For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Interviewing Mark Steyn About His New Book “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon”
Written By : John Hawkins

Mark Steyn’s new book is called After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. This is one of the best books I’ve read in years, I’d highly recommend it, and I was absolutely thrilled to get an opportunity to interview Mark Steyn about his book. What follows is a slightly edited transcript of my conversation with Mark Steyn. Enjoy!

First of all one thing I’ve found interesting is that we’re getting some very loud, real world warning signals about the danger of the path we’re on. By that, I mean we’re using the same basic system of government that Greece is and the only reason they haven’t gone belly up is because they’re being propped up by bigger countries. We just lost our AAA rating and that doesn’t seem to be phasing people the way I thought it would. It’s just being handily blamed on the Tea Party and S&P — which makes no sense. So what do you think it’s going to actually take to wake people up and make them realize, hey, we’ve got to do something — or are we just going to cruise all the way into bankruptcy no matter how loud the warning signals get?

The shock for me about the downgrade was not how the Left reacted to it. I think they look pathetic when they tell the planet that it’s all the fault of some guy in the Tea Party who goes along to a protest. I think the government of the United States looks like a bunch of idiots when they’re trying to advance that as their excuse before the whole world.

But I found the reaction on the Right rather more interesting. I was at Fox News when the whole downgrade thing happened and I didn’t think it was the least bit controversial when I said, “Oh, I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that we deserve a AAA rating. Obviously we’re not a AAA nation when you look at the indicators.” And my friends on the Right kind of reeled back in horror and said, “Oh good gosh, we’re still AAA. …We should have a quadruple A rating, just for us, with no one else in the club. It should be like the World Series where we just play ourselves.” I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. You mentioned Greece — Greece doesn’t have the luxury of being able to print its own currency. So in a sense, Greece can’t do quantitative easing. Greece is a basket case, but it can’t be a quantitative easing basket case. It doesn’t have the freedom to do that.

That’s what’s propping up America at the moment, the fact that it’s the global reserve currency. But if you were to stop that system today — in other words if you were to have the world’s finance ministers sitting around the table deciding what was going to be the global reserve currency, you would never give the global currency to a nation with $15 trillion of debt and whose national government model is to spend $4 trillion every year and only take in $2. You wouldn’t do it. You’d come up with something else. So if we all agree that the global reserve currency is what’s preventing us from being Greece or Portugal or Iceland or you know way down to the bottom of Zimbabwe — that represents the kind of an inheritance of the past. It’s not a status we’ve earned right now.

The other thing I found frightening, really from my friends on the Right because I don’t expect them to be as flippant as the guys on the left, is when one very imminent Fox News contributor just said to me, “Oh, of course we deserve our AAA status. We can still afford the interest on our debt. There is no question of that.” That’s interesting to me because that’s like you getting your MasterCard statement at the end of the month, and you can’t afford to pay off any of the money you’ve spent that the bank lent you, but you can afford to stay current on the monthly interest. Now you wouldn’t think that was a healthy situation if you were just piling up more and more debt each month on your MasterCard. But it doesn’t matter because you can stay current on the monthly interest charge? When this particular gentleman looked me in the eyes and said that, I realized nobody, nobody seriously thinks that anyone is going to be paying back this $15 trillion in debt. In other words, the idea of paying down the debt so that one day it’s $9 trillion, and one day it’s $3 trillion, and one day it’s $47 billion, and one day it’s $19.87 — nobody is seriously thinking of that. When he said to me we can still afford to stay current on the monthly MasterCard interest charge, he really gave the game away on this racket.

I agree with you 100 percent. I don’t know anybody who thinks we’re going to actually pay off the debt.

No, and I think this is the difference between us and Portugal or Greece. It’s not a matter of debt-to-GDP ratios because the minute you’re talking about trillions of dollars, it’s the hard dollar sum that counts because you’re actually stretching the bounds of the planet. You’re requiring the planet to sink an enormous amount of real hard money into U.S. treasury debt to finance essentially worthless activities. I’m astonished at the things the federal government wastes money on. I mean you imagine what the global economy would be like if that money was out there in the real world doing real good.

So, I think the debt-to-GDP ratios and the budget deficit as a proportion to GDP – all these things may be interesting to economists. But the fact that no one is using the “T” word in Lisbon, no one is using the “T” word in Athens, no one is using the “T” word in Portugal — it’s the actual hard dollar sums that makes our crisis much greater than theirs.

Now you have a lot of extraordinary statistics in the book. Give me just one in particular that really sticks with you, that really makes your eyes bug out.

Well, I think the one that brings it all into focus for me is, I think, quoted on page two or three of the book, which is that by mid-decade, in four or five years time, the U.S. taxpayer will be funding the entire cost, just in the interest payment on the debt, of the People’s Liberation Army of China. There is no real precedent in history for this. You can look at examples where Rome was besieged by the barbarians and attempted to bribe various barbarian kings to go away with sacks of gold and silver. But they didn’t as a matter of policy, require Roman taxpayers to pick up the tab for the entire Visigoth military. I mean this is unique. This is unique to us.

When you put that statistic next to the IMF’s calculation that China will be the dominant economic power by 2016…the IMF is wrong about many things and maybe they’re wrong about this, but they’re not wrong about the basic direction we’re moving in. And if China is the dominant economic power by 2016 and if we are picking up the tab for their entire military budget, that entails certain consequences. When money drains, power drains. That is a basic rule of life. Again, on page one or two of the book I quote Jonathan Swift, “They have our soul who have our bonds.” I believe that’s true. I don’t believe you can simply be indebted to generally unsavory persons on the other side of the planet without it having profound geopolitical consequences.

Now I am not a big fan of stock questions suggested by publicists but I do really like this, “What should our top priority be to stop the demise of America?”

Did that come from the publisher?

Yes, indeed. She’s earning her pay for you, Mark.

That’s good, good for Kathleen. I didn’t know that. I’ll tell you what I think the top priority should be and that is an engaged citizenry. We’re in a presidential season right now and I love seeing these guys. I live in New Hampshire so I get to know these guys. You run into them all the time and God bless them, because it’s tough work running around from Elks Lodge to the Masonic Hall, to all the rest of it, trying to get enough people to like you at chicken dinners to propel you on the path to the President of the United States.

But I’m not in the Messiah business. We did that in 2008 and it didn’t work out too well — as it generally doesn’t. I would love it if Calvin Coolidge were on the ballot in November. But in the absence of that, I like the Coolidge idea of a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens and the best thing that citizens can do for that is understand the lessons of what’s happened since January 2009. The Republican Party was leaderless, and largely useless in Washington and all the Tea Party people moved the meter of public discourse. It’s still the case right now that in fact these people are – some more rooted in sanity than either political party in Washington is. The most important thing we can do is learn that lesson. It’s the Milton Friedman lesson I quote right at the end of the book, “Rather than elect the right people to do the right things create the broader political conditions whereby the wrong people are forced to do the right things.”

Every time some half-wit 12-year old speechwriter for Barack Obama is obliged to load into the teleprompter a bit of boiler plate about how we need to learn to live within our means and control our deficit, we are in effect creating the conditions whereby the wrong person is at least forced to pretend that he wants to do the right thing. Let’s take it to the next stage and make sure the squishiest finger in the wind, poll tested, jelly spined politician is forced to do the right thing not because he wants to, but just because that’s the reality. You think of the two lady senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow — in January 2009 they had the worst case of reach across the aisle-itis. In the Obamacare thing, if anyone was going to break and join with Obama to provide some bipartisan cover on healthcare, you would have bet on those two ladies in Maine. Instead what happened, because ordinary citizens across the country including in the state of Maine changed the terms of the debate, those two ladies stayed on the reservation. The wrong people were forced to do the right thing. I think we should learn the lesson. If you can force Susan Collins and Olympia Snow to do the right thing, we should try and do that more often. That’s the most important lesson citizens can learn from the last two years.

Now your book is absolutely outstanding. I’m reading it now. I haven’t finished, but I’ve really enjoyed what I’ve read. But it’s also extremely grim and by that, I mean it’s almost at a “You have two weeks to live, go home and try to get comfortable” grim. So be brutally honest here, Mark. Is America savable? I mean not just theoretically, but in the real world — or are we headed towards bankruptcy, dissolution and horror?

No, there is a question mark over America. There is a question mark. That’s the good news, because in the end there really isn’t a question mark over Greece. If you’re a Greek guy and you’ve got a great business idea and you want to work hard, the best thing you can do is go to the travel agent and get a one-way ticket out of there on the first plane going. You’d be better off doing it almost anywhere on the planet than doing it in Greece. So, I think that is the thing we have going that a lot of other parts of the western world do not have going for them. Yes, this is a 50/50 nation. This is a House divided and as I said in the book, it’s a House divided in really the most fundamental way of all because it’s not about rich versus poor, it’s not about black versus white, it’s not about any of that. It’s about the division about the nature of the state itself which is, I think, the most irreconcilable in a way. One side has to win and one side has to lose. We can’t compromise on this. They are two incompatible visions. One vision is broadly consonant with the American idea as it has existed since its founding. The other, which is that we can live as a large Sweden is an utter delusion. So one of these sides has to win and one has to lose. It’s not clear which is going to come out on top in that 51/49 battle.

But that’s the good news, that there is still something to play for. That puts us ahead of Portugal and Greece and a lot of these other places. The bad news is that if the wrong side wins, it will be a totally different scale of disaster from anything that’s likely to happen to Portugal or Iceland. So in other words, if we win, we win big, but if we lose, we lose big. That’s why the stakes are so much greater here than there. I love Iceland. I’ve got friends in Iceland. I actually like the place and I look forward to many happy visits to Iceland in the years ahead. But ultimately, it’s a peripheral nation whose fate will not be too bad or too good, however things shake out. In America it’s much more extreme. We have the possibility of a great future, but if we don’t correct course in the next half decade or so, it will be a catastrophe on a totally different scale from Iceland or Portugal.

Last question, Mark. I’ve had multiple people in just the last few days mention that they’re considering what other countries they might move to. This isn’t an “Obama won, I want to leave thing.” It’s people who think America is headed towards bankruptcy in the next couple of decades and they’re afraid to get stuck here after the country completely falls apart. What do you think about that?

I think, for example, if you look at what we were saying earlier about America being the reserve currency, at some point you have to figure that a combination of circumstances would result in the rug being pulled out from under the U.S. dollar. At that point, there is nothing holding us up and we could be dropping way down to, you know, Zimbabwe type levels. If you happen to be sitting on a savings account, if you happen to have a modest house on a small lot and you think your modest house and your savings account are enough to see you through to the end of your days, you’re in for a huge shock because you’ll find your house is worthless and your savings account is worthless. You’re going to have to load up the wheelbarrow to buy the quart of milk. I understand people are thinking like that because I get a lot of mail like that saying, “Where can I flee to?” Do you recommend New Zealand or this kind of thing? I spend a lot of time in Bermuda because I happen to like it and if you had to pick somewhere to hole up, a small civilized British colony with a temperate climate, 1,000 miles from anything bad is a great place to go. I noticed Bermuda already has had a lot of wealthy Americans coming in and buying up old estates and things. But, there is not going to be any place to flee. In the end, they’ll come for Bermuda, in the end they’ll come for Monte Carlo, and in the end you’ll be in Switzerland and they’ll come for you there because America is the order maker on the planet and when America goes, eventually as agreeable as Bermuda is, it slides in, and it takes Bermuda down in its wake. So this is the hill to die on.

One of the greatest lines I get told by so-called moderate Republicans about almost anything you talk about is always, “This isn’t the hill to die on. This isn’t the hill to die on, this isn’t the hill to die on.” You have this conversation with them for two hours and you realize you’re already 15 hills back from where you were. This, America, is the hill to die on. If you cannot defend and save a half millennium of western liberty and progress and prosperity on this hill, there is no other hill to die on anywhere on the planet.

Mark, outstanding. I really appreciate your time.

Thanks a lot, John.

You can read more from Mark Steyn here and once again, his new book is called, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.

8
  • Pingback: The PJ Tatler

  • JoeBrit

    “that we can live as a large Sweden is an utter delusion.”

    This phrase obviously refers to our liberal-socialism that began, probably with T. Roosevelt’s Estate Tax, but definitely with FDR’s socialist legislation like Social Security and progressive taxation. Since then we have been living as an imperfect Sweden with a welfare state safety net to protect our citizens, which, since the 1980s has been under attack by the proven delusion of supply-side (low taxation) economics, which was to lift all boats. Instead, it only lifted the wealthy to where the top 20% of them own 84% of all wealth in the US.

    The problem is not the greed of the wealthy, which is creating our financial crises, but agents for the wealthy convincing our people that they too should be greedy and refuse to pay high taxes. Let someone else pay those taxes through less spending on the social safety net.

    Today, the governor of Michigan will sign a bill limiting eligibility for welfare assistance (aid to dependent children) during a mother’s lifetime. It is retrospective and will result in about 12,000 families being kicked out of the program. Ironically, Governor Snyder, who is a multimillionaire, adjusted the flat state income tax rate in a manner that gave himself a taxcut. Flat tax rates of course always benefit the wealthy, which is why Forbes has always supported it, obviously.

    In short, Styne is full of crap.

    • JoeBrit

      PS: By “agents of the wealthy,” I of course mean the right wing GOP. You can’t argue with facts; you can only censor and ban them.

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      No Slow Joe it’s you who is full of crap. you couldn’t best a dirty dishrag in debate, and Mark Steyn makes you look as dumb as a box of rocks.

      • DrEvil

        With all the smart rocks removed.

        Have an Evil day

    • Anonymous

      You bash wealth concentration, yet you’re in favor of the government taking money from taxpayers to bail out failed corporations that shower that cash on their failed executives.

      Bank of America went broke and got bailed out, and still pays it’s CEO $2 million a year. Now they’re getting another bailout from Warren Buffet (on the request of Obama, who promised a third bailout to make his investment good) because they’re broke…again…and still paying their CEO $2 million.

      Conservatives believe that BoA should be out of business and its executives making $0 at no cost to taxpayers. Their branch offices and assets should have been sold off to profitable institutions, where the employees would now work.

      Government creates wealth inequity. Capitalism creates a strong middle class and self-polices by bankrupting the wealthy that fail.

      • Anonymous

        Any redistribution of wealth should come in the forms of:

        A) solid education system available to anyone so that someone from the very lowest rung has a shot to make himself rich.

        B) a government that is favorable to businesses.  Reasonable regulations, taxes, perhaps even generous loans for small businesses, etc to give people a chance to start their own companies.

        C) Intelligent investments in technology and infrastructure to sustain economic growth.

        D) letting companies and people fail.  You can’t be free to succeed unless you are also free to fail.  The uber-rich often stay that way by using the government to hedge their bets. I  have no problem with their wealth and how they choose to use it but when they gamble and lose that’s on them, not us.

        Handouts are occasionally necessary to avoid starvation, unrest, etc and I have no issue with paying a bit extra to feed and clothe those truly in need (here, we can’t take care of the entire world).  But it shouldn’t be a long term thing and it shouldn’t be considered a method of making things “more equal” or stimulating the economy.  It’s no more stimulating to the economy than band-aids are stimulating to your health.  They are temporary patches to solve a short term problem.   They keep things from getting worse but they don’t necessarily make anything better and beyond where it’s needed adding more won’t help things at all. 

        • JoeBrit

          In part you seem to be describing the post WWII era, when we had incredible growth under a progressive tax system that was steep. The wealthy paid their share as the economy grew. It happened again to a lesser extent under Clinton.

          • Anonymous

            What else occurred in the post WWII era?

            Not just here, think globally.

            Also in 1950 the percent GDP we spent at state and federal level was lower than today.  Certain tax brackets were higher, but that ignores differences in the way those were collected, deductions, and the way the rich were paid (high personal taxes meant people got more “free” perks from the company that were tax deductible). 

            That is why your “high tax” 1950s american saw about 20% of the GDP run through DC, whereas your “low tax” american of 2011 sees about 25% of the economy sucked up by DC.  And taxes paid by the lower classes are at an all time low.  Meaning the rich are actually paying more now.

            http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF

          • JoeBrit

            But the growth was phenomenal, in terms of invention, income, employment, and the middle class. Seems as if you believe that the Reagan era and the low taxes on the wealthy led to prosperity. What prosperity was that? A transfer of wealth from the government (via credit, that is, deficits and debt) to the wealthy. That is the most striking statistic of the last 30 years.

          • Anonymous

            I’ll repost this so it doesn’t get lost along with the tax stuff (and it’s a very key point): what differences exist between the global economy of today in which we are competing and the global economy of the post-war era?

          • JoeBrit

            If you could repost my post, I could probably tell you. But as the tolerance for debate and contrasts are nil around here….well ces’t la vie.

      • JoeBrit

        I don’t disagree with everything you said, but this,

        “Government creates wealth inequality”

        is silly.

        • JoeBrit

          I said silly to quick. Yes, destruction of our progressive tax system, particularly under Reagan and Bush II, set up the conditions for enormous wealth inequality. So in that sense, government, especially right wing governments, set the stage for it.

        • Anonymous

          Government taxes citizens, government takes money and gives to well connected companies like GM and GE.  Government creates regulations that cripples small to medium sized companies but can be ignored by well connected and wealthy companies.

          This creates wealth equality? 

          • JoeBrit

            Can’t remember what I said. Hence, stuff it or talk to yourself.

      • SaintMartha

        “Conservatives believe that BoA should be out of business and its executives making $0 at no cost to taxpayers”"
         
        Prepare for a venom-flecked retort from your colleagues. No conservative on this board has ever expressed anything but deep admiration and lust at the rich getting richer.

        • Anonymous

          Are your proud of your learning disability?  If not, why do you display it so prominently?

          I can’t think of anyone on this board (other than our trolls) who has advocated government spending for failed companies.

          We admire the rich that achieve it on their own.  Those that suck at the government teat are simply parasites, no different than welfare abusers just on a grander scale.

          Find one person here who supports using tax dollars to prop up failed companies. 

          So at best your comment was a grievous misunderstanding of reality.  At worst an outright lie. 

          I’ll be generous (it is Friday afterall) and assume you are merely confused. 

          • SaintMartha

            Confusion arises when a rightwing poster pretends to anything other than slavish admiration for the rich.

            As for teat-sucking, the rich and the corporations which spawn them clamp their open mouths upon tax exemptions and development grants.

            It is Friday, so I assume you are already drunk.

          • Anonymous

            Right so quotes from people here displaying “slavish admiration” for the rich who require constant government bailouts?

            Anything?

            Any evidence to support your claims?

            Nope?

            Seems then your argument is based on fiction, aka “lies”. 

          • Anonymous

            But I’m glad you admitted that you were confused.

            That’s the first step.

          • SaintMartha

            Confusion arises when a rightwing poster pretends to anything other than slavish admiration for the rich.

            As for teat-sucking, the rich and the corporations which spawn them clamp their open mouths upon tax exemptions and development grants.

            It is Friday, so I assume you are already drunk.

          • JoeBrit

            What did she say? If you keep deleting her posts, then responses like yours make no sense. Stop being a jerk.

      • JoeBrit

        That’s interesting: a right wing Republican who doesn’t seem to understand right wing Republicanism. You’re a very confused guy. Word to the wise: never put down the corporation. It’s really your bread and butter.

    • Anonymous

      You bash wealth concentration, yet you’re in favor of the government taking money from taxpayers to bail out failed corporations that shower that cash on their failed executives.

      Bank of America went broke and got bailed out, and still pays it’s CEO $2 million a year. Now they’re getting another bailout from Warren Buffet (on the request of Obama, who promised a third bailout to make his investment good) because they’re broke…again…and still paying their CEO $2 million.

      Conservatives believe that BoA should be out of business and its executives making $0 at no cost to taxpayers. Their branch offices and assets should have been sold off to profitable institutions, where the employees would now work.

      Government creates wealth inequity. Capitalism creates a strong middle class and self-polices by bankrupting the wealthy that fail.

    • Anonymous

      It’s sad that pure capitalism is more of a reality in China currently than in the US.

      They are commies in name only.  In reality they have adopted free market reforms and are growing at an impressive rate.

      To beat them we have decided to turn away from the policies that put us ahead (and are currently driving their growth) and copy the policies of stagnating economies: high unsustainable debt, increased taxes, increased government dependency, heavy top down regulation of the economy with all major industries government run in one way or another and so on.

      We are copying losing strategies and ignoring proven winners.  And yet some think this is a good plan. 

      • JoeBrit

        It is safe to say that China is moving toward a social democracy model, in which a combination of communism and capitalism, ala Sweden and the other social democracies, prevails. The obvious exception is that this model is flourishing under a party dictatorship. We have to wait and see if China will go the whole mile.

        • Anonymous

          It’s safe to say you know nothing about China or it’s economic policies if you think they are moving towards sweden. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_A32ACETOW5SMEVHDJ4HSSDIIFI Andrea C

      Spoken with the mob mentality of a democrat. You say this all as though it’s a bad thing, but most of it I’m happy to hear. It’s about time people took responsibility for themselves.
      BTW, there is nothing stopping you from working your buns off to become one of the 20% either :)

  • Anonymous

    Expect a quiet panic to grow in DC over the debt debate in the coming weeks. Maybe some of you caught a little story that made it out on a few outlets but was quickly stifled by the MSM: Howard Schultz of Starbucks is leading a kind of anti-Galt movement, promising to grow his business but at the same time cutting off all political donations to Obama and all members of Congress. Over 100 other CEOs of major corporations have signed on as well.

    Schultz is a big time lib and has donated heavily and almost exclusively to Democrats, by the way.

    Even if it’s largely hype or a clever PR campaign, this kind of move strikes at the vitals of the political establishment and is a huge validation of the Tea Party movement. It’s a very good sign that this country isn’t going to stand idly by while big government liberals run it into the ground.

    • JoeBrit

      So what is Howard Schultz’s point in cutting off political donations? I didn’t get that point, but it wasn’t made. Secondly, just how does this action constitute validation of the Tea Party. Those bastards are out there like everyone else running for some office looking for financial support. Just not buying it.

      • Anonymous

        Of course you don’t get it. You’re regurgitating talking points told to you by others instead of thinking.

        • JoeBrit

          If you could have responded at all, you would not have had to censor and ban the post. I must have made some dangerous anxiety provoking points.

      • Anonymous

        Of course you don’t get it. You’re regurgitating talking points told to you by others instead of thinking.

    • JoeBrit

      Well, here’s some information conveniently left out:

      “Fred Wertheimer, dean of Washington’s campaign-finance reform community, said his group, Democracy 21, will be working with Schultz to build national support for a donation boycott. “He asked for our help and we are happy to give it to him,” Wertheimer said

      “We think it’s a bold move,” he added. “And we think the gridlock and deadlock and partisanship in Washington has reached such levels that it has to be broken through.”

      Wertheimer said the relationship between money and Washington politics is clear: “When you’re in a situation when you need sacrifices to be made from all quarters, the power exercised by political money makes it extremely difficult to achieve that result.”

      Republican intransigence on raising any taxes whatsoever, even on the wealthiest Americans, has been a major source of Washington’s gridlock.”

  • Diana

    Aargh!  Malapropism alert! 
     
    The Fox News contributor was not IMMINENT but EMMINENT.  “Imminent” means “going to happen any minute now.”   “Emminent” means “prominent, distinguished.”

    Sheesh!

    • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

      An obvious typo, probably caused by using Spellcheck instead of checking spelling. Was that really the thing that excited or appalled you the most about what Mark Steyn had to say?

    • Robert Oculus

      You are both wrong. It’s “eminent”.

      Am I the only person in the room who passed freshman-year grammar and rhetoric?

  • Anonymous

    Impressive interview, Mr. Hawkins, kudos on landing it.

    The end of life in America as we know it is drawing near. We may be past the point of no return already. Hopefully not, but perhaps so. 
    I often feel like a kid riding in the backseat of a car that’s skidding out of control, watching the two “adults” in the front seat fight over the steering wheel; one’s hitting the gas, the other stomping the brake. The crash is imminent, in all likelyhood unavoidable, its just a matter of when the violent destruction will ensue. When you’re in this situation, it doesn’t really matter who caused the skid, what matters is avoiding the wreck. The two “adults” shouldn’t be seeking to wrest control of the wheel from the other, whoever’s behind the wheel should be turning into the skid and slowing the car’s momentum to avoid devastation.

  • Anonymous

    Impressive interview, Mr. Hawkins, kudos on landing it.

    The end of life in America as we know it is drawing near. We may be past the point of no return already. Hopefully not, but perhaps so. 
    I often feel like a kid riding in the backseat of a car that’s skidding out of control, watching the two “adults” in the front seat fight over the steering wheel; one’s hitting the gas, the other stomping the brake. The crash is imminent, in all likelyhood unavoidable, its just a matter of when the violent destruction will ensue. When you’re in this situation, it doesn’t really matter who caused the skid, what matters is avoiding the wreck. The two “adults” shouldn’t be seeking to wrest control of the wheel from the other, whoever’s behind the wheel should be turning into the skid and slowing the car’s momentum to avoid devastation.

    • http://personalbizz.blogspot.com/ Whiskey Jim

      Canada was in a similar position in the 90s and cut federal spending by over 25% while the economy grew.

      But Canada is a parlimentary system; if you win the election, you win both the House and the Presidency. The Senate is relatively weak. So you can act.

      Here, the Senate, Congress and Presidency is set up to PREVENT power. Now that that power has been accumulated, it actually prevents significant action from taking place to fix things.
      Lastly, the federal government is by now so invasive that if unemployment gets much higher, or we indeed slip into a 1930s style Depression, I suggest it is very likely that Obama would declare Martial Law. IOW, we will not devolve government power; we will increase it. And the bar for that happening is really not as high as people think.

      Lest readers think this scenario is alarmist, remember that we bailed out the banks, the most obvious wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich in the history of the world. And  Republicans were behind the idea.

      I believe what Progressives write. And many of them, published in the NYT, would like nothing better than a Pinochet or Chavez like takeover. They have written about it.

  • Pingback: Mark Steyn on After America

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    This is a really quotable book and Steyn does a terrific job with it.  He’s okay as a speaker, but brilliant as a writer.

    • Anonymous

      That’s an excellent analogy, sir.

  • Pingback: Mark Steyn Interview «ScrollPost.com

  • Pingback: More On Steyn’s Latest | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  • http://personalbizz.blogspot.com/ Whiskey Jim

    Well, there may not be a place to run, but if you have a group of friends and relatives with some spare cash, even 10 acres and a barn can provide a modestly comfortable self-sufficient living for 20 people.

    Such a strategy has two synergistic advantages; they aren’t making any more land (you can rent the land to a farmer until you need it) and if USA does fall, even only to Great Depression levels, it certainly helps to be away from large cities.

  • http://personalbizz.blogspot.com/ Whiskey Jim

    Well, there may not be a place to run, but if you have a group of friends and relatives with some spare cash, even 10 acres and a barn can provide a modestly comfortable self-sufficient living for 20 people.

    Such a strategy has two synergistic advantages; they aren’t making any more land (you can rent the land to a farmer until you need it) and if USA does fall, even only to Great Depression levels, it certainly helps to be away from large cities.

  • Pingback: Mark Steyn Interview With John Hawkins of Right Wing News » American Glob

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » JOHN HAWKINS INTERVIEWS MARK STEYN about his new book, After America: Get Ready For Armageddon….

  • Pingback: John Hawkins’ Interview with Mark Steyn « Newsbeat1

  • Pingback: “One of the greatest lines I get told by so-called moderate Republicans about almost anything you talk about is always, ‘This isn’t the hill to die on. This isn’t the hill to die on, this isn’t the hill to die on.’ Y

  • Anonymous

    “Rather than elect the right people to do the right things create the broader political conditions whereby the wrong people are forced to do the right things.”
    Frankly, I don’t think a political or civil kind of force exists. I think Styen is wishing for something that isn’t. Our system was designed with that realization in the fore. Without going into that at all as it’s widely dealt with elsewhere, suffice it to say the firmly realist recognize that Armageddon is inevitable. The timeline and intermediate steps are unknown but the outcome is 1776. What we have then is Styen shyly approaching reality yet afraid to make it too clear for fear of being rejected as a kook.

  • Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Learning Curves, Intelligence and Rick Perry | Larwyn’s Linx: Learning Curves, Intelligence and Rick Perry - Larwyn’s Linx: Learning Curves, Intelligence and Rick Perry - Larwyn’s Linx: Learning Curves, Intelligence

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info