On politics

I try not write about politics because it’s just a show designed to entertain the high-IQ masses.

However, reading all of last weeks blog posts during a very long plane ride, I noticed that either Matthew Yglesias hijacked Half Sigma’s blog or vice versa. They both endorse Mitt Romney and hate Herman Cain. (If you want examples peruse the archives, I’m too lazy to dig for links)

The level and intensity of agreement among these two is strange.

Assuming that Yglesias and HS are different people, I’d guess that Yglesias likes Romney because Yglesais wants a government run by technocrats and Romney is the ultimate technocrat. HS likes Romney because Romney has a high IQ, which is apparently sufficient in his estimation.

Another comment that I’ve seen, particularly from John Derbyshire, is that Herman Cain would be likely to get rolled by the bureaucracy, whereas Romney would be less so.

I’m sorry to say that we’ll roll either of them, however, my intuition would be precisely opposite Mr Derbyshire’s.

Here’s an example. The other day I was listening to a podcast from The Economist. Their position on the troubles with Europe is essentially: we don’t like bailouts, but if Europe sovereigns and banks don’t get bailed out, we’re headed for a massive depression. This being The Economist, this is the official position of anyone who is not a knuckle-dragging idiot.

I think this analysis is horseshit, but setting that aside . . . Imagine if a bunch of high-level American and international bureaucrats are sitting a briefing with Romney and they lay out this situation and recommend bailout to avoid the second great depression. Romney would be reading confirming analysis in The Economist, the WSJ, and the NYT. I’m 100% sure that Romney bails out Europe. The whole structure of the bureaucracy is designed to make guys like Romney dance. He wants to be popular, he wants to do the smart thing, he wants to think of himself as a little tough. He’s the perfect politician and the bureaucracy pwns politicians.

Cain would be a tougher nut to crack (if only cause he’s much less predictable), but he’d still crack. Frankly, if the bureaucracy decides to do something, it’s not even clear how the President could stop it. He could slow it down, but that’s it.


5 Responses to On politics

  1. Jehu says:

    There’s only one way to beat the bureaucracy (excepting Stalin’s way, and you can argue he didn’t win ultimately either). That is to return to the spoils system. I’ll write on this topic eventually at greater length.

    • tenkev says:

      I’ve said the same thing. The spoils system is more democratic; but, I doubt more democracy is what this country needs.

      • Jehu says:

        Make no mistake, I don’t advocate the spoils system out of principled support for democracy. I advocate it because the existing Civil Service is a major node of the Cathedral and such provides a potential mechanism to smash it. If useful idiots want to use the holy democracy word to push my agenda though, that’s perfectly ok.

  2. Steve Johnson says:

    “HS likes Romney because Romney has a high IQ, which is apparently sufficient in his estimation.”

    HS likes Romney because Romney has a high IQ – this isn’t sufficient in HS’s estimation because it’s a qualification for office but it’s a qualification for HS to not be socially embarrassed to be non-liberal as Jew in NYC.

    Ultimately this proves that going 1/4 way (belief in reality on a few matters – like HBD) is pointless – HS still cares about what’s socially acceptable and what’s socially acceptable is defined by progressives. To put it succinctly HS believes in Romney because Yglesias says it’s ok to believe in Romney.

  3. Handle says:

    The same thing happened to the Bush crew when the markets crashed and they were “rolled” into bailing out their sworn enemies at the UAW. And this is actually the explanation for why Obama’s war-on-terror policies and tactics look so much like Bush’s (if not more so) – as VDH loves to repeatedly point out to the exasperated and mystified progressives when they are dropping their jaws at things like the al-Awlaki drone-kill.

    There’s no mystery, the national security apparatus is full of professional lifetime civil servants too, and who can resist their pressure if you’re worried about leaks declaring you didn’t do everything possible to protect the country or go after its enemies?

    It’s actually worse when the bureaucracy’s preferred policy is the one favored by the party opposite to the President. Moldbug, naturally, explained why here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: