Sowell is losing it

[shecky]

I think in the past, I could respect Thomas Sowell for making coherent arguments. But today's rambling, exasperated commentary sounds like he might be needing some meds. It's been a while since I heard something like this:

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Last time I heard that sentiment, it came out of the speaker of a shortwave radio during the heyday of the Clinton Administration, along with ramblings about the gold standard and the Trilateral Commission.

Really, are things that bad? Sure, the current Monkey In Chief is about as inept as they come, but he won't be there forever. All this handwringing about degeneracy and deviants seems to show a creepy disconnect with reality.

 

[Mephisto]

I've never read anything by Thomas Sowell before, but you're right, he does sound just a little scary, doesn't he? I thought I was to the far left, but it appears that Mr. Sowell has gone full circle:

Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as “understandable” all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.

 

[brodski]

Ok, I have never heard of this guy before, but his writing style does seem to indicate someone who is just barely holding it together. Have a read of the piece again, and try and see if you can find any connection between any paragraph (chosen at random) and the paragraphs preceding and following it.
As far as I can tell there are no connections what so ever, just a loose collection of things the writer wants to complain (incoherently) about.

Reading that piece I kept expecting him to begin accusing the British medical Association of spying on him via his car keys. Or perhaps they just a communist conspiracy to sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

That's a shame. I used to consider him a brilliant man, giving me food for thought even if I disagreed. But he is long on the tooth and perhaps now short on the sanity.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm... the line you quoted is quite distasteful. It also seems kind of unnecessary - he could have simply cut it out and the column would have been fine. Oh well - economists always do their best writing when they write about economics.

 

[shecky]

First Sowell, Now Victor Davis Hansen Hint At Anti-Dem Military Coup?

First Thomas Sowell suggests a rambling possibility of a coup against the presumed next President. Now self aggrandizing neocon historian seems to insinuate the same in interview with Bush apologist Hugh Hewitt:

But here’s what’s scary, is that all these Democrats now, for three or four years, have not just opposed George Bush, and not just opposed neoconservative idealism, but they’ve demonized it to such a degree that they’ve almost made Bush the equivalent of the enemy. And Bush has a lot of supporters in and out of the military. So now they think that they’re elected, people like yourself and I are going to jump back up and say you know what? They’re the president, we’re going to support them at every opportunity. We probably will, but there’s going to be a lot of us who won’t, because they’re going to say they nitpicked, they were counterproductive, they wanted the people in Iraq fighting us to win.

In context, it seems strange to emphasize Bush's military supporters unless to imply they'll threat to anti war political will. Perhaps this is just the harmless, light hearted babble of one rabid neocon to the other. But I think it hints at the ill will some neocon absolutists have in store for the probable upcoming political shift.

 

[Beerina]

I've never read anything by Thomas Sowell before, but you're right, he does sound just a little scary, doesn't he? I thought I was to the far left, but it appears that Mr. Sowell has gone full circle:

Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as “understandable” all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.

So what you're saying is he sounds like what he is -- an erudite but old man who's bitching about the younger generations.

Nothing new here, move along folks, move along.

 

[Ziggurat]

In context, it seems strange to emphasize Bush's military supporters unless to imply they'll threat to anti war political will.

First off, this sentence has some grammar problems, so I can't tell exactly what you mean. But second, I don't read Hewitt's statement as having anything to do with coups. Rather, it's about politics. Remember the whole gays in the military thing under Clinton? Clinton went in with a particular idea (make it OK for openly gay people to serve in the military), but he didn't have any support from the military or those who tend to support the military. And so he had to compromise for political reasons. I think the idea is that if the next president is a democrat, they're going to have a hard time, politically, getting the kind of cooperation from the military that Bush enjoys. If the next president thinks, for example, that we need to send troops into Darfur, he's probably going to find it close to impossible, if he's a democrat. That's the sort of thing I think Hewitt is saying. Whether or not his assesment is correct is another issue, but I don't think he's suggesting anything like a coup.

Perhaps this is just the harmless, light hearted babble of one rabid neocon to the other. But I think it hints at the ill will some neocon absolutists have in store for the probable upcoming political shift.[/QUOTE]

 

[hgc]

First off, this sentence has some grammar problems, so I can't tell exactly what you mean. But second, I don't read Hewitt's statement as having anything to do with coups. Rather, it's about politics. Remember the whole gays in the military thing under Clinton? Clinton went in with a particular idea (make it OK for openly gay people to serve in the military), but he didn't have any support from the military or those who tend to support the military. And so he had to compromise for political reasons. I think the idea is that if the next president is a democrat, they're going to have a hard time, politically, getting the kind of cooperation from the military that Bush enjoys. If the next president thinks, for example, that we need to send troops into Darfur, he's probably going to find it close to impossible, if he's a democrat. That's the sort of thing I think Hewitt is saying. Whether or not his assesment is correct is another issue, but I don't think he's suggesting anything like a coup.

Perhaps this is just the harmless, light hearted babble of one rabid neocon to the other. But I think it hints at the ill will some neocon absolutists have in store for the probable upcoming political shift.

Though I agree with your assessment of what Hewitt may be saying, there is something else in your post that is interesting (bolded). If the president wants the military to do something, and his ability to get that done is affected by his relationship with the military in a way that is related to his party, then that sounds suspiciously like a coup. You scenario sounds like the president is not in control of the military.

 

[brodski]

he could have simply cut it out and the column would have been fine.

In what way would it have been fine?
Can you see a coherent thread of argument running through that article? Can you explain how one paragraph flows from another, perhaps even supporting each other?
To me it just appears to be a collection of unrelated assertions about how America is going to hell in a handcart.

 

[Ziggurat]

To me it just appears to be a collection of unrelated assertions about how America is going to hell in a handcart.

Maybe, but so what? By fine I meant nothing seriously objectionable, not that everyone will agree with it or find it useful or insightful.

 

[Ziggurat]

Though I agree with your assessment of what Hewitt may be saying, there is something else in your post that is interesting (bolded). If the president wants the military to do something, and his ability to get that done is affected by his relationship with the military in a way that is related to his party, then that sounds suspiciously like a coup. You scenario sounds like the president is not in control of the military.

Nothing of the sort. But to deploy troops to foreign engagements, the president needs to be more than in control of the military: he needs permission from Congress. And he won't GET that permission, from congress, in the sort of situation I describe. Why? Because I think there's always a sizeable anti-war/isolationist camp, and there's always a camp which wants to support the military, and if you've got BOTH of those against you, plus opposing party members who will vote against you just to vote against you, you're just not going to get the votes. The political difficulty comes from what Congress would do, not from whether or not the military would obey orders.

 

[hgc]

Nothing of the sort. But to deploy troops to foreign engagements, the president needs to be more than in control of the military: he needs permission from Congress. And he won't GET that permission, from congress, in the sort of situation I describe. Why? Because I think there's always a sizeable anti-war/isolationist camp, and there's always a camp which wants to support the military, and if you've got BOTH of those against you, plus opposing party members who will vote against you just to vote against you, you're just not going to get the votes. The political difficulty comes from what Congress would do, not from whether or not the military would obey orders.

Oh, OK. Well I certainly am in favor of Congress needing to give permission for war-making. I wish it were more true than it appears to be.