Secession has been bandied about in the last few months either rhetorically or by those who genuinely seek it. It is also appears to have been used as a smear against any government official asserting the paramount position of states over the federal government in certain areas by those who are opposed to any curtailment of the powers of the federal government (at least when the democrats are in power). Whatever side anyone takes and no matter who is in power, the steady march toward a stronger federal government will continue as the Constitution and the Commerce Clause are interpreted to mean that the three main branches of the federal government have unlimited power and jurisdiction over all matters. No one really saw the Roman Republic transforming into the Roman Empire which in turn transformed into the Dominate which in turn transformed into the breakdown of the state from internal and external pressures. This is because those in power used the same title and names for exercise of power even though the size and scope of those powers had changed dramatically. They just always made sure not to call themselves kings because of the ingrained public distaste for the term. With the people, it is OK to have all of the powers you are prescribed from having, just as long as you are not so gauche as to announce it.
However, power in Rome, and the struggle for power in general has a strange way of asserting itself from quarters that are unanticipated. No one imagined that the Praetorian Guard would become the kingmakers of Rome for so long. No one anticipated that the Christian Church would assert such a dominant role in the Empire and Europe from its humble beginnings. People looked for the seizure of power to come from other areas based on how Roman History had transpired before. This brings me to the question of secession.
Throughout the history of the U.S., there have been secessionist or quasi-secessionist movements that consisted typically of the state or several states in conjunction leaving the Union. The best known example of course is the secession of southern states during the U.S. Civil War. But despite all of the current rhetoric and accusations, is this really the likely path that secession movements will take? I would say no for a number of reasons. First, there appears to be such a public hysteria over the mere use of the term and whatever they associate with it in their minds, that any movement in any state that attempts to de jure secede will be crushed both from within and without from popular opposition alone; Second, there are too many financial interests who would like to the keep the steady trend of the increase in federal powers and especially regulation over commerce going for various reasons - the last thing they want is the creation of more nations with the likely result of impeding commerce; Third, the political class has too much to lose from secession - no member of Congress or of any state government will ever risk the safety, security, and perks of a government job funded by the United States. They may be inclined to use rhetoric and pass a few "show" bills to assert their theoretical independence, but that will be it. Perhaps one last argument that may hold water with at least some is the attachment to the American flag as a symbol that so many people posses. I think that many of these people would consider sacrilege to force a change in the number of required stars by creating more than 50 states (although apparently most Americans think there are 52 states). This last one will have to be tested though.
The reality is that the first true "secession" movements in the U.S. will not be secession movements at all in the strict sense. What is more likely to happen is a rebellion by local government against the state government. This is because these will be the first financial crises that genuinely affect the political classes. The root cause will be state's pushing off more and more funding requirements to the counties for state mandated programs and regulations (more than already exist now, that is). This is because given a choice between raising taxes and being voted out of office and legislatively passing the buck to someone else to raise taxes, the political classes will always do that latter at the expense of those who are lower on the totem poll. Look for larger percentages of social programs to be funded by the counties. Look for larger fees and taxes to be collected by the counties on behalf of the state. When this happens, the counties will have a choice - either raise taxes and get voted out of office, or fight back by refusing to comply with state law or only partially complying.
The first place this is likely to be seen is in California where the state government is now paying with IOUs (that don't have a Federal Reserve to give them an unlimited supply of money). If counties start getting state funding in IOUs while at the same time being asked to turn over real money that they have collected back to the state, the lawsuits will begin. There was apparently already one similar case in California several months ago and I'm sure the problem has only picked up steam since then. So what will happen?
Secession in the early 21st century will be more of a de facto secession where counties and especially cities either remove themselves as much as possible from the authority of the state government or are themselves removed from state funding. Cities like Detroit and Philadelphia may be examples just waiting to happen. The states, through legislation, may spin these off as "independent" cities in the sense that they will no longer be entitled to state funding for anything. Philadelphia has already been quasi-independent of the state in many regards including having its own police force, more available taxes to levy, and having a mayor's office that is a much more powerful executive than county commissioners or county councils. It really wouldn't take a whole lot to make the city a completely independent entity by the rest of state, especially once the reality sets in that the City is taking a much bigger portion of revenue than is being collected in taxes or if the City brings the issue to head by refusing to turn over money collected on behalf of the state to make up its own budget shortfalls.
This is where political secession is likely to happen first and it is likely to happen all over the U.S. along rural/urban lines within each state rather than states themselves seceding from the U.S. The type of historic secession we are used to reading about may happen eventually, but not until these de facto secessions have become so commonplace that the forces preventing real secession dissipate enough. Then again, none of this may happen at all if the U.S. recovers sufficiently in economic terms. People hate change, so unless the economy gets really bad and revenues drop so low that the political classes begin fighting each other, there will not likely be anything that a few instances of temporary breakdowns of government within states which will not even merit a footnote in most history books.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Food Prices
With the relatively dramatic jump in food prices, it will be interesting to see if Americans start living like the rest of the world and dramatically reduce their intake of "entertainment" calories like chocolate bars and other snacks. A lot of obesity problems come from lack of exercise in combination with excess caloric intake, but it will be interesting to see if the trend reverses or at least slows down somewhat in five years.
Then again, some of our cheapest food is also some of the unhealthiest. The funny part is though that a diet consisting of less unhealthy food is probably better than a diet of too much healthy food from the standpoint of developing obesity. Unhealthy food isn't poisonous, just loaded with things like sugar, fat, and salt. It will give you other health problems if you eat too much perhaps like high cholesterol levels and high blood pressure, but obesity comes primarily from too many calories.
Then again, some of our cheapest food is also some of the unhealthiest. The funny part is though that a diet consisting of less unhealthy food is probably better than a diet of too much healthy food from the standpoint of developing obesity. Unhealthy food isn't poisonous, just loaded with things like sugar, fat, and salt. It will give you other health problems if you eat too much perhaps like high cholesterol levels and high blood pressure, but obesity comes primarily from too many calories.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Back to It
So the Ron Paul Revolution is now over. He got roughly 16% in PA and did quite well in some of the more Republican south central PA counties like Juniata, Berks, and Lancaster.
So where do we go from here?
Some people have talked about joining the already established but apparently obscure Republican Liberty Caucus. Others want to form a non-partisan group in the area just called the Liberty Caucus. Many have left the Republican party to join the Libertarians, the Constitutional party, or become independent. The goal with all is to go after the GOP leadership in some sense and to support candidates who support the ideals of freedom and limited government. Here is my problem with all three approaches:
The GOP Liberty Caucus has been around for about 20 years and hasn't made a whole lot of progress is rebuilding a national organization and certainly not one in PA. Such an organization might, in fact, being meaningless on a national level anyway. I'd rather not join a group for the sake of using the name and sending in dues. The largest scale on which such a group could operate is at the state level. The problem is that these groups tend to degenerate into rules, by-laws, and title seekers rather than real organizations to accomplish anything. The purpose then becomes the group, not its goals. I've seen this happen with Young Republicans and College Republicans and I don't want to see it repeated by destroying the enthusiasm we have.
An independent statewide GOP Liberty Caucus might have some benefit, but it shouldn't be any more than a network of volunteers. No statewide officers or any of that bureaucratic nonsense. Independent volunteers working toward a common goal.
A non-partisan liberty caucus sounds great in theory, but let's face some unfortunate realities. The non-partisan group's purpose is forwarding the ideas of limited government. The democratic party has never been for that in the last 100 years. The closest we have is the GOP which still claims to stand for it. Libertarians, Constitutional party members, and many independents are really disaffected republicans who would be supporting Robert Taft and Goldwater Republicans whenever they go the chance. If they would all just stay and bring their enthusiasm to the GOP, they could set the party back on the right course. A loose coalition of disaffected Rs, Ls, and Cs, cannot influence a primary, where their votes might count the most, and may never have influence over a general without some serious effort.
The best return on value for effort is attempting to reform the GOP from within. People who switched to vote for Ron Paul need to stay with the party. Joining a third party is tantamount to political self-mutilation. You are depriving yourself of one important vote every year: the primary. And while it is true that for now most GOP primaries are Communist ballot, there may be enough enthusiasm to start converting the part of the flock that either follows whatever the leaders say or that just need their eyes opened to how much the neo-cons have changed the party (almost 180 degrees). A little momentum could allow the recovery of local parties and from their the state and national parties. There has been success with Eich and Folmer in this regard and it can certainly be repeated in many areas of the state if enough effort is put out there.
That is, of course, not to say that an independent, non-partisan liberty caucus might not work, but ultimately this group should be working to try and wrest control of the local GOP from phony conservatives. This is what the pro-life movement has been doing in many counties for years, and they have had some success in getting their members elected. The same could be done by the libertarian republicans, perhaps even with the support of the pro-life faction since many of them tend to be limited government supporters as well (though this is changing).
The third route of joining a third party makes no sense to me in practical terms. It is absolutely wonderful to join a party that represents your ideology. Unfortunately, it is no better than simply hanging a sign on your front door to proclaim your religion. No one will care and it really deprives you of the right to vote. The other problem is that these third parties can almost never elected anyone above the township supervisor level. As a result, the people who join these parties wind up diverting their energy into internecine fights about procedural rules, titles, and personality rivalries. The major parties don't have these kinds of divides because there are plenty of spoils to go around (which is the problem in the first place). Just as Henry Kissinger said that politics in academia are vicious because the stakes are so small, the Constitutional Party, the Libertarians, and the Reform party have all had huge wasteful fights that have either split or spent all of their energy on something other than accomplishing the goal.
If this is going to happen in our lifetimes, it will be through a recover of the GOPs core values of limited government and all that it entails. Otherwise both parties will just continue on their merry way to socialism and the economic stagnation that plagues Europe and Japan right now. We see it happening in front of our eyes and we ignore it because we somehow think our nationality makes us immune to these problems while endowing us with the abilities of 19th century Americans and entitling us to the prosperity of 20th century Americans.
Those of use who worked on the Ron Paul campaign need to take from his example and stay with the party and fight to retake the organization. We cannot take are marbles and go home. We can only go home and let the people who have ruined the party and the country (starting with Eisenhower) keep the marbles.
So where do we go from here?
Some people have talked about joining the already established but apparently obscure Republican Liberty Caucus. Others want to form a non-partisan group in the area just called the Liberty Caucus. Many have left the Republican party to join the Libertarians, the Constitutional party, or become independent. The goal with all is to go after the GOP leadership in some sense and to support candidates who support the ideals of freedom and limited government. Here is my problem with all three approaches:
The GOP Liberty Caucus has been around for about 20 years and hasn't made a whole lot of progress is rebuilding a national organization and certainly not one in PA. Such an organization might, in fact, being meaningless on a national level anyway. I'd rather not join a group for the sake of using the name and sending in dues. The largest scale on which such a group could operate is at the state level. The problem is that these groups tend to degenerate into rules, by-laws, and title seekers rather than real organizations to accomplish anything. The purpose then becomes the group, not its goals. I've seen this happen with Young Republicans and College Republicans and I don't want to see it repeated by destroying the enthusiasm we have.
An independent statewide GOP Liberty Caucus might have some benefit, but it shouldn't be any more than a network of volunteers. No statewide officers or any of that bureaucratic nonsense. Independent volunteers working toward a common goal.
A non-partisan liberty caucus sounds great in theory, but let's face some unfortunate realities. The non-partisan group's purpose is forwarding the ideas of limited government. The democratic party has never been for that in the last 100 years. The closest we have is the GOP which still claims to stand for it. Libertarians, Constitutional party members, and many independents are really disaffected republicans who would be supporting Robert Taft and Goldwater Republicans whenever they go the chance. If they would all just stay and bring their enthusiasm to the GOP, they could set the party back on the right course. A loose coalition of disaffected Rs, Ls, and Cs, cannot influence a primary, where their votes might count the most, and may never have influence over a general without some serious effort.
The best return on value for effort is attempting to reform the GOP from within. People who switched to vote for Ron Paul need to stay with the party. Joining a third party is tantamount to political self-mutilation. You are depriving yourself of one important vote every year: the primary. And while it is true that for now most GOP primaries are Communist ballot, there may be enough enthusiasm to start converting the part of the flock that either follows whatever the leaders say or that just need their eyes opened to how much the neo-cons have changed the party (almost 180 degrees). A little momentum could allow the recovery of local parties and from their the state and national parties. There has been success with Eich and Folmer in this regard and it can certainly be repeated in many areas of the state if enough effort is put out there.
That is, of course, not to say that an independent, non-partisan liberty caucus might not work, but ultimately this group should be working to try and wrest control of the local GOP from phony conservatives. This is what the pro-life movement has been doing in many counties for years, and they have had some success in getting their members elected. The same could be done by the libertarian republicans, perhaps even with the support of the pro-life faction since many of them tend to be limited government supporters as well (though this is changing).
The third route of joining a third party makes no sense to me in practical terms. It is absolutely wonderful to join a party that represents your ideology. Unfortunately, it is no better than simply hanging a sign on your front door to proclaim your religion. No one will care and it really deprives you of the right to vote. The other problem is that these third parties can almost never elected anyone above the township supervisor level. As a result, the people who join these parties wind up diverting their energy into internecine fights about procedural rules, titles, and personality rivalries. The major parties don't have these kinds of divides because there are plenty of spoils to go around (which is the problem in the first place). Just as Henry Kissinger said that politics in academia are vicious because the stakes are so small, the Constitutional Party, the Libertarians, and the Reform party have all had huge wasteful fights that have either split or spent all of their energy on something other than accomplishing the goal.
If this is going to happen in our lifetimes, it will be through a recover of the GOPs core values of limited government and all that it entails. Otherwise both parties will just continue on their merry way to socialism and the economic stagnation that plagues Europe and Japan right now. We see it happening in front of our eyes and we ignore it because we somehow think our nationality makes us immune to these problems while endowing us with the abilities of 19th century Americans and entitling us to the prosperity of 20th century Americans.
Those of use who worked on the Ron Paul campaign need to take from his example and stay with the party and fight to retake the organization. We cannot take are marbles and go home. We can only go home and let the people who have ruined the party and the country (starting with Eisenhower) keep the marbles.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Question
A question to puzzle me for later. I've have just read a snippet from a prominent libertarian arguing that a school voucher program is just as statist as any other form of public education. He argues that it is an attempt to allow government to start regulating private schools. He also lambastes Milton Friedman a bit. Gary North is the name I believe.
Here is a slightly different question about school vouchers:
Should everyone is a given school district still be required to pay taxes to support the school system or should it simply be those with children. In other words, no voucher program, but simply parents using their own money to pay for schools. One logical follow-up to this is then should education be mandatory? The purist libertarian argument would be no it should not be mandatory and that people should have to pay their own money if they want their children to go to school.
For the time being though, my thoughts rest on the Mrs. Lovejoy argument to think of the children. There are plenty of adults out there who would not provide their children with any education (home school or public) at all for the sake of saving the money. I've heard of plenty of examples from teachers about parents who neglect their children in every other basic way, so it would not be a stretch to guess that they would skimp on the really big bill of school tuition if they had a choice. This is why I would break from the purist tradition. There are parents out there who would not let their children go to school and this would punish children who have no control over the situation in the short term and likely punish society as a whole once these kids are old enough to choose between getting a job and starting trouble.
I just don't like where the logic would lead in such a system because it would likely lead to a perpetual class of uneducated people. In a technological sophisticated society, this is a recipe for disaster. Some would argue, and I could agree, that we have such an uneducated class now as a result of poor quality public schools. I would agree, but my inclination would be first to go to vouchers. If education every became so cheap that anyone could afford it, then we wouldn't need to spread the costs on everyone, just the people with schoolchildren.
Here is a slightly different question about school vouchers:
Should everyone is a given school district still be required to pay taxes to support the school system or should it simply be those with children. In other words, no voucher program, but simply parents using their own money to pay for schools. One logical follow-up to this is then should education be mandatory? The purist libertarian argument would be no it should not be mandatory and that people should have to pay their own money if they want their children to go to school.
For the time being though, my thoughts rest on the Mrs. Lovejoy argument to think of the children. There are plenty of adults out there who would not provide their children with any education (home school or public) at all for the sake of saving the money. I've heard of plenty of examples from teachers about parents who neglect their children in every other basic way, so it would not be a stretch to guess that they would skimp on the really big bill of school tuition if they had a choice. This is why I would break from the purist tradition. There are parents out there who would not let their children go to school and this would punish children who have no control over the situation in the short term and likely punish society as a whole once these kids are old enough to choose between getting a job and starting trouble.
I just don't like where the logic would lead in such a system because it would likely lead to a perpetual class of uneducated people. In a technological sophisticated society, this is a recipe for disaster. Some would argue, and I could agree, that we have such an uneducated class now as a result of poor quality public schools. I would agree, but my inclination would be first to go to vouchers. If education every became so cheap that anyone could afford it, then we wouldn't need to spread the costs on everyone, just the people with schoolchildren.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Redefining Conservatism
I'm not pro-Life, but I am for Ron Paul. Apparently a few Huckabee supporters in the media are saying the Ron Paul is pro-abortion because, get this, he supports a policy that would make it legal for states to legalize abortion. It is called overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', but I guess the hope is that Huckabee supporters are dumb enough not to understand the implications of overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', which has been part of the conservative agenda for 35 years. This includes both social conservatives and even pro-choice conservatives who believe in the plain meaning of the constitution. Lynn Swann and Fred Thompson never appeared to understand this, so it wouldn't surprise me if most people who consider themselves conservatives fall for this line.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1968 for the Democrats
I do not always agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusions although I do believe that he believes and understands the proper application of conservative principles to issues. I'm a little cynical about a few other things about him, but that's beside the point.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Take Away Cal Thomas's Crackpipe
Redefining conservatism
I don't even know where to begin on this one. I would say that this is just a suggestion piece, but Cal Thomas really appears to believe that relabeling interventionist polities as conservative policies, the conservative movement can be revived?
Rhetorically he asks if Reagan were 100% conservative. The answer is, of course, no. No politician is ever 100% conservative. No human being can follow all of the principles of conservatism 100% of the time and politicians have it even worse because they need to compromise in reaching political solutions. I can't believe somewhat like Cal Thomas would not understand that if something that is not 100% in line with conservative principles happens during a politicians term in office it doesn't necessarily mean that they have compromised their ''principles''.
And that is at the root of my frustration with his proposal and apparently that of David Frum which he summarizes. Conservative principles (or rather classical liberal principles) have existed for a long time in Western ideology. Conservatism nowadays is more closely aligned with social conservatism and as a result fiscal conservatism has taken a beating with people who might otherwise be inclined toward free market capitalism. That aside, abandoning conservative principles of small, limited government simply because they are what Reagan claimed to believe in doesn't mean that the early 80s were the only time they were ever exercised or anyone ever believed in them. Can someone who has been around as long as Cal Thomas not understand that conservative principles have been around for several hundred years?
So what is the propose alternative? Create more government programs and interference in the market but "engage in better story telling" by telling voters that this is perfectly in line with conservative principles. He even makes the laughable remark that these programs will help reaffirm conservative principles by reducing people's dependence on government programs. Given that there is no such thing as a government program that has ever gone away or been eliminated and bureaucrats primary motivation is self-preservation, does he really anticipate that any new program "designed to reduce dependence on government" will actually ever be declared successful. Government programs to reduce dependence on government programs is as ironic as any suggestion I have ever heard coming from a so-called conservative.
Here is the main problem though. The main point of the conservative movement in the realm of economics is that government interference never solves a problem. All it does it interfere with the natural mechanism of economics and create moral hazards and perverse incentives that take a bad problem and make it worse. This then requires more government interference to deal with the unintended consequences created in the first place by the government interference. The other main point of the conservative movement it that government interference may or may not always pick the best solution, but when it picks the wrong one, there are no market forces to correct their bad decisions. Furthermore, by taking capital out of the market through the taxes used to create the bureaucracy to administer the government program, there is less money available in the market to find and invest in the best solution. The money goes where the bureaucracy directs either through mandates or perverse economic incentives, right or wrong.
Here are some of Frum's proposals:
* Universally available health insurance, but offered through the private sector
* Lower taxes to encourage savings and investment
* Higher taxes on energy and pollution to promote conservation
* Conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power to reduce our need for oil and coal
* Federal policies to encourage larger families
* Major reductions in unskilled immigration
* A campaign for prison reform
* A campaign against obesity
* Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and Republican Party
* Renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces in order to crush terrorism and prepare for the coming challenge from China.
* Micro-loan program to help the poor out of poverty, rather than more government programs that subsidize the poor in their poverty and offer no hope for the future. (Cal's own suggestion)
I will take these apart of the next few days unless something else comes up. The conservative approach to solving problems in this country is dead. Cal is now transitioning himself to join McCain's "March to Mediocrity" in government.
I don't even know where to begin on this one. I would say that this is just a suggestion piece, but Cal Thomas really appears to believe that relabeling interventionist polities as conservative policies, the conservative movement can be revived?
Rhetorically he asks if Reagan were 100% conservative. The answer is, of course, no. No politician is ever 100% conservative. No human being can follow all of the principles of conservatism 100% of the time and politicians have it even worse because they need to compromise in reaching political solutions. I can't believe somewhat like Cal Thomas would not understand that if something that is not 100% in line with conservative principles happens during a politicians term in office it doesn't necessarily mean that they have compromised their ''principles''.
And that is at the root of my frustration with his proposal and apparently that of David Frum which he summarizes. Conservative principles (or rather classical liberal principles) have existed for a long time in Western ideology. Conservatism nowadays is more closely aligned with social conservatism and as a result fiscal conservatism has taken a beating with people who might otherwise be inclined toward free market capitalism. That aside, abandoning conservative principles of small, limited government simply because they are what Reagan claimed to believe in doesn't mean that the early 80s were the only time they were ever exercised or anyone ever believed in them. Can someone who has been around as long as Cal Thomas not understand that conservative principles have been around for several hundred years?
So what is the propose alternative? Create more government programs and interference in the market but "engage in better story telling" by telling voters that this is perfectly in line with conservative principles. He even makes the laughable remark that these programs will help reaffirm conservative principles by reducing people's dependence on government programs. Given that there is no such thing as a government program that has ever gone away or been eliminated and bureaucrats primary motivation is self-preservation, does he really anticipate that any new program "designed to reduce dependence on government" will actually ever be declared successful. Government programs to reduce dependence on government programs is as ironic as any suggestion I have ever heard coming from a so-called conservative.
Here is the main problem though. The main point of the conservative movement in the realm of economics is that government interference never solves a problem. All it does it interfere with the natural mechanism of economics and create moral hazards and perverse incentives that take a bad problem and make it worse. This then requires more government interference to deal with the unintended consequences created in the first place by the government interference. The other main point of the conservative movement it that government interference may or may not always pick the best solution, but when it picks the wrong one, there are no market forces to correct their bad decisions. Furthermore, by taking capital out of the market through the taxes used to create the bureaucracy to administer the government program, there is less money available in the market to find and invest in the best solution. The money goes where the bureaucracy directs either through mandates or perverse economic incentives, right or wrong.
Here are some of Frum's proposals:
* Universally available health insurance, but offered through the private sector
* Lower taxes to encourage savings and investment
* Higher taxes on energy and pollution to promote conservation
* Conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power to reduce our need for oil and coal
* Federal policies to encourage larger families
* Major reductions in unskilled immigration
* A campaign for prison reform
* A campaign against obesity
* Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and Republican Party
* Renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces in order to crush terrorism and prepare for the coming challenge from China.
* Micro-loan program to help the poor out of poverty, rather than more government programs that subsidize the poor in their poverty and offer no hope for the future. (Cal's own suggestion)
I will take these apart of the next few days unless something else comes up. The conservative approach to solving problems in this country is dead. Cal is now transitioning himself to join McCain's "March to Mediocrity" in government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)