Hot Air catches the burghers of New Canaan in denial.
Hereâ€™s an odd little story which is probably going to be cropping up more and more in blue states in the near future. The town of New Canaan, Connecticut is instituting a change this summer. Their Board of Realtors has passed a ban on â€œFor Saleâ€ signs placed in front of the properties where residents are selling their houses and moving away. Why is that? Well, if you ask the local government theyâ€™ll tell you that thereâ€™s simply no need for the signs anymore. Savvy shoppers are looking for houses online and besidesâ€¦ those signs are an eyesore anyway. …
So the official line here is that online browsing has made the signs redundant and people donâ€™t like the look of them. But how much of that is true? I know from personal experience that shopping for a house may certainly include doing some online browsing, but that doesnâ€™t give you a full picture or inform you about the real feel of the house and the neighborhood. Driving around and scouting nice neighborhoods looking for For Sale signs is part of the process for most people. So whatâ€™s the real reason that New Canaan doesnâ€™t want all of those For Sale signs lining the streets?
One hint can be found in the comments from local resident Shawn Gardner who said, â€œThe amount of them is giving buyers an idea that this entire town is for sale.â€
That seems to be the dirty little secret here. They donâ€™t want people to know how many people are fleeing high tax areas like Connecticut.
We got out of far less expensive and fashionable Newtown around 2000. Our real estate taxes which were $2000-per-annum when we moved in had risen to $10,000-per-annum, and Lowell Weicker’s state income tax had ruined the business environment. My wife and I had wound up commuting an exhausting one hour and 45 minutes each way to Manhattan.
Claire Berlinski contemplates Donald Trump’s recent Foreign Policy speech and finds that he is really preaching the same doctrine of American withdrawal from world leadership and decline that Barack Obama was.
Trumpâ€™s speech made him seem to me Obamaâ€™s natural successor, and made me decide that neither are the aberrations I thought they were. Both reflect an external reality: the relative loss of American power. Both envision a limited role for America in the world. Trumpâ€™s wrapping Obamaâ€™s view of the world in the American flag, and making it palatable to people who werenâ€™t willing to hear it from Obama, but itâ€™s the same message. Weâ€™re no longer able to be a benevolent global hegemon. Indeed, we never were a benevolent hegemon. The world will be fine, and so will we, without our efforts to lead it. If weâ€™re an exceptional country at all, our destiny is to lead by example, not force. â€œAmerica Firstâ€ is not an accidental slogan. Trump certainly knows where it comes from, and I suspect most Americans at least intuit it.
Trump in many ways echoes the themes of Obamaâ€™s first presidential campaign:
We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans and just killed be lives, lives, lives wasted. Horribly wasted. Many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill that void much to their really unjust enrichment.
They have benefited so much, so sadly, for us. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.
â€¦ we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats â€“ all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
And with just a few changes in tone,
I am running for President because itâ€™s time to turn the page on a failed ideology and a fundamentally flawed political strategy, so that we can be intelligent about keeping our country safe. I stood up and opposed the Iraq war from the start, and said that we needed to fight al Qaeda.
Hillary Clinton says sheâ€™s passed a â€œCommander in Chief testâ€ â€“ not because of the decisions sheâ€™s made, but because of all the years sheâ€™s spent in Washington. But here is the truth, folks, believe me: there is a gap in this country â€“ a gap between people who claim to be tough on national security, and how unsafe we are because of their stupid, disastrous decisions. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.
The war in Iraq enriched Iran, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, we got nothing. The war in Iraq has enriched North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one.
The above passage is Obama in 2008, with a few words changed so that the voice sounds more like Trumpâ€™s, although the meaning is intact.
A world â€” including me â€” thatâ€™s been looking at Obama for eight years and wondering if the American century is over is now watching the Trump campaign and realizing that itâ€™s long since past. Come 2016, Trump or Hillary Clinton will be in the White House. Clinton is explicitly running on â€œmore of Obamaâ€™s foreign policy.â€ Trump is implicitly running on the same promise, and proposing to get there at warp speed.
“When my father’s father’s father had a difficult task to accomplish, he went to a certain place in the forest, lit a fire, and immersed himself in silent prayer. And what had to be done was done. When my father’s father was confronted with the same task, he went to the same place in the forest and said; ‘”We no longer know how to light the fire, but we still know the prayer.” And what had to be done was done. Later, he too went into the forest and said: “We no longer know how to light the fire, we no longer know the mysteries of prayer, but we still know the exact place in the forest where it occurred. And that should do.” And that did do. But when I was faced with the same task, I stayed home and I said; “We no longer know how to light the fire, we no longer know the prayers. We don’t even know the place in the forest. But we do know how to tell the story.”
Mark Steyn argues that it can happen here, that the ideology of the left can alter the national character and turn a nation of self reliant individualists into whining clients of a socialist nanny state in terminal decline, and Barack Obama is here to prove it.
[W]hat are we to make of the British? They were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century; and they have been, in the scales of history, a force for good in the world. Even as their colonies advanced to independence, they retained the English language and English legal system, not to mention cricket and all kinds of other cultural ties. And even in imperial retreat, there is no rational basis for late-20th-century Britainâ€™s conclusion that it had no future other than as an outlying province of a centralized Euro nanny state dominated by nations whose political, legal, and cultural traditions are entirely alien to its own. The embrace of such a fate is a psychological condition, not an economic one.
Is America set for decline? Itâ€™s been a grand run. The countryâ€™s been the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s. Thatâ€™s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the worldâ€™s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once-golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government. What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.
Is that so hard to imagine? Every time I retail the latest indignity imposed upon the â€œcitizenâ€ by some or other Continental apparatchik, I receive e-mails from the heartland pointing out, with much reference to the Second Amendment, that it couldnâ€™t happen here because Americans arenâ€™t Euro-weenies. But nor were Euro-weenies once upon a time. Hayekâ€™s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom is psychological: â€œThere is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought,â€ he wrote with an immigrantâ€™s eye on the Britain of 1944. â€œIt is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel. The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with oneâ€™s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.â€ Two-thirds of a century on, almost every item on the list has been abandoned, from â€œindependence and self-relianceâ€ (40 percent of people receive state handouts) to â€œa healthy suspicion of power and authorityâ€ â€” the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government â€œdo something,â€ the cost to individual liberty be damned. American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government and not witness, in enough of the populace, the same descent into dependency and fatalism. As Europe demonstrates, a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two. Look at what the Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population: Thatâ€™s what happened in Britain. …
In the modern era, the two halves of â€œthe Westâ€ form a mirror image. â€œThe Old Worldâ€ has thousand-year-old churches and medieval street plans and ancient hedgerows but has been distressingly susceptible to every insane political fad, from Communism to Fascism to European Union. â€œThe New Worldâ€ has a superficial novelty â€” you can have your macchiato tweeted directly to your iPod â€” but underneath the surface noise it has remained truer to old political ideas than â€œthe Old Worldâ€ ever has. Economic dynamism and political continuity seem far more central to Americaâ€™s sense of itself than they are to most nationsâ€™. Which is why itâ€™s easier to contemplate Spain or Germany as a backwater than America. In a fundamental sense, an America in eclipse would no longer be America.
But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, â€œdecline is a choice.â€ The Democrats are offering it to the American people, and a certain proportion of them seem minded to accept. Enough to make decline inevitable? To return to the young schoolboy on his uncleâ€™s shoulders watching the Queen-Empressâ€™s jubilee, in the words of Arnold Toynbee: â€œCivilizations die from suicide, not from murder.â€