Was Joe Wilson a Republican hit man with no class, or was he a patriot for acting as he did? Can our politicians handle the challenge of aggressive debate, or is that simply asking too much of them? Justice dips into the mailbag (and responds)...

Today my informal plan was to write to you on a different topic. I had intended to explain why I am presently bullish on gold and the dollar at the same time.

This is not such a crazy juxtaposition, given the nature of the times. One merely has to dial back to the first quarter of 2009 – not so long ago – to see a clear instance of gold and the greenback marching higher hand in hand.

Times change, and so do intermediate-term forecasts. On March 24 of this year, your humble editor urged the following:

Let’s see, how can I put the appropriate subtlety and nuance on this...

Get. Out. Of the U.S. Dollar. NOW.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not stop to conduct an impromptu inventory of your unmentionables...

The buck has fallen off the proverbial cliff since then. But that was then, and this is now. In late March the dollar was many levels higher... now it has gotten the ever-loving stuffing beaten out of it, and seemingly everyone from taxicab drivers to shoeshine boys to Dear Old Aunt Mabel just “knows” that the dollar is falling down the well to hell.

On top of that, the dollar has clearly taken on the “anti-risk” mantle, tending to fall in sync with speculative fever’s white-hot rise... and as if that weren’t enough, virtually every high-profile foreign government and international aid agency on the planet has expressed its “deep concern,” or some variant thereof, over the dollar’s questionable reserve currency status.

One could say bearish dollar sentiment has reached a “super-saturated” state... to your editor’s mind this combo is a nice setup for a surprise short squeeze and a vicious burst higher (not unlike the type we just saw in beaten-down natural gas).

There are other reasons to be bullish on the dollar and gold simultaneously, which we will elaborate on later this week. And yes, for those of you keeping tabs on such things, this counts as a fairly sharp disagreement with what Adam Lass said on Monday. Sometimes such disagreements happen, particularly when it comes to hopping on the tail end of seriously extended trends (something Adam is far more comfortable doing than I). We are both long-term dollar bears, but in this editor’s humble opinion, even the most powerful trends need to breathe (i.e. undergo significant correction) from time to time.

There are too many smart and opinionated people in the Taipan brain trust to have full consensus at all times. Forced agreement is a recipe for stagnation. Nobody is told what to think or what to say... instead the focus is on presenting the research with as much clarity and rigor as possible, and then letting the idea rise or fall on its own merits.

Kind of how America’s founding fathers used to do it back in the day.... and not always with a civil tone.

Very Loud “Yeas” – And a Few Pointed “Nays”

Speaking of civility, the flood of feedback to Friday’s piece – and thanks to every single one of you who wrote in, as always – was overwhelmingly supportive. A special thanks, too, to those of you who went out of your way to say nice things. Every word is read and appreciated.

But, given that, a few of the sharply dissenting comments were pointed and well written too. We appreciate those just as much in their own way. After all, isn’t that what “iron sharpening iron” is all about?

To the mailbag!

Speaking as a Limey, you may care to note that it is the function of our Upper House, the House of Lords, when presented by the Government or the Commons with an egregiously stupid piece of proposed Legislation, to piss on it; which is why they are also known as the House of Peers.

– TD Reader Keith M.

JL comment: Ha!

Regarding the comment in the article about Rep. Joe Wilson there was a statement/question "didn't they all get a copy of the speech." Actually, for the 1st time that anyone can remember, the POTUS's speech was NOT distributed to Congress but instead, a laminated copy of his "talking points" was provided. It resembled a menu from a diner type restaurant. So, Congress wasn't able to read EXACTLY what Obama was going to say...

– TD Reader Ed C.

JL comment: Interesting, and a point in favor of Wilson for those (such as yours truly) who wondered if the outburst had been premeditated. The change from normal procedure is curious. Wouldn’t it have taken more effort to distill a list of talking points than to have simply distributed the already-written speech as the POTUS intended to read it? Why go to the extra trouble?

Good article. Most American presidents, esp. Reagan and Baby Bush, would never have lasted even ONE SINGLE DAY in a parliamentary setting where they’d be forced to deal with reality, such as the Question and Answer Period in a parliament.

However, as rough and tough as it gets in the U.K., Canada and especially Australia (I have lived in all these countries) they do draw a line at the word “lie.”

One may insult “the Honorable Member from xyz” and call the Hon. Member an idiot, but calling him/her a liar will get you censored or evicted. Automatically.

In that vain, I never understood why defeated presidents and ambassadors are still referred to by their old titles. Plus Mister … Mr President, on and on. I am not called Mr Senior Vice President from a job I had 10 years ago. Too much deference.

As an aside, poor Joe Wilson couldn’t help himself – he forgot he wasn’t at a Klan meeting.

– TD Reader Alexander “Sandy” T.

JL comment: Yes, it really would be a tough standard, wouldn’t it. I’m not so sure about your appraisal of Reagan though. Didn’t he hold his own in some rough-and-tumble debates with Carter?

It seems a little unfair to judge past presidents who were never held to such a standard because, for all we know, they might have risen to the occasion. “Baby Bush” stands out as a glaring negative example, in contrast, because he was known for repeating the same lines over and over, brooking no dissent behind closed doors, and eventually giving up attempts at leadership all but entirely. (W’s classic response to the financial crisis: “This sucker could go down.”)

It makes sense, too, to draw the line at ad hominem, i.e. “attacking the man.” Were alternative methods available, shouting “You Lie!” could be considered too much. But again, consider the situation at hand. If Representative Wilson had been given more of a forum in which to challenge President Obama directly, then there would have been no need for passion to boil over in an inappropriate setting in the first place.

As for the “forgot he wasn’t at a Klan meeting” comment... surely you jest, but I don’t really get the joke. How does race or racism factor into a debate on healthcare? New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd tapped a similar vein, saying, “Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.”

On what grounds is such a comment justified? Playing the race card seems an insult, to South Carolinians in particular and American intelligence in general. Would it have made a dime’s worth of difference if, say, Joe Biden or John Kerry had been the one delivering the exact same speech?

Your article is trying to normalize an antic that Joe Wilson performed in the Congress. You point to the daily ethos of Parliament as your example. If you have ever watched Parliament proceedings, you would notice that it is a system that is built on public debate. Both sides present their arguments and they robustly debate for all to see.

When Wilson yelled "you lie", he was not in keeping with the system of open debate. Yelling "You lie" is not debate and wouldn't fly in Parliament either. Wilson did not present his ideas or his rationale. The other side, in turn, did not take up his call and debate their ideas with him. Joe Wilson isn't in Parliament, and this isn't Great Britain.

Wilson cat-called like he was at a ball game, or out in the street. He broadcasted a lack of class, and a lack of self control, and a man not interested in working within the system. Wilson was doing the dirty work for those who wish to undo the election, fight orderly change, and replace everything with ad hoc chaos and instability. Wilson disrespected the President, and the office of the Presidency. Wilson disrespected our system of government, and disrespected the body of Congress he was lucky enough to be elected to. He unmasked himself as a man beneath the dignity of the job; a man who obviously wants the job, the perks and power of the job, but a man who doesn't respect the job and who doesn't feel the rules apply to him.

Your attempt to normalize his behavior says more about you. It sounds as if you want more people to go off the rails in order to get your needs met. I worry about people who are fomenting chaos in this country to meet their goals. I worry about men who want to bring the house down. I really do.

– TD reader Jane K.

JL comment: First off, what “system of open debate” are we talking about? The whole point is that we don’t really HAVE a system of open debate in the United States today... that our culture of civility and decorum has successfully stifled it, giving a free pass to demagoguery and false statistics and sound bites.

Obviously what Wilson did (and the manner in which he did it) is far from ideal. But again, consider the circumstance in which he acted.

If one is willing to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt, in terms of the outburst being emotional and not premeditated – a benefit that appears deserved, given the breaking of protocol, re, distributing the speech – then it may well be that a system sorely lacking the features of “open debate” is what led to this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

What I would like to “normalize,” if you will, is not a series of pointless shouting matches and rumor-driven hit jobs, but a real, credible, meaningful “system of open debate,” of the type which Britain has and America at the moment does not. If we had such a system, there would be no need for catcalls and other “acts of disrespect”... and there would also be far less of a market for cable TV smear campaigns, as the faulty logical premises of such smears could be addressed head-on in a more public way.

But given the way things stand now – the rottenness of the status quo – I for one would rather “shake up” the house a little bit, or maybe a lot, versus letting things continue on as they have. After all, what happens when “the house” (to use your analogy) is infested by greedy termites to the point where the foundations are caving in?

Do you worry at all, for example, about the Federal Reserve’s repeated refusal to submit to Freedom of Information Act requests in regards to where trillions of dollars in taxpayer monies have been funneled? Do you worry about the sickeningly pervasive influence of organizations like Goldman Sachs – aptly nicknamed “Government Sachs” – who have permeated the system at every level and milked it dry? Do you worry about the potential for hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds to be outright wasted in borderline fraudulent “stimulus” activities because no one is holding the spenders to account? Do you worry about the possibilities of what could happen were the government to successfully take over 15-20% of the U.S. economy, at a time when we are already barreling headlong down a “nationalization” path the likes of which has not been seen since FDR?

Last but not least, do you worry that the White House seems not just downright oblivious but deeply complicit in all of the above – and that President Obama may well have handed off the financial oversight of the nation to a bunch of pinstriped gangsters, in a manner every bit as irresponsible and troubling as the manner in which George W. Bush handed off the Iraq War?

As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That is not a very civil statement.

I dare say that if one of the founding fathers can anticipate a time for blood, there should at least be a time when civility gets put aside in favor of shoring up the country’s crumbling foundations.

Justice,

I speak from some experience on this subject.....since I was a candidate twice for the U.S. Congress....yes, I think ALL of us would benefit from assuming the "no holds barred" approach of the British. We have adopted many of their practices, but, somehow have omitted this one....

– TD Reader Jim R.

If we were to adopt the British model of vocal disagreement whenever any of our politicians are speaking, nothing would ever be accomplished. Actually, now that I think of it, that may be the best idea of all – think how much better off we would be if Congress was hampered into doing nothing. But as there is more than a grain of truth to the old saying "how do you tell when a politician is lying?– his lips are moving!" if the opposing members were allowed to shout out "LIAR!" each time they thought their opposite members were not telling the truth, each and every debate would degenerate into a shouting match. True, that might be entertaining, and eventually might result in some of the more thoughtful members of Congress actually researching and quoting facts rather than what they want everyone else to believe. HMMMM, now that I think of it a bit more, I have changed my mind and am now in the mood to adopt the Brit model of debate. Obviously, what we have now is not working, and as you say, at least we could have a few laughs...

– TD Reader James J.

JL comment: Now we’re talking. A common objection to the “open debate” idea is that nothing would get done, that every political exchange would devolve into little more than a juvenile shouting match.

But what does this really say about the standards we set for our leaders? If we can’t expect them to debate aggressively and effectively, yet still get things done, then how the hell can we expect them to run the country?

The sad reality, it seems, is that the typical politician sees their role as “sugar daddy” (or “sugar mommy”) and that the ticket to electoral success is promising the voters whatever dreamland fictions they want to hear, no matter how outlandish or dangerous or deceptive such promises may be. In result, we get a bunch of irresponsible pork-grabbers continuously re-elected by a population of immature enablers. And it’s been happening so long that most of us just accept it as a fait accomplis.

As H.L. Mencken once put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want... and deserve to get it good and hard.”

You make an excellent point that cannot be emphasized enough in an age of paralyzing political correctness! Spirited, indeed raucous, debate was very instrumental in the founding of our country. Throughout history such debate has been a hallmark wherever intelligent men have had any measure of freedom. Today’s Nanny State discourages maturity, discourages independent thought, and discourages independent expression in order to [e]nsure that no one will be ‘mean’ or ‘mean-spirited’ as defined by political correctness. As a result, intellectual laziness and cowardice are now prominent characteristics of modern society. Back in the days when adults roamed the earth true words could often be spoken and not be met with childish temper tantrums. I suppose that was based on a sincere appreciation of truth that is sadly lacking today. A coddled standard of living permits self-delusionment. When it comes to debating, at least this is one area where the Brits have more spine than Americans.

– TD Reader Dean M.

JL Comment: Thanks Dean, couldn’t have said it better.

Other Related Topics: Editorial Opinion , Joe Wilson , Justice Litle , Macro Trader , U.S. Dollar

Article brought to you by Taipan Publishing Group. Additional valuable content can be found at www.taipanpublishinggroup.com. Republish without charge. Required: Author attribution and links back to original content.

Comments (3)