After 5 p.m., trucks are loaded with cartons of mailers and return to the post office -- indeed, Netflix has become the fastest-growing source of first-class mail for the Postal Service, a department official says.That is until we get all our videos over the internet.
Ryan’s correct that these ideas were dismissed by Democrats early on. But it’s important to note (and I know I’m a broken record on this point) that they were also dismissed by the Republican leadership, which decided to offer nothing — nothing! — in its formal alternatives to Obamacare that would have increased health insurance coverage for the working class.
Still, when you’re trying to rebuild a party after two devastating electoral defeats, you need to think strategically as well as tactically, and work to rebuild your intellectual credibility and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts. On health care, Daniels and Ryan have that credibility. Their party, unfortunately, does not.GOPers sound like Dems from the late nineties. This ain't good for country. Enjoy the wilderness.
“I think that liberals view the market as a somewhat barbaric and unfair mechanism for allocating resources. They view government as a mechanism for restoring fairness and justice. To a libertarian, the market mechanism is civilized. When people buy and sell in the market, they are making voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges. In contrast, government is an arena where one side wins and the other side loses. When I shop for a coat, if I do not like the way a coat fits or how it looks, or how much the seller wants me to pay, I do not buy that coat. I buy a different coat, perhaps in a different store. The shopping process leads to peaceful, mutually satisfying trade. On the other hand, look at how the issue of health care reform is going to be resolved. It is like gang warfare, where the Democrats and Republicans are going to rumble, and at least one side is going to be very unhappy with the outcome. For me, it is the democratic process that is barbaric, and it is the market process that is comparatively peaceful and civilized.”
— Arnold Kling, “Liberals and Markets”HT: Ross Douthat
Thirty years after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 the King and his government faced another rebellion. This time, three thousand miles away, a select group of American colonists were agitating for independence. The implicit question before Parliament was what kind of war was it fighting. Was it a rebellion that needed to be put down or a war where success would mean less than the status quo? Unfortunately, for Parliament and the crown, the British leaders chose poorly. In the colonists they saw illegitimate agitators seeking to break apart the empire. In choosing a rebellion that needed to be repressed the British leaders lost the war. Despite numerous victories in battle, America was lost. Events in America did little to change strategy in London. No British general was able to translate the subtleties of events in the theater of war for the ears of the cabinet.
Throughout the war British leaders were unable (or for some, unwilling) to reassess their strategy because they didn’t understand the nature of the conflict. And they didn’t understand the conflict because (1) British leaders in power were unable to comprehend the American people and their cause, (2) which when filtered through the British political structure inhibited clear policies and obtainable political objectives, and led to (3) a lack of coordination between military actions and political ends. Ultimately what inhibited British leaders from reassessing their strategy was the interaction between the government and military, exacerbated by incomprehension. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees because they thought they were sailing in the open ocean.
