My Summary of Current U.S. Politics

If I may briefly engage in a bit of shameless self-promotion, for those of you who are interested, I’ve put together a short summary of my take on what’s going on in U.S. politics, covering predictions for the November mid-terms and going through possible Republican contenders for 2012. You can read it in full at Menzies House.

48 thoughts on “My Summary of Current U.S. Politics

  1. How come Sukrot’s items don’t have a ‘Leave A Comment’ section? I’ve tried to leave comments, but can’t find any place to do so!
    I predict that the incumbent side, now the Democrats, will be trounced, but that Obama will learn from this, just like Clinton did, and go on to do well for the rest of his first term, and then win re-election. This seems to be a typical pattern for US politics.

  2. When I click on the ‘Greg Craven’ item, the message is ‘Sorry the Leave a comment column is unavailable at this time. Why not go there yourself?

  3. Tim – I don’t mind you promoting Menzies House via ALS but given you’re on the board of both do you mind doing some promotions in the opposite direction occasionally. Share the love and all that sort of thing.

  4. I pretty much agree with everything said but i think that obama is going to exit with the “I need to spend more time with the family” card. Leaving room for hillary to have her chance to run.

  5. Seems very incomplete without your opinion on what Ron Paul may do and the chance or lack of chance he has.

  6. Oh – I thought I included the good doctor – oops! I seriously, seriously doubt he’ll run again – instead I suspect he’ll attempt to transfer his support to Gov. Johnson

  7. Thanks Tim, seems like a very authoritative list, wanted to know what you thought of Ron Paul. That seems like what Ron Paul will do, but I think he might be waiting to see if the economic situation in America gets a lot worse before the primaries, possibly improving his chances.

  8. tim, sometimes I am correct for no known reason.
    Seriously, I think the trouble is at Sukrit’s Melbourne end, since I can’t get onto the ‘Howard’ comments, either.

  9. Ah it’s because I’ve disabled comments.

    All my posts will have no comments allowed in future, due to trolls such as Yobbo, Jason Soon, JC etc. They distract from serious/polite discussion.

  10. Shame on you, Sukrit! Why not just delete any comments you feel are not worthy of being noticed, and print all the rest? they wouldn’t ALL be from trolls! I try to keep my comments polite all the time! And sometimes my comments are even relevant!

  11. “trolls such as Yobbo, Jason Soon, JC”

    …and that’s why this site will remain a pathetic backwater of the Australian blogosphere. You dislike debate, except with people with whom you agree. Some libertarian.

  12. DD – last time I checked the ALS get’s about 20,000 eyeballs a month. So it’s not in the big league but as far as blogs go it does okay. Very few ALS articles have comments turned off so your comment about debate does not work as a generalisation about the ALS.

  13. Sukrit – will your articles at LA have the same no comments policy also and if not then why the inconsistency?

  14. Since Sukrit is disabling comments on his posts can we just disable his ability to post them?

    If he wants a site where nobody can comment, and only people who agree with him are welcome, he can just post them on his own personal blog, instead of making the ALS look bad with his juvenile whining.

  15. Why not just delete any comments you feel are not worthy of being noticed, and print all the rest?

    Because that’d take too much time. And it’d lead to accusations that I only delete posts that I disagree with.

    I don’t care if people who disagree with me get to post on this blog, they can put it as a well-argued main post, rather than a snarky comment.

    Sukrit – will your articles at LA have the same no comments policy also and if not then why the inconsistency?

    The trolls don’t frequent that site. When they do I’ll simply ban them from the comments entirely. Whereas here I understand that many people welcome the trolls or are friends with them so I’m just restricting them on my posts.

  16. The other alternative is to ban their IP addresses so that normal people can comment. But I don’t think we’d be able to agree on who to ban. Whereas everyone agrees Graeme Bird is a troll (hence why all his posts go straight to moderation), I don’t think everyone agrees that the individuals I consider trolls are in fact trolls.

  17. In fact, all the authors should be able to decide on their own what comments to allow on their posts. That would be the best way to de-centralize decision-making. There is nothing un-libertarian about this, contrary to the commentator above who does not understand the meaning of private property.

  18. “There is nothing un-libertarian about this, contrary to the commentator above who does not understand the meaning of private property.”

    As a donor I do not agree. I think you’re too brutal and unaccepting of criticism.

    I don’t know if you’re a donor or not or how voting/ownership works. I may have no right in determining what’s what. That’s just my say as someone who has contributed financially albeit in a meagre way. Strong censorship is not what I contributed to.

  19. In fact, all the authors should be able to decide on their own what comments to allow on their posts. That would be the best way to de-centralize decision-making.

    I agree and I believe that this is in general how things have worked around here.

    As a donor I do not agree.

    We have donors? I didn’t even know we had expenses so it’s news to me. But good on you for giving to a worthy cause.

    But I don’t think we’d be able to agree on who to ban.

    You got that right. I can’t think of anybody who comments here who I would agree with banning.

    I don’t actually object to articles with comments closed off. John did it in the article he posted regarding the history of the LDP because too much blood was hitting the walls. However as we can see here closing comments may simply mean that comments spill over to other articles. So I’d suggest that the tactic be used sparingly.

  20. Yobbo – I’m petty sure we can’t disable him. It’s a function of him having started the blog.

    This answer is perhaps a bit weak. It is my understanding that there is a technical limit but the truth is I have not pursued the issue because I don’t agree with the need to ban Sukrit. His writing is sanctimonious but in my view he writes from a libertarian perspective, all be a narrow and hostile one, and that qualifies him to continue writing here. If he starts writing articles that are merely about personal insults or settling scores I’d seek some means to stop him.

    Rather than ban Sukrit I’d rather encourage other authors to share alternate libertarian views. If Sukrit closes comments on his article another article might readily open up dialogue.

  21. p.s. Some people took offense to Sukrits claim that there are only 26 libertarians in the country on the basis of membership of an anti war facebook page. I think Sukrits claim was clearly designed to be provocative but I don’t think we should ban provocative ideas. The definition of a true libertarian is in my view contestable. I think it should remain contestable.

    Aside: I once met a member of LibertariaNZ who told me I wasn’t a libertarian because I believed in taxation. It was quite nice to be attacked by somebody who wanted less taxation than me rather that the usual situation.

  22. Whilst Sukrit likes commenting here, he wants to deny anyone else this right on his articles. The words of Sukrit are holy Writ. There is no need to change them, ever, so there is no need to comment on them, just to obey them.
    His name should be now written as SuckWrit. If you even think that HE has thin skin, HE shall smite thee with voluminous tongue-lashings and sharp words! BEWARE!!!

  23. Mark: on the provocative article discussion was allowed. In fact we had a bunch of comments from people who don’t normally comment here which is why I remarked light heartedly at the time that Sukrit seemed to be good for the hit count. John closed comments on his LDP article presumably because it was too provocative. He also blanked out comments (including his own) that had been made prior to turning off comments. I actually received several email complaints about John’s behaviour.

    The article in which Sukrit has turned off comments is only provocative if you think John Howard is a libertarian. It’s possible that some feel he is but I’m doubtful that it was a topical point.

    I defend the principle that authors should decide if comments are on or off and authors in general should be free to moderate comments. However as I said already comments will simply spill over to other articles and turning them off is in my view generally a poor tactic.

  24. Terje there are now 57 libertarians in Australia, not 26. Since some people don’t use facebook or haven’t heard of the facebook group I think the real number may be closer to 100.

    By the way it’s ironic that some of the trolls accusing me of censorship also want to take away my right to post on this blog. It seems like they don’t really care about censorship when I’m the one who gets censored. All these authoritarians running around calling themselves libertarian really is quite scary.

    In any case, there’s no censorship here, people are free to disagree with me in a main post. I’m sure Terje or John would be happy to post a pro-war, pro-central banking piece to balance out my anti-war ones. I think we should also post some material from socialist websites, because who’s to say that raising taxes isn’t really a libertarian measure??

  25. Sukrit

    As a lurker, it seems to me that no one here is authoritarian but rather an offensive coward doing his best to wreck what used to be a good site.

    The site was ruined the moment you returned.

    You just don’t disgust me, but a lot of other people too.

  26. Sikwit, you can’t have a polite ‘discussion’ if no-one is allowed to discuss anything! My comments are usually polite. Or have you just decided that everyone else is automatically a troll?

  27. Sukrit – it’s good to see you’ve come to your sense and are against central banking and not fractionality.

  28. A joke, as told by commie Catallaxy lurker THR. Let’s just say it applies to the Australian libertarian scene as much as the revolutionary left!


    An old revolutionary walks across the Brooklyn Bridge one day, and he sees man of a similar age standing on the edge, about to jump. He runs over and says: “Stop. Don’t do it.”

    “Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.

    “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

    “I’m just depressed, I’ve been a Communist all my life and the revolution seems as far away as ever”

    “You’re a Communist?”

    “Yeah, why?”

    “I am as well!! Did you originally join the Communist Party USA?”


    “Me too! Did you join the pro-Trotsky Communist League of America in 1928, which later merged with the American Workers Party to form the Workers Party of America in 1934?”


    “Spooky, Me too! After the WPA was expelled from the Socialist Party of America in 1936 did you then go on to join the Socialist Workers Party USA and the fourth international?”

    “I did actually…”

    “Me too! In the 1940 dispute did you side with Cannon or Shachtman?”


    “Me too! In 1962 did you join Robertson’s opposition caucus, the Revolutionary Tendency?”


    ” Holly shit! And of course like me you were expelled and went on to join the International Communist League (Spartacist)”

    “Well that goes without saying!”

    “In 1985 did you join the International Bolshevik Tendency who claimed that the Sparts have degenerated into an “obedience cult””

    “No way!”

    “Nah, me neither. In 1998 did you join the Internationalist Group after the Permanent Revolution Faction were expelled from the ICL?”

    “Yeah! I can’t believe this! Maybe I won’t….”

    “Die counterrevolutionary scum!”. And he pushes him off the edge.

  29. Guess what, kiddies? Sikwit is doing it again! You can’t comment on his new article, either! That guy has such a thin skin! (OOps! I never actually said that, sucky!! someone put that in there!) But i bet he writes comments here, and expects them to be accepted!

  30. I really don’t know why Sukrit did that considering everyone bloody agrees with him on that – even the most hawk like pro war libertarians.

  31. Thankfully, the greens haven’t realised that wars promote state power, and decrease individual rights, and lessen property rights. When they do, they’ll support wars everywhere, for the longterm benefit of centralism.

  32. Okay, so, I don’t hide the fact I don’t really follow, and know virtually nothing about foreign policy type things, so permit me to ask a very stupid question, which I’m sure there’s an easy answer to: what happens in the (admittedly unlikely) situation whereby Australia is attacked by another nation state, and parliament is not sitting. It would obviously take a while to recall parliament, what happens in the meantime?

  33. We ask the invaders to wait until we recall Parliament! I’m sure that’s in the Geneva Conventions.

  34. Tim – what do you think should happen? That’s probably going to be the same qualified and in depth idea anyone else here has – temporary war powers pending approval.

  35. Let’s not discuss Parliamentary powers here! We wait until Sickwit allows us to discuss them on the proper comments section.

Comments are closed.