• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservatism needs work

Status
Not open for further replies.
But in this debate over intellectualism versus anti-intellectualism, or as Thomas Reid, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Immanuel Kant would have it (and Mike Harris?) Common Sense is the debate over the philosophy or the philosophers?

The Britain of my youth was death against intellectuals - although there were many intellectuals there.  But the last thing that anyone would put on their calling card was "Intellectual".  That seemed a very "European" conceit to us, to declare yourself an Intellectual.  It would get you laughed out of both the pub and the club.

These days I am struck by how many people will cheerfully describe themselves as Intellectuals.

By and large these are people that have a track record of "Doing" very little.  They have spent a lifetime in criticism and never had to apply their principles to reality and face consequences.

They regularly denigrate the "wisdom of the mob", or common sense and as a consequence fail to understand concepts like populism and the stock market or even pragmatism and the art of compromise.

My problem with "Intellectuals" of the left or the right is their inherent belief in their rightness and the need for their principles to prevail. 

They are dangerous.
 
I think the issue is more education vs intellectualism: an educated public will be less susceptible to demagogues of any stripe and be able to examine and judge issues on the facts and their own merits.

Otherwise we get Global Warming hysteria, "Peak oil", Keynesian "stimulus" packages, etc.......
 
Two links to previous posts of mine:

My personal favourite statistic is the comparison between the number of public libraries in Ontario in the 1940s (>400) versus Quebec (<10).  That wasn't a result of federal policies or anglo policies.  That was a result of conscious decisions by the "elite".
  Source

And

In William Johnson's translation of the Nemni's "Young Trudeau" ".....almost all the students (at Trudeau's alma mater St-Jean de Brebeuf), including Trudeau, ended up with identical values with respect to Catholicism and French-Canadian nationalism.  And they were convinced that they reached these values of their own free will.  How did the Jesuits of Brebeuf succeed in putting their distinctive imprint on students like Pierre Trudeau?.......The school libraries were notable above all for the important works of literature that, censored by the Church, were missing from the shelves.  To bring any book into the college premises required written approval by the college authority, unless the book was on the program.  Any book without that approval was confiscated.  "The bad book: that was enemy number one," recalled Georges-Emile Lapalme, who in 1961 would become Quebec's first minister of culture."  pp 48-49.
  Source

That 400/10 ratio for me defines the difference between the Two Solitudes, a Canadian expression of an International phenomenon.  It is the dfference between the world of educated miners in which my Grandfather grew up and the cultural elite that spawned Pierre Trudeau.

It is the difference between seeking your own answers and waiting for answers to be provided.

It is the difference between controlling the message to impose order and embracing chaos and disorder as a viable system.

It is the difference between searching for wisdom and accepting the wisdom of the mob and the market.

It is the difference between the authoritarians (of left and right, fascist, communist or socialist) and the classical liberals.

 
Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view550.html#Friday

There are often insightful articles in The American Conservative, but for me there's too much glee when liberals and neocons make disastrous errors. Russell Kirk taught us that we ought to approach defects in our nations as we would the wounds of a father. The neocons were useful allies during the Cold War, but the term "neo-conservative" always was a contradiction in terms. American Conservatives have some common interests with neocons, but we should not forget their Trotskyite origins. It's a bit odd: some of the former Communists, like Whitaker Chambers, came to their senses and became actual conservatives; but they were almost all actual Communists, members of CPUSA and under Party Discipline. Most of the neo-cons were Trotskyites or came from Trotskyite families (many being too young to have any notion of what things were like back in the Glory Days of the Trotskyites) and when they left their affiliations they didn't give up the notion that the world could be remade by dedicated revolutionaries and social engineering; that if they got control of the government they could do something wonderful. Give me the sword of state and I will make a more beautiful world.

Real conservatives understand that control of government isn't the key to making a wonderful world. At best we can get rid of some obstacles and give people opportunities to improve their lives. One would think that a study of history would show that, but apparently a lot of smart people continue to believe that they can remake not just their city, or county, or state, or nation, but the whole world, and all they need is control of the army and the tax collectors. Actually they don't think that way: they think about the wonderful things they can do, and forget that to do them they need tax collectors, and to support the tax collectors they need police, and behind the police stands the Army, prison, and the hangman. (Of course we don't have hangmen any more. We're more humane now. Progress.)

Government can protect some people from bad guys. It doesn't always do that and never does it perfectly, but it can, sometimes, do that.  It can, sometimes, as Adam Smith notes, undertake projects that have great benefit to all with little benefit to any one person -- he had in mind roads and canals and fire departments, not the over-all direction of the economy. Alas, it doesn't take a lot of bad thinking to expand that list, and everyone does. After all, if we can put a man on the moon, surely we can give every child a world class university prep education, can't we? Not just in the United States, but everywhere. And guess what: all the university professors, both tenured and wannabe, agree completely, and rub their hands in anticipation -- since of course they won't be paid by those who will benefit from universal university education, but by the taxpayers who won't be asked what they think about having everyone go to university and get a degree if they want to become a manager at Jack In The Box. The largest joke is that even the taxpayers can't pony up enough, and everyone who goes to these overpaid institutions will get to pony up a grand a month for the rest of their lives; this in exchange for the pretended education they get in order to get the credentials that prove they are educated and worthy of having a job. Of course that credential can lead to one of the coveted positions among the governing class.

Now if we just had some means for certification of expertise that didn't require credentials, things might change. I don't look for that to happen soon. The purpose of government is to pay government workers and their allies; which means the real purpose of government is to collect the money to pay government workers and their allies. Just as the purpose of the school system is to pay members of the teachers unions.

I started this as a way to distinguish myself from The American Conservative magazine; I didn't intend it to be an essay in gloom. I'll cheer up sometime. Alas, the analysis  of foreign policy under the neoClintons has a scary logic that I haven't yet untangled, which means they may be correct. And that really is scary: Wilsonian policies during a Depression with China and India growing and growing.

Despair is a sin.

And Happy New Year.
 
Classical Liberal (AKA Conservative) values are actually similar; all these prescriptions can be applied to our situation as well despite the lack of a well written and clear cut document like the Declaration of Liberty and the Constitution of the United States:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html

Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution
The coalition that supported Reagan is as viable as ever.

By PETER BERKOWITZ

After their dismal performance in November, conservatives are taking stock. As they debate the causes that have driven them into the political wilderness and as they contemplate paths out, they should also take heart. After all, election 2008 shows that our constitutional order is working as designed.

The Constitution presupposes a responsive electorate, and respond the electorate did to the vivid memory of a spendthrift and feckless Republican Congress; to a stalwart but frequently ineffectual Republican president; and to a Republican presidential candidate who -- for all his mastery of foreign affairs, extensive Washington experience, and honorable public service -- proved incapable of crafting a coherent and compelling message.

Indeed, while sorting out their errors and considering their options, conservatives of all stripes would be well advised to concentrate their attention on the constitutional order and the principles that undergird it, because maintaining them should be their paramount political priority.

A constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving and extending its blessings. The constitution it seeks to conserve carefully defines government's proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity on occasion to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects, and at the same time refines, popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments the better to check and balance it. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy depends on weaving together rival interests and competing goods.

Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution's lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.

Some social conservatives point to the ballot initiatives this year in Arizona, California and Florida that rejected same-sex marriage as evidence that the country is and remains socially conservative, and that any deviation from the social conservative agenda is politically suicidal. They overlook that whereas in California's 2000 ballot initiative 61% of voters rejected same-sex marriage, in 2008 only 52% of voters in the nation's most populous state opposed the proposition. Indeed, most trend lines suggest that the public is steadily growing more accepting of same-sex marriage, with national polls indicating that opposition to it, also among conservatives, is weakest among young voters.

Meanwhile, more than a few libertarian-leaning conservatives are disgusted by Republican profligacy. They remain uncomfortable with or downright opposed to the Bush administration's support in 2004 for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and its continuation of the Clinton administration's moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

In addition, many are still angry about the Republican-led intervention by the federal government in the 2005 controversy over whether Terri Schiavo's husband could lawfully remove the feeding tubes that were keeping his comatose wife alive. These libertarian conservatives entertain dreams of a coalition that jettisons social conservatives and joins forces with moderates and independents of libertarian persuasion.

But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.

Yet they, and the national security hawks who are also crucial to conservative electoral hopes, do not merely form a coalition of convenience. Theirs can and should be a coalition of principle, and a constitutional conservatism provides the surest ones.

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.

Short-term clashes over priorities and policies are bound to persist. But championing these principles is the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions hospitable to traditional morality, religious faith, and the communities that nourish them. And it is also the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions that promote free markets, and the economic growth and expanded opportunity free markets bring.

Moreover, a constitutional conservatism provides a framework for developing a distinctive agenda for today's challenges to which social conservatives and libertarian conservatives can both, in good conscience, subscribe. Leading that agenda should be:

- An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions.

- A foreign policy that recognizes America's vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation's limited knowledge and restricted resources.

- A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.

- A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

- Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state's democratic process.

- Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.

- A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

- A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

- The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

If they honor the imperatives of a constitutional conservatism, both social conservatives and libertarian conservatives will have to bite their fair share of bullets as they translate these goals into concrete policy. They will, though, have a big advantage: Moderation is not only a conservative virtue, but the governing virtue of a constitutional conservatism.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. An expanded version of this article is forthcoming in Policy Review.
 
I do not believe that American conservatism – which I define as a mix of near libertarians, classical liberals (advocates of individual rights (including privacy), fiscal prudence and small government), America first or  near nativists (nearly throwbacks to the “Know Nothings[url]”) and the religious right – can or should exist much longer.

There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite classical liberals with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.

The grouping of the classical liberals with the America first faction is equally problematical because the latter must end up being ‘big government conservatives’ a la George W Bush – someone with whom, as it (his policies) transpired, real classical liberals do not want to be associated.

The libertarians, America firsters and the religious right should all be left, by the Republican Party, to go their own ways. The Republicans should focus on rebuilding the independent (of big government) spirit that built modern America. Independence means that one keeps big collectives – like bureaucracies and churches – at arm’s length. Independence is not anti-communitarianism; in fact real American ‘independence’ (rather counter-intuitively) embraced local, community based self-help programmes as ‘better’ (more efficient and effective) than anything that came out of the county seat or the state or national capitols. Independence, in the 21st century, means recapturing the ‘small town’ values of thrift, trust in neighbours, responsibility, humility and hard work. That's not a bad base for any political party.
   

 
E.R. Campbell said:
There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite classical liberals with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.

Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?
 
Infanteer said:
Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?

That's certainly what a lot of Conservatives (and Liberals, too) believe.

I'm not so sure.

First off, the religious right in Canada is smaller and less well organized than it is in the USA and, except for the CPC, it has no place to go except e.g The Christian Heritage Party or wherever Focus on the Family tells 'em to go.

Second, I think Harper wants to drive the Conservatives to the moderate middle, away from the religious right.

Thus, I suspect that, notwithstanding his own (perhaps strongly held) religious principles, Harper wants to marginalize the religious right in Canada, in favour of more tradition (blue) Conservative values: small town, small business, etc.
 
American Conservatives need to regroup and redefine themselves (or get back to first principles). Newt Gingrich has something to say about that:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2009/01/conservative-way-forward.html

The Conservative Way Forward

The current GOP leadership is clueless. I supported Newt Gingrich for president in 2008 although he didn't run, but I'm praying he will in 2012. Hopefully, democracy in America will still exist then. Watch Gingrich's very informative and challenging address to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) HERE.

Let me suggest a very radical first idea that perfectly fits the reason ALEC was founded. If you would go home and identify every stupid thing the federal government is requiring you to do which wastes money, and offer them a swap: if they would pass the omnibus smart-government-and-waste avoidance act that liberated you from all the federal regulations that are stupid, you wouldn’t need them to pass you a stimulus package to send you cash because you would save more than enough cash by not having to let them micromanage you.

America, and most western governments (Canada included), are trapped in the utter stupidity of bureaucratic regulation which cripples business, stifles creativity, prolongs suffering, increases poverty, limits individual accomplishment, and endangers lives. Yes, it even COSTS lives.

Gingrich points out, "We won the Second World War in forty-four months. From December the 7th 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, to victory over Japan in August of 1945 is three years and eight months. We beat Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in three years and eight months. It recently took 23 years to add a fifth runway to the Atlanta airport. You can’t compete in the world if you are determined to be stupid. It’s a very major problem."

The disaster known as Detroit only graduates 26% of its students, and continues to elect Democrats as it has for 58 years straight. Watch the Gingrich video linked above, it's worth it! We, not conservatives or liberals, need to make government work better because our civilization will deteriorate if we don't and our future could be in jeopardy, indeed our freedom could be doomed if we don't.



 
The rule of law is important:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023548.php

The meaning of Chrysler
 
May 13, 2009 Posted by Scott at 5:50 AM

The Obama administration's misbehavior in the matter of Chrysyler is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. In today's Wall Street Journal, Professor Todd Zywicki explains:

    The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

    The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

    The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

    Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The case of Chrysler illustrates a proposition on which we have elaborated here previously and that warrants repetition. For the past hundred years the attack on private property has been central to the Progressive assault on the Constitution, beginning with J. Allen Smith's The Spirit of American Government (1907) and continuing most importantly with Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913).

Smith and Beard portrayed the constitutional protection of private property by the founders as the weapon of an elite interested in preserving its privilege. (By the time scholars got around to debunking Beard's book in particular -- few serious works of history have been as definitively disproved as Beard's -- the damage had been done.) Today the Progressive assault on property rights continues in the scholarship of liberals such as Obama administration official Cass Sunstein.

The American Revolution is of course the appropriate place to begin to understand the role of property rights in the American legal order. The American Revolution was in part a rebellion against the feudal order, remnants of which still prevailed in Great Britain. In the feudal order all property belonged to the King; the King retained ownership but conditionally granted the use of property to his subjects.

By contrast, the idea that men possessed the right to acquire and enjoy property separate and apart from the prerogative of sovereign government was one of the "unalienable rights" grounded in "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" at the heart of the American Revolution. In the founders' view, property rights did not emanate from government. Rather, they emanated from the nature of man, and it was the function of government to protect the rights conferred on man by nature.

Indeed, Jefferson characterized property rights as "the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone [of] the free exercise of industry and the fruits acquired by it." As Jefferson's comment suggests, the right to acquire property was the critical right for the founders; it made property rights the friend of the poor by allowing them to earn and safeguard wealth ("the fruits acquired by" work).

Accordingly, when the founders crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they provided numerous protections of property rights. Congress was authorized to protect the intellectual property of writers and inventors through the issuance of patents and copyrights. The states were prohibited from impairing private contractual obligations.

Further, putting property on a par with life and liberty, the Constitution prohibited the government from taking property in any criminal case without due process. And in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government was prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation; the government was not even afforded the power to take private property for anything but public use.

The founders extended these and other specific protections to the property of Americans in the fundamental law of the United States for the sake of freedom. The freedom to exercise and profit from one's abilities without regard to caste or class was in the view of the founders the essence of freedom.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "the first object of government" is the "protection of the diversity in the faculties [abilities] of men, from which the rights of property originate." In the eyes of the founders, the protection of property rights was a bulwark for the poor in assuring them that the wealth earned with the sweat of their brow could not arbitrarily be expropriated by the heavy hand of government.

It was precisely on this ground that Lincoln sought to persuade Americans of the injustice of slavery. Lincoln persistently argued that slavery was a species of tyranny enacting the ancient injustice of the principle "you work, and I eat." He often spoke of the heart of slavery as a denial of property rights: "It is the same tyrannical principle that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.'"

When Stephen Douglas mocked Lincoln during their debates for believing in the equality of a black slave with white citizens, Lincoln said: "In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of anyone else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."

The founders' study of history taught them that majority rule was susceptible to tyranny and that the protection of property rights was an indispensable condition for the preservation of freedom and for the growth of national wealth. The founders observed that tyrannical rule and material scarcity had by and large been the fate of man through the ages. They saw the confiscation of property by government in the name of the sovereign power of the state as an old and sorry story. Through the protection of property rights they meant to forge a new order of the ages. It lies to us to regain their understanding and act on it.
 
Progressives often think Americans are pirates; maybe they are right after all:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_17-2009_05_23.shtml#1242820796

A Preposterous Suggestion: Of TJ, Pirates, and America's Founding

In the course of doing interviews on The Invisible Hook over the last several weeks I’ve had a number of people ask me if I thought America’s Founding Fathers might have been influenced by early 18th-century pirates in framing the United States government.

Before you laugh, let me explain . . .

In the book I analyze early 18th-century pirates’ system of social organization, the basic principles of which are, in several important respects, I suggest quite similar to those of our own.

The centerpiece of pirate governance was a system of constitutional democracy. Before launching a plundering expedition, each crew drew up a written document that stipulated the rules that would govern its members while the pirates remained together. These “articles” also empowered the chief pirate officer--the quartermaster--to enforce the rules, administer proscribed punishments, divide the booty, and so forth. Critically, by making many of these terms explicit, pirate constitutions not only empowered the quartermaster in these duties but also constrained him. He was not free divide plunder anyway he saw fit, for example, arbitrarily bestow social insurance payments on pirates he liked (pirates had an early system of workers' comp), or punish lawbreakers willy-nilly.

In addition to such “constitutional checks” on the quartermaster, pirates also exerted democratic checks on his behavior. Pirates popularly elected the quartermaster and could, and did, democratically remove quartermasters who overstepped their bounds or otherwise acted in ways at odds with the other crewmembers’ interest.

The quartermaster also exercised his authority within the context of a system of piratical separation of powers. While the quartermaster wielded command in cases such as those described above, he wielded no command in times of conflict with potential prizes. Authority in these cases fell to the captain, the other central pirate officer, who pirates also democratically elected and deposed. Notably, pirates’ democratic mechanism for this and other purposes was also established in their constitutions.

The chief pirate officers--the captain and quartermaster--not only had countervailing authorities, they also competed with one another. When pirates deposed an ineffective or otherwise unsuitable captain from command, they could, and sometimes did, elect the quartermaster to this post in his place.

Further, in some cases pirate crewmembers exercised a kind of “judicial review” authority. Where their articles were unclear or silent on certain matters, pirates gathered to interpret and apply the ship’s constitution to the case at hand.

Many of the fundamental features of pirate’s governance system should sound familiar to those acquainted with America’s governance system. They’re not the same, of course. But several of the basic institutions appear to be there, albeit in more rudimentary form.

Perhaps even more strikingly, the basic reason behind pirates’ system of checks and balances is fundamentally the same reasoning behind our system of checks of balances: to simultaneously empower and constrain those we endow with the authority to rule over us.

To keep their criminal enterprise from breaking down, pirates needed “leaders” who could maintain order among them and make certain decisions on behalf of the whole (such as during battle), but could also be prevented from abusing the power crewmembers vested in their hands for this purpose. Pirates were especially wary of this possibility, most of them having formerly sailed as legitimate sailors under the autocratic, and thus often abused, authority of merchant ship captains.

As one pirate put it, “Most of them having suffered formerly from the ill-treatment of Officers, provided thus carefully against any such Evil now they had the choice in themselves . . . for the due Execution thereof they constituted other Officers besides the Captain; so very industrious were they to avoid putting too much Power into the hands of one Man.”

Pirates confronted essentially the same dilemma in setting up their system of governance that James Madison famously described in Federalist 51. As Madison put it, “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Madison’s solution to this dilemma was constitutional democracy. “A dependence on the people,” Madison argued, “is no doubt, the primary control on the government.” “ut,” he continued, “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” “[T]he constant aim is to divide and arrange several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other—that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.”

This was pirates’ solution as well--but they forged it more than half a century before Madison put pen to paper. Pirates, of course, weren’t the first to invoke this solution. And there’s good reason to think that some of the legitimate world’s early experiences with democracy, separated powers, and so on, may have influenced pirates’ system of governance.

But could the direction of influence have also run the other direction? This is the question I began with. And while, unsurprisingly, I’ve yet to come across direct evidence that any of our Founding Fathers looked to pirate governance in forging America’s system of government, it might be too hasty to totally dismiss this suggestion as well.

I did a quick look to see if there might be any evidence that any of the Founders were even aware of pirates’ governance regime . . . .

And there is. Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of both of the two most important late 17th-century and early 18th-century books that describe pirate governance, Alexander Exquemelin’s Buccaneers of America, and Captain Charles Johnson’s General History of the Pyrates.

Does this prove that pirates’ constitutional democracy influenced Jefferson? Of course not. For one thing, Jefferson had many books in his personal library. That doesn’t mean all of them played a role in his thinking about American government. Further, I don’t know when Jefferson acquired these books. His copies were published (in 1774) before the Declaration of Independence; but that doesn’t tell us when Jefferson bought or read them.

But, at least in principle, it does suggest TJ could have “had a little captain in him.” The mere prospect is tantalizing enough for me . . .
 
Jerry Pournelle reflects on the differences between Parties and movements. We seem to have a similar disconnect between the "Conservatives and the Conservative Party:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view574.html

I am neither a great fan nor an enemy of Rush Limbaugh, but I agree with him more often than not. My major criticism is his delivery, which is loud and insistent. I prefer a less strident atmosphere and what Possony used to call rational discussion. Clearly Limbaugh's method works --he has an enormously larger audience than I do, and many more dedicated fans and subscribers (although I don't mean to slight those who support this place. Thanks to all who subscribe and renew.)

He had two items today that I thought worth reflection. The first was purely pragmatic regarding health care reform: before we deliver another 15% of the GDP to Obama's management team, would it not be better to wait a bit to see how well his present policies work? It's not clear that the management team understands the economy, but they have certainly been given more power over it than any American government has ever had. Obama says that if we don't do his health care reform soon, we never will. I question that. If what the Obama team is doing works, Obama will surely not lose popularity, and there will be far more support for the notion of turning this knotty problems over to a team that has successfully managed economic recovery. What's the great hurry?

His second question was, given the great success of what he calls "our team" in 1980, and then again in 1994, how did we get into this situation in which the Republicans are at a low below anything since Watergate? Is conservatism dead? But of course it is not: the Republican Party, after Gingrich's departure, was anything but conservative. The fact is that about twice as many people describe themselves as conservative as call themselves liberal, even though there are far more Democrats than Republicans.

The failure, Limbaugh said, was ours: [colour=yellow]we didn't teach the conservative principles well enough. We did not persuade -- particularly we did not persuade the Republican leadership that the principles are true.[/yellow] There may be a need for compromises in some places and some cases. Government is after all the art of the possible. But that does not mean that one adopts disastrous policies simply to gain temporary popularity.

I have said it before: movements (I fail to come up with a better word; "philosophies" is pretentious, and ideologies is precisely the wrong word to describe the conservative movements) have the purpose of teaching. Parties have the purpose of capturing control of government; of winning elections. Party leadership is often subject to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Successful political managers are hired to win, not to be true to philosophical principles.  There have been exceptions; I was one of them as were some of Reagan's closer advisors like Lyn Nofziger. I can attest to the temptation to compromise principles to preserve a track record; fortunately I didn't make political management a career (wasn't even tempted, actually).

Given the overwhelming pervasiveness of liberalism in the public schools, colleges, universities, and the media, getting across the basic principles of conservatism -- I'd say getting across the basic principles of a realistic appreciation of the way the world works -- is difficult; more difficult than some of us understood it would be. I've been going back through some of A Step Farther Out, and I see that a lot. It seemed to me obvious that cheap energy plus freedom would soon result in a technology boom that would carry us to space, where both energy and material resources are abundant.

Twenty years after that, Charles Sheffield and I wrote Higher Education, which has a different view of the future, but is still optimistic.

Possony used to say "You either believe in rational discussion or you don't." I have to remind myself of that frequently.
 
I suggest Canada has the same problem, and needs the same soution:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/philip_howard/2009/06/spring_cleaning_in_washington.html

Spring Cleaning in Washington

Just a few months ago, members of Congress took turns wagging their fingers at CEOs of the automakers for not making tough choices--not shedding "legacy costs," not making products consumers wanted, not cutting bloated bureaucracies.  Detroit had become self-referential, unable to compete because it was unwilling to deal with its internal constituents.

Now Washington faces a series of domestic crises that will shape the health of our society for decades--unaffordable healthcare, balkanized financial regulation, and a mind-boggling deficit, to name three.  But Washington will likely fail--indeed, may even make the problems worse--unless it deals with its own "legacy costs" and bloated bureaucracies, which currently make it impossible to achieve new focus and efficiencies.

Detroit is Google compared to Washington.  Year after year, Congress makes laws but almost never repeals them.  Washington is like a huge monument to legacy costs.  Laws from the Depression will send tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies this year to farmers, organized labor and other groups thought to be in need--80 years ago.  Bloat is also notorious--it's nearly impossible to fire anyone under civil service laws, so layers of middle management have grown exponentially.  Professor Paul Light found 32 levels in some agencies (compared to 5 levels in most well-run enterprises).

All this accumulated law--about 300,000 pages of federal statutes and regulations--operates as a form of central planning.  It bogs people down in bureaucracy.  In healthcare, the labyrinthian requirements of Medicare, Medicaid, HIPAA, plus the equally dense, and often conflicting requirements of 50 states, plus the insurance company red tape, make it impossible for people to deliver care efficiently.  Add to that bureaucratic nightmare the ever-present fear of being hauled into court whenever a sick person gets sicker, and you have a system that looks like it was designed for frustration and waste.  (See here for principles needed to climb out of this rut.)

The inertial forces that make it hard to achieve change in Washington, in the best of circumstances, become a kind of invincible fortress when reinforced by thousands upon thousands of pages of binding law.  Each of those provisions is zealously guarded by special interest groups, and changing any word of a statute requires the votes of 218 members of the House and (generally) 60 senators. 

Faced with legions of special interests, Congress is trying to fix healthcare by piling new requirements on top of the old ones.  But this won't address the underlying problems of efficiency, any more than it could in Detroit.  To restore focus and efficiency, Congress must first clean out what's there--not to eliminate the goals of existing regulation but to put them in a coherent framework that real people can understand and internalize. 

Dealing with the sclerosis of accumulated regulation, however, is not something our leaders have any experience with.  Most of the historic legal reforms of the past century were written on a new slate.  The Progressives at the turn of the 19th century imposed worker safety and food safety laws to fill the regulatory void of laissez-faire.  Roosevelt's New Deal provided social safety nets where there were none, and job programs in agencies that didn't exist before.  The civil rights movement led to laws against discrimination where there were none. 

We don't have the luxury of a clean slate--healthcare, schools, and the financial sector are all mired in a bureaucratic jungle.  Al Gore had the right idea with his Reinventing Government initiative, but he was trying to simplify what was there.  The imperative now is much more radical, and urgent--to solve society-wide crises of affordability in healthcare, accountability in the financial markets, and disarray in schools. 

Making sense of the current problems requires not just new laws--but a willingness to undo old laws in order to build coherent new structures.  The litmus test is not whether some expert can draw a complicated chart showing how law requires this or that, but whether real people (including doctors, teachers, and financial regulators officials) feel liberated to focus on doing their jobs properly.  The closest analog in history are recodifications that occur periodically--almost always releasing enormous improvements in productivity.  In ancient Rome, the emperor Justinian is best known for taking "the vast mass of juristic writings which served only to obscure the law," and rewriting them into a coherent code.  Napoleon considered his "Napoleonic Code" to be his finest achievement, and the simplified set of principles that his experts created is still the legal foundation for most European countries.  America's Uniform Commercial Code, developed in the 1950s and adopted by all states, brought consistency and efficiency to a tangled web of state laws that impeded free flow of commerce. 

The current debate is missing its most important element of effective reform--the need to phase out many existing laws and regulations so that our leaders can build structures from the ground up that focus on human responsibility and accountability.  This is what observers such as Ezekiel Emanuel have called for in healthcare (see here), and what Richard Posner seems to be suggesting for financial reform (see here).  Two areas I have worked on--healthcare justice and authority of teachers--both require abandoning existing legal conventions in order to meet our public goals.  To restore trust needed in healthcare interactions, patients and doctors need health courts that are reliable to sort out good care from bad care.  To restore a school culture of order and respect, teachers need to be released from bureaucracy and the threat of a legal proceeding for ordinary daily disciplinary decisions. 

Getting anything done in Washington is notoriously difficult, and the instinct is always to do whatever can be agreed upon in the sausage factory, and then to collapse from exhaustion.  But that's not good enough this time around.  We can't get there from here.  The failures of our public institutions are built into the current structures and can't be fixed without rebuilding those structures. 

Future historians will look on this time as one that was critical to the growth of America in this century.  Meeting the challenge requires building a new foundation of law and regulation that aspires to address our current goals, not to mollify interest groups clinging to past entitlements.  Like Detroit, Washington has to face up to the need to clean out its clogged bureaucracies and start anew.
 
A third interesting piece, from today’s National Post, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/18/david-frum-american-conservatism-in-its-decadent-phase.aspx
David Frum: American conservatism in its decadent phase

Posted: July 18, 2009

'What was once a cause has degenerated into a racket'

Washington conservatives who dissent from the party line are often accused of selling out our principles in hope of snagging an invitation to a Georgetown cocktail party.

It costs much, much more than that to buy Washington’s pillars of conservative orthodoxy. Thanks to the brave people at Fedex, the whole world now knows exactly how much more.

Fedex is locked in a Washington legal battle against UPS. I won’t burden you with a lot of unnecessary details, but the issue boils down to this: UPS operates under one set of rules very favorable to unionization, Fedex operates under a different and less favorable set. UPS wants the same law applied to its main competitor. Fedex objects.

Both sides want allies. Fedex thought it had found one in the American Conservative Union. The ACU is not just another conservative outfit. When you hear a member of Congress described as more or less conservative than another, it’s the ACU’s voting index that is being cited. ACU sponsors the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, the biggest event on conservatism’s annual calendar.

If ACU joins your side, in other words, you have acquired a formidable friend.

The leaders of ACU know the value of their support. On June 30, they wrote a letter proposing a national campaign on Fedex’s behalf. For a price: US$3.4 million.

Fedex declined to pay. Two weeks later, on July 15, ACU’s chairman David Keene and ACU board member Grover Norquist signed an open letter endorsing UPS’ position. Payback? If so, it prompted a remarkable counter-payback: On July 17, somebody leaked the June 30 demand letter to Mike Allen at Politico.com.

Around the conservative world, the reaction to this naked attempt to sell political influence has been outrage and surprise.

But really: The only surprise is that anybody is surprised.

The ACU itself, as well as its officers and board members, have previously taken positions in other intra-corporate battles: in favor of Microsoft and against Netscape, in favor of AT&T and against Verizon.

Officers of the ACU also took a central role in the epic 1998-99 round of electricity deregulation, a contest so lavish that some wit called it a “two Lexus fight” — meaning that every lobbyist involved could look forward to a bonus big enough to buy a new Lexus not only for himself or herself, but also for his or her spouse. The details of that fight are a little complicated, but they are worth the attention of anybody interested in American conservatism in its decadent phase.

Historically, electrical utilities had been regulated by the states. But as technological improvements made it possible to distribute electricity over wider and wider distances, some suggested that it might be more rational for electrical distribution to be regulated federally, in the same way as natural gas distribution is.

Investor-owned utilities preferred the status quo. They had developed very comfortable relationships with their state regulators, to put it mildly.

State legislators also preferred the status quo. Electrical utilities give generously to fund state elections. If control over electricity moved from state capitals to Washington, so too would the utilities’ political contributions.

In the middle of this debate appeared a group called Citizens for State Power. CSP’s leadership overlapped fascinatingly with the leadership of the American Conservative Union. CSP leaders wrote op-eds and articles, spoke to editorial boards, invited old comrades from the Reagan years to lunch. They invoked the venerable principle of state sovereignty, and bemoaned this latest power grab by the special interests in Washington D.C.

Washington in those years felt like a giant Tupperware party, where people you had known for years were suddenly using that friendship to sell you something you would never have bought from anybody else.

A total of US$17-million flowed through CSP in 1998-2002, including US$160,000 paid to the lobbying firm that employed David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union.

The scale of the CSP effort went undisclosed at the time, but the gist of the story was obvious enough to anybody who cared to know. Too few conservatives did care to know — or else decided it was bad form to mention it.

It had better be mentioned. The activities of the ACU have damaged the good name of every American conservative organization. The next time conservatives take a stand on an issue that helps or hurts an industry or firm, everybody will have reason to ask: Who’s paying you this time? Or are you exacting revenge from somebody who opted not to pay you?

What was once a cause has degenerated into a racket. Fedex exposed the racketeering. Now conservatives must make the fateful choice whether or not to cleanse themselves of the racketeers.

©David Frum
dfrum@aei.org


This is, as Frum says, not too surprising. Conservatism, in both Canada and the USA, needs more than just work. It needs to rediscover its classical, 19th century liberal roots and core values. It needs to, must discard and destroy the wholly illiberal, collectivist, busybody influences of the “religious right;” it must rediscover enlightened capitalism and replace the greed based system currently in vogue in business and labour; it needs to fall back on its small town/small business roots and let the Democrats and the Liberal Party of Canada have big business, big banks, big labour and big government. Conservatives and Republicans should be the parties of the ordinary, little guy who wants to get ahead on his own merits and efforts. 
 
The conservative movement is really about reestablishing connections between people, neighbourhoods and regions. This is hardly a new idea, and here is a bit about how it was replaced and the consequences:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q3/view590.html#Wednesday

Tocqueville, The Associations, and Welfare

Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a work few have read, although many cite it. At one time it was assigned in academic oriented high schools, but no more. It's too quaint, and a bit long, for the modern intellectual taste. For all that it remains an influential and important work.

One of his most important observations was that in America much of the activity done by government in Europe was done by private associations. This chapter is worth your attention. It is no longer as true as it was in Tocqueville's time, of course, but it remains an important observation, and a picture of what could be. Much of what we call "welfare" in the US has been and can be done by "the associations". One of Tocqueville's observations is the democratic nature of these associations: in Europe activities that would be headed by government, or by aristocrats and nobles, is done by the ordinary citizenry. The importance of this can't be overstressed. If you would have a republic, you need citizens who believe in their importance to the republic; who think, with reason, that they are valuable; that they are, to use a trite phrase, pillars of the community. To the extent that government takes over those activities which make the country lovely, it undermines the very foundations of the republic.
Nothing, in my opinion, is more deserving of our attention than the intellectual and moral associations of America. The political and industrial associations of that country strike us forcibly; but the others elude our observation, or if we discover them, we understand them imperfectly because we have hardly ever seen anything of the kind. It must be acknowledged, however, that they are as necessary to the American people as the former, and perhaps more so. In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.

Among the laws that rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased.
              Alexis de Tocqueville

The alternative to free associations of free men is paternalistic government and bureaucracy. The bureaucracy takes away all pride in the work done -- think of those who take care of their aged relatives as state employees, and who strike because their wages are being cut back toward minimum wage -- while not necessarily increasing the quality of the work. Mostly they render superfluous any association other than unionization to improve their wages. The result is predictable.

It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question that, in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands and might interfere more habitually and decidedly with the circle of private interests than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do.

                                  . . .

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
                            Tocqueville

 
In this post, in a locked thread, I said, “The kids got their cause and their violence; they keep at it today, even, especially when, as with the G8 and WTO and Summit of the Americas and the G20, they are abysmally ignorant of the issues at hand. Protests, in 21st century North America, including Ottawa in 2001, are nothing more than an excuse for self indulged children to riot. They – the children - don’t know why they’re screaming but screaming, rock throwing and window smashing attract cameras (more self indulgence) and it’s Revolution For The Hell Of It ... That’s it: that’s why they want to demonstrate. They are really protesting their own boring, pointless, idle lives.”

Now, in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, Barbara Kay takes that notion a bit further:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/14/barbara-kay-the-decline-of-maturity.aspx
Barbara Kay: The decline of maturity

October 14, 2009

English poet Philip Larkin, informed that heaven would restore him to a state of childish innocence, abjured the supposed gift, preferring "money, keys, wallets, letters, books, long-playing records, dinner, the opposite sex and other solaces of adulthood." I know what he meant. In the Thirties, Larkin's era, as for my generation that followed, life still had a defined beginning, a middle and an end. The interesting and meaningful stuff happened in stage two, adulthood. Adulthood was the romantic crossroads where responsible independence and cultural growth joined with deferred sexual freedom to nudge the maturation process forward.

I stepped across the threshold into adulthood -- early marriage right out of university -- just when it ceased to exist in society at large as a stage of life entirely distinct from youth. By the time I was 30, everyone who followed me was told not to trust anyone over 30.

Cultural observer Joseph Epstein pinpoints the transition from adulthood to adolescence as American culture's default "moral condition" in the decade following the 1951 publication of J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. In his 2004 essay, The Perpetual Adolescent, Epstein notes: "Salinger's novel exalts the purity of youth and locates the enemy... in those who committed the sin of growing older, [Holden Caulfield's] parents, his brother ... and just about everyone who has passed beyond adolescence and had the rather poor taste to remain alive."

Adolescence as the new adulthood is a widespread but thankfully not a universal phenomenon. A smart and savvy subsection of the middle class -- my own children and most of their peers, for example -- present as counterweights to the extreme solipsism that Christina Rosen wrote about in these pages yesterday.

Today's young adults who are consciously choosing to step over the threshold from adolescence to adulthood grew up in social enclaves where maturity and other traditional bourgeois values remained longer in force than in the general population. They have more egalitarian gender roles than my generation did and married a bit later, but in other essentials, they are following our example. They have embraced connubial domesticity with enthusiasm; make personal sacrifices and curtail selfish desires without complaint; limit their material and recreational pleasures to provide tomorrow's security and cheerfully endure great swathes of tedium bringing up children in the belief that transcendence of the self -- and for the common run of humanity that means children -- is nature's plan for optimal self-realization.

Maturity as a general virtue, however, declined in the Sixties when indiscriminate sexual liberty, detached from responsibility and emotional engagement, became a human right from puberty forward. With no need to defer the gratification of appetite, there was no further need for patience, maturity's hallmark.

And yet what stage of life could be worse for indefinite prolongation? Adolescence is a period marked by extreme intellectual callowness, thrall to raging hormones, obsession with appearance and social caste, contempt for authority, fascination with the transgression of rules, immoderate self-righteousness and intense sensitivity to perceived offence.

For the negative physical consequences of adolescence as a cultural norm, consider the body-sculpting, porn and plastic surgery industries. Our culture's obsession with youthful appearance and limitless, Dionysiac sexuality is pandemic.

For the more pernicious negative intellectual and political consequences, consider the universities. In academia one finds a ruling cadre of grey-haired, jeans-clad university teachers pickled in Woodstock-nostalgic revolutionary amber, still rebelling against their parents' conformity and hypocrisy, still contemptuous of their parents' institutions and values, even those that stabilized family life and nourished communitarianism.

The political correctness these ideologues embody, Epstein shrewdly notes, is a peculiarly adolescent phenomenon: "Political correctness... -- from academic feminism to cultural studies to queer theory -- could only be perpetrated on adolescent minds: ...Only an adolescent would find it worthwhile to devote his or her attention chiefly to the hunting of offenses [and] the possibility of slights, real and imagined."

You'll want examples of culturally influential individuals representing the adult and adolescent camps.

OK. In this corner we have the recently deceased Irving Kristol (1922-2009), father of neo-conservatism, a trim, sartorially conformist man of socially conservative and politically constructive ideas. He was a hugely influential thinker with no personal vanity. He was a loved mentor to young acolytes and a feminist avant la lettre (Kristol and fellow intellectual Gertrude Himmelfarb enjoyed a long, famously collaborative marriage). He produced a brilliant intellectual successor in son Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, America's most lively conservative weekly. That's adulthood.

In the other corner we have the celebrated filmmaker Michael Moore, a schlubby boy-man of blinding egoism -- wearing children's play clothes, an Arafat beard and a permanently ensconced baseball hat -- whose objective is to bring down America and its institutions. He does not seem interested in mentoring or succession. That's adolescence.

Kristol is quietly revered by hundreds, perhaps thousands of fans. Moore is noisily revered by millions. What a topsy-turvy world we've made for ourselves.

National Post
bkay@videotron.ca


This perception, that “we” are immature, self-indulgent, perpetual adolescents is held beyond the narrow confines of the National Post’s opinion pages. It is, I think deeply enough held to actually merit serious discussion.

The cause of making adult thinking and adult conduct popular, again, night be something conservatives should embrace.
 
Taking up the cause of Liberty should always be a key plank in the Conservative/Classical Liberal/Libertarian camp:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/berlin-wall-democracy-barack-obama-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett_print.html

How The Wall Fell
Claudia Rosett, 11.03.09, 7:17 PM ET

When the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago, it did not fall from sheer wear and tear of tyranny. People actively chose to destroy it. They tore down that iconic wall not only with pickaxes, hammers and bare hands, but as a culminating act of decades of sacrifice, courage, determination and a complex, globally contested war of ideas.

Many of the vital battles were fought by people living far from Berlin. They were fought by people who persisted in the face of everything from ridicule to misguided Utopianism to violence, imprisonment and the hot wars that flared along the front lines of the Cold War.

The wall itself, built in 1961, stood for 28 years, and was just a small part of the massive iron curtain with which the Soviet empire penned in the people of Eastern Europe. But the wall became a symbol of the far larger divide that split the world for much of the 20th century, partitioning great swathes of the globe into spheres of influence in which the basic trajectories were free vs. unfree, capitalist democracy vs. command-and-control Communism.

A generation later, that may all sound very simple and old-fashioned. It is easy to assume that our world today is more complex, more flexible, more multicultural in the doing and multipolar in the making--and that the Cold War has little to teach.

Perhaps this helps explain why President Barack Obama, who dropped by Berlin to deliver a campaign speech last year, cannot find time to attend the 20th anniversary of the wall's fall, Nov. 9, in Berlin. That is a terrible mistake.

The threats besetting the world today involve essentially the same old conflict: freedom vs. tyranny. Today's variations on the Berlin Wall can be discerned in places where women face the coerced wearing of the veil; in the prison camps and firewalls of China; in the gulag and murderous border patrols of North Korea; in the rising police state in Russia; the missionary thuggery of Venezuela's Chavista "revolution"; the global tentacles of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and al-Qaida; the security forces that murdered protesters this spring in the streets of Tehran.

Today's Wall looms in such ventures as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, both involving not only the potential use of monstrous weapons by murderous regimes, but nuclear extortionist leverage--which these regimes are already using to bring free nations to heel.

In the matter of facing down such threats, the Cold War, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, has plenty to teach--especially to a free world with current leaders too much given to disparaging capitalism and downplaying freedom.

This attitude is not new. The Cold War entailed its own considerable muddles and moral murk within the councils of the West. Among the Western policy elite, there were some who saw Communism as a promising experiment, and many who believed Moscow was best dealt with as a force to be appeased, or even catered to. From the 1945 signing away of Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta, to the pressures of the Brezhnev doctrine--articulated in the 1960s as Moscow's policy that no country engulfed by Soviet expansionism would be let go--Communism appeared to be entrenched as far ahead as the eye could see.

During the 1970s, the scene grew increasingly grim. South Vietnam fell to the North, and the Soviets set up shop in Southeast Asia at the former U.S. bases of Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, made inroads into Latin America, cozied up to such "nonaligned" countries as India, and tutored such Middle Eastern players as the Palestine Liberation Organization in terrorist tactics.

A befuddled Jimmy Carter served out the final, humiliating months of his one-term presidency lamenting that the Russians had lied to him about their aims in Afghanistan, and daunted by the taking of American hostages in the newborn Islamic Republic of Iran. In 1983, French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel published a book with a title that sums up the growing gloom of the time: How Democracies Perish.

But instead of perishing, democracy revived, with newfound backbone. The 1980s became the decade of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who declined to appease and apologize. Instead, they championed the interwoven systems of free markets and democracy, under the over-arching cause of individual freedom. They have since been widely honored. But at the time, their efforts were beset even in the West with protests, ridicule and accusations that they were war-mongering oafs, dangerously oblivious to the nuances of diplomacy and détente.

The fortitude of a Reagan or a Thatcher requires an ability to navigate the maze of mirrors and, yes, moral as well as strategic judgments that are history in the making. Policy choices that look simple in retrospect are rarely as clear at the time. Despots tend to clothe themselves in fictions and distortions, shaping official "realities" and shifting the terms of debate to suit their needs. These same fictions wend their way into the debates of democracies, and require a lot of hard work to debunk.

East German President Erich Honecker referred to the Berlin Wall as the "anti-fascist wall," implying that it was there not to keep East Germans penned in under communist rule, but to keep the West German and American "fascists" out. The Soviets and their satraps hijacked wholesale the lexicon of "liberation."

American TV viewers of the 1980s were treated to endless discussions in which guest apologists for the Soviet system shrugged off the gulag to deplore homelessness in America, while peace groups militated for U.S. nuclear disarmament, in hope the Soviets would follow suit.

Reagan and Thatcher stuck to their guns, missiles and missile defense ambitions. Reagan threw one lifeline after another to dissidents of the Soviet "evil empire," including his demand in a speech before Berlin's Brandenburg Gate in 1987: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

What followed the newly recovered pride and courage of the democratic world was a wave of genuine liberation around the globe. This first announced itself in Asia, with the success of democratic movements in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan. There were also unsuccessful attempts: Burma's 1988 protests and China's 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising--both stopped by tyrannies opening fire on their own people.

But the fuses of revolt had been lit in both Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself. In March of 1989, Hungary broke the communist monopoly on power with a multi-party election, and in May began dismantling the security fence that had stopped Hungarians escaping into Austria. This opened the way for an exodus of East Germans fleeing via Czechoslovakia and Hungary into Austria and on to West Germany.

The Czechs and Poles were shaking loose, led respectively by such courageous men as Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa. In the Baltics, more than two million people joined hands to form a human chain protesting Soviet control. Inside the Soviet Union itself, there had already been protests, in places such as Armenia, Georgia and Moldova.

All this helped pave the way for the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ultimately, the Soviets had no more stomach to stand up to this growing movement for freedom. As Russia expert Richard Pipes sums it up, Moscow "refused to send military forces to help the East German government reassert its authority."

And so, the wall came down.

The West has by now traveled a long road--from Reagan, who demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," to Obama, who in Berlin last year recast this piece of history as one big group hug: "A wall came down, a continent came together and history proved there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Unfortunately, it is not the world standing "as one" that brings down such walls. There has always been good and evil. The attempt to straddle such divides, as Washington is now doing with Tehran, is an invitation to be torn apart. The Berlin Wall fell because brave people--on both sides of it--took a clear stand against tyrants and for freedom. That's still how the world works, and America's own fortunes still depend on whether our leaders live up to the principles that brought down the Berlin Wall, or sideline them as yesterday's news.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.
 
Respecting the Rule of Law (part of the Classical Liberal/Libertaerian/Conservative "Big Three")

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/12/gop-introduces-.html

GOP Introduces Geithner Penalty Waiver Act

Congressmen John Carter (R-TX) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) yesterday introduced the Geithner Penalty Waiver Act, requiring that the IRS assess the same penalty against U.S. taxpayers that came forward in the UBS tax fraud investigation as paid by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay taxes on his IMF income -- zero.  From Congressman Carter's press release:

Carter says the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates equal penalties for similar offenses, and that the failure of the IRS to assess any penalties against Geithner demands similar penalties for all taxpayers with substantially equivalent cases. “This bill seeks to codify what is now established by the law of precedent,” says Carter. “The Geithner case has established a legal precedent for the determination of penalties by the IRS, and that precedent can be cited in all federal tax courts. The penalty is now set at zero.” “Taxpayers who willfully attempt to evade paying their fair taxes should pay a penalty, or our tax code becomes unenforceable,” says Carter. “This bill is not to reward tax evaders, but to defend the Rule of Law itself. If we as a nation choose not to enforce the law against the politically privileged, then we cannot enforce the law against others without undermining respect for the law itself.”
 
The TEA party is clearly a form of Classical Liberalism in action. How long before it takes root here?

http://newledger.com/2010/04/what-the-tea-party-movement-is-really-about/

What the Tea Party Movement is Really About
by Francis Cianfrocca

I can’t turn around without reading something new about how the Tea Party is the 10-20 percent marginalized rump of Rush Limbaugh listeners who want to keep the government from making life better in every way. Most commenters dismiss the TP as a nuisance deserving only to be ignored. Some go a little farther. David Brooks fears the TP because, as he notes, some TPers are independents, not Republicans, and their few percentage points are enough to swing lots of elections. Noam Chomsky fears the TP because he sees in it the germ of an American Nazi party that is only waiting for its charismatic Hitler to emerge and destroy the world with military power that, unlike Germany’s in 1939, is unchallengeable.

Here’s what the TP itself really fears, in an inchoate way that for most of its members doesn’t rise to the level of clear understanding, but is still intuitively very powerful: the US is embracing central planning as a governing theory, as fast as our legislative processes will allow.

Central planning has a long record of failure, but Americans have always believed that we know how to succeed where others can’t. That leads to the hubris of people like Barack Obama, who says “YES WE CAN!”

Most Americans are repelled by Marxian and Third-Way socialisms with their open nationalizations of basic industry. Therefore, central planning in the American context will take the form of “public-private partnerships.” You see these in the soon-to-be-created healthcare cost-reduction panels, proposals for large tariffs on imported petroleum, the coming cap and trade legislation, and even some of the last year’s banking-reform ideas. The common thread is that central planners will create artificial economic incentives designed to redirect the flows of private capital and investment. This certainly works on its own terms, because businesspeople respond to profit-making opportunities. But because it doesn’t reflect free consumer choice, it’s still central planning.

Central planning has two primary flaws, when compared with economic freedom: it misallocates resources, and it magnifies the impact of corruption. I could write a decent-sized book explaining both of those mechanisms, but because I’ve never been busier in my life than I have been these past few weeks, I’ll cut to the conclusion.

The endpoint of central planning, if not outright failure, is a much deeper and more intractable division of society into haves and have-nots. After promising a better world for everyone, the progressives will end up creating a society that is more polarized than ever.

Keep this firmly in mind, because you’ll see it first in stories that middle-income people are somehow having more and more trouble just affording the necessities of life. This is an unstoppable treadmill leading downward. There’s something very deeply wrong when ordinary necessities like food, shelter and healthcare need to be subsidized for millions of people. It means their own productivity isn’t adequate to provide for their needs. It means that economic progress is going backward. And it means that resources are being concentrated in fewer hands, rather than being spread more broadly. This is the crushing, bitter irony of Obama’s belief that we should “spread the wealth.”

And we’re already seeing everywhere, from David Brooks to Noam Chomsky, the signs of how the elites will have to deal with the polarization: by loudly proclaiming in their captive media that the have-nots are stupid and, eventually, evil.

Yeah, that’ll work.
 
Political philosophy, Aristotle is the father of the United States:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026193.php

At some point you have grabbed enough power
  Share Post  Print
April 30, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:12 AM

Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, the classic political philosophers held that government based on majority rule was untenable. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle warned in The Politics, for example: "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city."

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others held that the "first object of government" was to protect the rights of property. Numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were incorporated to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.


Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. As Michelle Malkin observes, he spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough money."

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama's other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Alluding to other elements of Obama's Quincy speech earlier this week, Michelle observes that we have a president who presumes to know when you have earned "enough," who believes that only those who provide what he deems "good" products and services should "keep on making it," and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their "core" responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy. Michelle concludes: "That famous mock-up poster of Obama as the creepy socialist Joker never seemed more apt."

JOHN adds: Federal employees now are paid much more money than their counterparts in private industry. Is Obama willing to acknowledge that they earn "enough" and should forgo future pay increases? Obama himself earned more than $5 million last year. Is that "enough"? George Soros has made countless millions from currency manipulations that many regard as little better than extortion. Does he have "enough"? I suspect that "enough" will prove to be a standard that is both highly flexible and intimately related to political influence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top