The world’s leaders have been on trial these last few months. In Europe, a long running currency crisis has tested the commitment of Europeans to the social ideals they so often speak of, and to the community of nations they have worked to build since the 1940s. TEKEL: weighed in the balance and found wanting.
In China they have been on trial as the accumulating evidence suggests that corruption, incompetence and malfeasance damaged the country’s vaunted high speed rail project and led to the deaths of dozens of passengers. TEKEL.
In Japan they have been on trial since the tsunami last spring. Would Japan’s bureaucracy tell the truth to the public? After a lost generation of stagnation would Japan’s government come up with an effective plan to reconstruct the north and rebuild the country’s economy? TEKEL.
And in the United States we have a stagnant economy, a mounting debt and no real idea of the way forward. Would Washington come up with a constructive, future-oriented program to move the economy forward and start the adjustments necessary to prepare us to live within our means – and to grow our means so it wouldn’t be hard? TEKEL again.
Europe, China, Japan, the United States: the leaders of the world’s four largest economies are nowhere near passing the tests that history has set them. In all four places the instincts of the politicians are the same: to dissemble, to delay, to disguise and to deny.
The problem is that we want them to lie to us, and want to see our hopes in them, even when there is nothing behind the curtain. It’s a failure of the political class, but they in turn are the result of a failure of the electorate. Perhaps the last elections was the beginning of a turn around. We’ll see next year.
I noticed that there were few comments here. I suppose its because there is little disagreement or little more to be said. However, I wanted to make this point.
Many of us understood in 2006 that the Republican Congress and President were lacking. What has been misunderstood since then is that with the two party system, that must mean Democrats are better. No. They were more lacking. Unfortunately, are political system has been set up to protect the incumbent. So it takes several cycles that requires replacing the incumbent with someone worse and then replacing that person with a more optimal solution. Sometimes, this can be shortened in the primary process, but that didn’t work out so well in 2008 (really for either side).
Here’s to 2012 and our continued efforts to change out the political class that is lacking. 1/3rd more Senators are available to be voted out and a very bad President.
The Democrats controlled the House for 40 years until losing in 1994 and had controlled the Senate for most of that same time. They were arrogant, corrupt and big spenders. The Republicans came in with big ideas from their Contract With America and, for a time, did a pretty good job. However, by 2001, they had become arrogant, corrupt and big spenders. It was as if they wanted to prove they could be just as bad as the Democrats. In 2006, the Democrats won control of Congress and set out to prove the Republicans wrong. When it comes to arrogance, corruption and big spending, no one can top the Democrats.