Yesterday's Elections

Monday, September 19, 2005
Two elections were held yesterday, one in Germany and one in Afghanistan. The results in Germany appear to signal a slight shift to the right but not so much of a shift as to provided dispositive proof of significant change. It will be moderately interesting to watch the coalition form but it seems safe to say that substantive change will not occur. Germany's love affair with EU regulatory mercantilism will continue and high unemployment and economic stagnation will continue to flourish as the bastard children of the torrid affair. Germany appears not yet ready to face reality and cannot be considered reliable as an ally in any useful sense.

We won't know the results in Afghanistan for a few weeks so it is impossible to form any judgement as to the outcome. Except that "one man, one vote, one time" is no longer applicable to at least one Muslim country in southwest Asia. If the Afghans hold another election on schedule prior to Pakistan, it will have proven to be more democratic than its neighbor. Now that's an interesting thought.

There are two more elections of interest coming up. The Iraqi referendum in mid-October and finally (should the referendum pass) the Iraqi vote in January. Should those elections come to pass without serious problems (and I believe they will) then the light that appears to be flickering throughout Europe will be shining brightly in lands that had known only darkness for the past thirty years.


Knucklehead said...

But wait, I thought it was only us primitive (sorry, Neanderthal) 'murricans who had elections so close that both sides claim victory and neither will concede.

I thought only a two party system ran the risk of deadlock. Aren't parliamentary systems supposed to be immune for this vile, non-concensus bickering?

The Little Coalition That Couldn't, I suppose.

Do you suppose the Afghanis are as hopeful for their new endeavor as we are? I hope so.

flenser said...

So it seems like the polls in Germany were wrong. Per the logic of our domestic moonbats, this cannot be and the election was stolen. Or at least the rightful winners were denied.

Rick Ballard said...


The Afghanis are undoubtedly hopeful. It would be difficult to be human and not be hopeful after living under Communist oppression followed by the loveable Taliban.

I imagine that those with a knowledge of history are a bit fearful, too. In the near term their continued freedom is dependent upon a continued American presence. If we leave prior to a truly national Afghan army supporting the Loya Jirga then the inter tribal conflicts will erupt and Afghanistan will slide back into chaos.

Afghanistan needs at least 10 years of a strong American presence in order to achieve stability - I hope that we can summon the will to stay the course.


Five week vacations and "worker representation" on corporate boards are the equivalent of the Roman's bread and circuses. I can't really guess how long the Ponzi scheme will last but I would think that simple demographics precludes anything beyond twenty years.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

There was also an election in New Zealand. The result was very similar to Germany's except that their "Shroeder" stayed in power by a very slight margin.

Trying to find some information, I came across this article exhorting New Zealanders to stay the socialist course. It's interesting to see how it is couched. I read it essentially as a religious tract.

"I thought that we kiwis were different. How foolish of me. It seems that nothing is more universal in politics than the currency of self-interest"
--Translation: Helping others is the purpose of life--a religious belief lifted straight out of Christianity.

"Despite high living standards, unprecedented freedom and privilege, New Zealanders still want more."
--Translation: self-abnegation is good, poverty is good.

"Don Brash’s tax cuts are a giant carrot, that have been used unashamedly by the National party, with full knowledge that it is a shortsighted policy targeting the selfish streak in our society."
--Translation: holding onto your own money is "selfish" and that's wrong. You should let the government take it because that's "good for humanity".

"Despite hundreds of millions of starving people in the third world (not to mention social inequality in our own country) and alarming human-fueled increases in global temperature, we still focus our aspirations on short-term increases to our own material wealth."
--Translation: enjoying material comfort is evil as long as everybody isn't equal.

The idea that increases in global temperature are 1) certain, and 2) caused by humans is taken for granted.

Then there's this characterization of America:
"If we want to we can have lower taxes, just like America. If we want to, we can renege on the Kyoto Protocol, and leave the planet’s worries to some later generation, just like America. If we want to, we can be racially divided and war mongering, just like America"

It would seem that New Zealand, like Canada, is primarily defined as the not US.

Although studies indicate that adopting the Kyoto protocol at the cost of trillions of dollars would lower the global temperature by only a fraction of one degree, the US is clearly evil for
not immediately acceding to this request.