profile apologists among the bourgeois intellectuals: Jean-Paul Sartre for Stalin, Noam Chomsky for Pol Pot, and so on. Some, like Sidney Hook, Arthur Koestler and Whittaker Chambers, repented, but most did not. They may not have been witting accomplices to the butchery, quite. But they are the reason why the West was almost fatally late in recognizing the depth of evil it faced in its communist enemy.
Not by coincidence, yesterday’s dedication took place on the 20th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, calling on the Soviets to “tear down this wall.” Back then, the smart set (and some of his own advisers) said he was a fool for seeking to bring the communist nightmare to an end. Inasmuch as he led the free world in doing so, the memorial is also, inescapably, a tribute to him.
— On the dedication of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism, Wall Street journal – June 13, 2007.
October 23, 2009
July 22, 2009
It’s crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It’s even crazier to do it by August.
Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, “to reinvent the nation’s health care system”.
July 6, 2009
George Newman has a good review of the often inconsistent arguments being put forward in favor of health care “reform.”
I was glad to see him address the “health care represents a rising proportion of our income” issue.
That’s not only true but perfectly natural. Quality health care is a discretionary, income-elastic expense — i.e. the richer a society, the larger proportion of income that is spent on it. (Poor societies have to spend income gains on food and other necessities.) Consider the alternatives. Would we feel better about ourselves if we skimped on our family’s health care and spend the money on liquor, gambling, night clubs or a third television set?
When discussing this issue, I regularly ask people if they would rather have today’s healthcare at today’s prices or 1950’s healthcare at 1950’s prices. No one has ever chosen the 1950s option. (People would prefer to have today’s healthcare at 1950’s prices, and I too wish that Santa Claus was real.)
(HT Andrew B.)
April 5, 2009
. . . and doesn’t plan to get out of the business any time soon.
I have to admit that this scares the Hell out of me. From the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal:
Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I’m an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration’s goal of controlling the financial system.
January 22, 2009