Category Archives: Statism

Why Nationalism And Strong Borders Protect Liberty

For all of modern history, good countries were always expected to govern in the best interests of their citizens.  Maintaining a border policy in accordance with the country’s needs and long term planning was never an issue.  So what’s changed?

The pressure for countries to ignore their borders is based in political correctness – a modern tool of the left which is designed to help them win policy arguments by appealing to emotion rather than reason, thus denying their opponents a meaningful opportunity to respond.  In the case of border policy, the argument always boils down to a false appeal to emotion via an allegation of racism.  As the argument goes, any country that restricts the indiscriminate entry of foreigners from countries populated by people of a different primary race, religion or culture is deemed to be xenophobic.  The argument, illogical and nonsensical as it is, either goes unchallenged or is actually advanced by the leftist national media.  Any reply, no matter how rational and well-grounded in history, is deemed duplicitous and unworthy.

Partly in response to this nonsense, we’ve seen a resurgence of nationalism advanced by those who appreciate the history of global national and cultural development over the course of centuries.  This shouldn’t be a surprise.  The attack on borders is in fact an attack on national sovereignty.  A surge in nationalism is a natural response.  But this response isn’t born out of any presupposition that the world is perfect as it is.  Instead, it results from the common sense understanding that it isn’t smart to irreversibly disregard hundreds of years of experience.  Forcing cultures to permanently meld in hopes that it’ll all work out for the best isn’t smart.  It’s reckless.

In typical fashion, leftists and globalists, with the help of their allies in the national media, have sought to conflate nationalism with Nazism and radical national racism.  Words can and often do mean different things to different people in different contexts.  The brand of nationalism being advanced by sensible people across the globe right now is not grounded in racism.  It is grounded in a sound respect for history and experience.  It is no more racist than it has ever been for a nation to seek to protect its sovereignty while defending and advancing the interests of its citizens.  In the current context, nationalism most importantly implies a rejection of the globalist agenda.

There are two leftist perspectives for supporting open borders.  First, many leftist including those in America, likely support open borders for the immediate impact they perceive open borders will have on electoral politics.  Being statists, leftists seek to perpetually control the government.  In a self-governing society such as ours, that requires constantly winning elections.  Leftists in America perceive that open borders will give them a long term, if not permanent, advantage in electoral politics.

From a much longer term perspective, the most committed leftists recognize that the centralization of government authority has always been a key component to their successes. Whereas decentralized government under more localized control is the hallmark of individualism and real honest to goodness self-government, the centralization of governmental authority is the hallmark of advancing statism.  The American experience offers just one example.  When the U.S still enjoyed meaningful federalism, various states strewn over the swath of a continent constituted a system which exhibited much more fidelity to America’s first principles – and a vastly more decentralized government – than has come to exist since federalism was effectively eliminated.  The U.S. is now governed primarily from Washington D.C.  The defeat of federalism and the concomitant centralization of power in Washington D.C. was a key component to the growth of statism in America.

Similarly, in the global context, scores of countries strewn over the planet are far more decentralized than a world government or regional global governments would be.  With global or regional governments would come much more centralization and a much more efficient route to the implementation of the grand societal and economic planning that statists seek to impose.  Defeating or ignoring national borders over a long period of time would undermine the national sovereignty which today’s nationalists are trying to protect.  Thus, countries without effective border control would open the world to a possibility of more centralization of government on a global scale.

Controlling national borders is essential to maintaining national sovereignty.  In turn, maintaining national sovereignty is essential to combating leftist forces seeking to strengthen and further centralize their political power.  Together, the conflation of traditional nationalism with xenophobia and the attempt to eradicate national boundaries constitute just one more effort to accomplish what is always the left’s overarching goal – to reinforce and intensify statism and leftest authority at the expense of liberty and individualism.

Nationalism in the context of border policy is a good thing for human liberty because it helps to maintain national sovereignty and, by extension, ward off the further centralization of governmental power.

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Hillary Clinton’s Call For Incivility

The most extreme elements of the statist/progressive movement together with national media pundits have trumpeted the concept of “dog whistles”.  They argue that their political opponents, most notably President Trump, often speak in a code only understandable by supporters.  They assert that this otherwise indecipherable code-speak always implicates their political opponents in imagined hate and narrow-mindedness and reveals them to be racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes or some other category of bad people.

Liberals don’t have to worry about being accused of blowing dog whistles to communicate secret messages to their supporters.  They have no fear in stirring trouble openly, presumably because they know their media partners won’t call them out for it.  Hillary Clinton’s recent statements regarding incivility demonstrate a good case in point.

Leftists’ acts of incivility are becoming more commonplace by the day.  They block traffic.  They obstruct commerce.  They interfere with classes.  They shout down opponents.  They harass people in public to the point of forcing them to leave restaurants and other establishments.  They harass people at their homes.  Despite all of this, Hillary Clinton chose to echo Maxine Waters by not so subtly threatening continued incivility when she said in a recent CNN interview, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

It’s impossible to miss the goose/gander argument suggested by her comments which could be employed by her detractors as easily as her supporters.  Her political opponents may choose to take her advice to heart, and act uncivilly toward liberals who clearly want to destroy everything they care about in the way of the Constitution and America’s first principles.

It’s also impossible to miss the tyrannical implications of her comments.  “Fall in line or pay the price.  You can have peace again once you appease us.”

Other than the fact that he was ultimately confirmed, it’s hard to find a positive perspective on the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle.  But one fortunate aspect may be that it occurred so close in time to the upcoming election.  It provided a timely reminder of the shameless tactics and behavior of so many elected Democrats and the Democrat Party generally at an opportune time.

Voters who might need even more motivation to get out and vote against liberals should consider Clinton’s comments in the same context as the effort to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination.  If their threat is to hold societal harmony hostage until they’re satisfied, then when will that really be?  The answer of course is never.  Once they establish that obstructing society, inflaming public discord or maligning the reputation of an opponent is an effective tool to get what they want, it will forever be a favorite arrow in their quiver.

Clinton, Waters and those behind the effort to undercut Kavanaugh have sent a clear message to voters before the mid-term elections.  They’ll do anything, and they’ll approve their supporters doing anything, to win.  When it comes to priorities, peace and civility in society and in government run a distant second to them getting their way.  If Americans don’t make it clear to them now that these tactics are unacceptable and won’t be rewarded, there’s every reason to believe their efforts at societal disruption and poisoning governmental processes will only get worse and more widespread.

Please follow and like us:
0

McCain And Obama As Teammates

In his remarks at John McCain’s funeral yesterday, President Obama said in part, “(W)e never doubted the other man’s sincerity. Or the other man’s patriotism. Or that when all was said and done, we were on the same team.”

What Obama intended to imply was that he and McCain both worked for the good of the country within a system that has existed for generations and is widely accepted as the right way to govern America. There’s no reason to doubt that McCain felt the same way.

The unspoken goal of this favorable comparison of their perspectives on American government is to refuse to acknowledge that there is another team fighting Obama, McCain and legions of other statists who seek to continue and expand centralized power within this generally accepted paradigm they so favor.  They and their allies in the national media would prefer to characterize the entirety of this ‘opposing team’ as unsophisticated, dissatisfied rubes or worse, racists who care only about returning to time when America was whiter. Casting this characterization as widely as possible is at the root their constant false, misleading, or overemphasized narratives about Trump and all his ‘deplorable’ supporters.

While they do undoubtedly fear Trump and the populism he represents, there is another team that has worked in consistent opposition to their statist movement. Its successes have varied but as time has seen centralized power in Washington D.C. grow, this effort has only grown stronger and more committed.

Constitutionalists and those who believe in America’s first principles have always been the team which Obama, McCain and the rest of the statist team must keep at bay. When Obama says he and McCain always knew they were on the same team, it is in this context, which he no doubt did not intend, that I really agree with him. They both believed in diminished federalism and the growth of central power in Washington without any real regard for whether the Constitution actually authorizes it. As a result, their debates, like most of the debates between the national parties, were more akin to disputes among coaches of the same football team about what game plan to implement or what plays to run. Their dispute was most often over how to share or apportion the ever growing power of Washington, not how or whether to return any of it to the states or to the people.

This isn’t meant to imply that there aren’t some who are committed to constitutionalism and first principles among the GOP national elite. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee in the Senate and Justin Amash and Louie Gohmert in the House are a few examples. But McCain was not. He was a committed statist and as such, deserves to be recognized as having been just as “sincere” as Obama in exemplifying their brand of “patriotism” as they worked to move the ball down the field for the cause of statism.

Please follow and like us:
0

Teachers’ Union Politics In West Virginia

A pair of nearly identical columns written by West Virginia teacher’s union activist Christine Harrison exemplify the extent to which unions sometimes assume a political authority in speaking for their membership far beyond their actual mandate of negotiating employment contracts including pay, benefits and the terms and conditions of employment.  The two articles which can be found here and here, typify the manner in which unions often push ever more and ever bigger government “solutions” to perceived and real social problems.  Rarely do such efforts have any obvious connection to the union’s stated purpose in representing its membership.  Usually they simply advance leftist political and policy perspectives.

Ms. Harrison claims that “the responsibility to fix the ills of society has fallen squarely on the shoulders of our public schools.”  Not to understate the difficulties that many teachers and administrators face on a day to day basis, but claiming the responsibility to “fix the ills of society” seems more than a bit hyperbolic.  But the hyperbole enthusiastically sets the stage for her demands for more authority and more money.

Of course, she omits any mention of the fact that public policy has been intentionally designed to create in schools a central location for providing public assistance and aid to children.  Public schools’ transition from institutions strictly focused on education to institutions focused on the social and psychological well-being of the whole child didn’t happen by accident.  It happened by design and was motivated largely by the same “big government can solve every problem” attitude we see exhibited in Ms. Harrison’s articles.  Accordingly, Ms. Harrison might have focused her demands on reversing this decades long public policy trend in order to return public education to its original and rightful purpose – education – but that tact wouldn’t serve her union’s purpose of expanding, rather than shrinking, the authority, scope and cost of public education.

Ms. Harrison urges a change in public schools from “an education model” to a “medical/behavioral/tactical model” where teachers will become well versed in medicine, fire arms handling and psychology so as to be better able to do the government’s work of treating, protecting and molding the minds of the state’s children.  Of course, it’s all tied together with more training, more administration and more money for the public school leviathan.  So it goes.  Big government grows bigger by creating legions of government employees represented by big government supportive unions who have a vested interest in supporting even bigger government.  The rest of us are left to watch and experience government’s continual incremental takeover of just about everything.

Ms. Harrison writes that “there is no doubt that educators across the state will be ‘United 55’ if teachers and service personnel are not given proper resources to deal with this impending crises.  If ignored, there will be another statewide revolt which will make the recent strike look like High School Musical 2.”  Her intentions are obvious.  She hopes to set the political stage in an election year and inflame her fellow union membership to take up political arms in favor of expanding public education’s authority, broadening public education’s mission and increasing public education funding. In the process I’m confident she hopes to enhance the electoral prospects of Democrat candidates.  I suspect that Ms. Harrison’s views are not shared by a majority of her fellow union members.  I hope those who disagree with her will make their voices heard within their unions and with those members (like Ms. Harrison) who assume the mantle of speaking for everyone else.

Please follow and like us:
0

Why Do I Like Trump?

As an advocate of individual liberty and constitutionalism, I find a lot to dislike, or at least distrust, about Donald Trump’s coming presidency.  Though he and his closest advisors pay lip service to a smaller Federal government, there aren’t many indications that he’ll really do much in that regard.  Obamacare is an atrocity and should be repealed outright, but Trump’s repeated insistence on replacing it at the Federal level doesn’t instill confidence in his understanding of the constitutional limits on the Federal government’s power.  Further, using the bully pulpit to coerce businesses to do that which they don’t deem to be in their best economic interest isn’t the hallmark of one who genuinely believes in economic liberty or the benefits free markets render to society at large.

I hear the oft repeated mantra’s…‘he’ll be far better than Hillary’ and, ‘it’s all about the Supreme Court’.  I get it.  But I’ve long recognized that the U.S. has, since at least the 1930’s, always taken at least two steps toward statism for every opposite step towards a return to constitutionally limited government.  If one were to construct a graph with the horizontal axis representing time from 1936 to the present and the vertical axis representing the relative degree of statism, the graph would reflect a clear trend to greater degrees of statism.  Sure, you would see momentary diversions representing brief respites, but they’d all be followed by a return to the trend line which has consistently led to bigger and more intrusive government and less individual liberty.  Nothing I’ve heard from Donald Trump suggests to me that he’s going to do anything to change that trend line.  In order to change it, the American people must be persuaded to the societal benefits of liberty and dissuaded from the false promises of supposedly well intended coercion founded only on the immoral premise of democracy.  Donald Trump is not the President who will lead that effort; not because he isn’t capable, but because he doesn’t believe in it.  I’m happy that Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected.  And I’m glad at the prospect that Trump’s judicial appointments will likely be better by comparison.  But these will be among the many respites; comforting, but fleeting. Ultimately, a return to the trend line awaits.

So why have I enjoyed the Trump pre-presidency so much?  This question has perplexed me.  The very substantial degree to which I’ve enjoyed Donald Trump’s post-election period as president elect isn’t warranted by my assessment of his ultimate effect on our ever rising trajectory into greater degrees of statism.  So what’s going on?  What is it that I like about Trump?

I’ve come up with two primary factors.  The first is obviously important and a credit to Trump – he is a constant and vocal opponent of global government and we need leadership on that point right as never before.  Though nationalism has understandably earned a bad connotation in many contexts, it has taken on a crucial legitimacy as a response to governmental globalism.  When ‘nationalism’ means respecting the Constitution and American statutory and common law as the only legitimate law of the country and rejecting efforts of globalist to allow treaties or United Nations pronouncements to effectuate even the subtlest of influences on our unalienable rights, nationalism is a very good thing indeed.  Preserving the United States as a nation state, sovereign and unyielding in the face of any global efforts to infiltrate our substantive law is critical.

Though important, Trump’s anti-global government stance isn’t enough to explain the pleasure I’ve had in witnessing his pre-presidency.  It’s the second factor I’ve identified which appeals to my base human impulses and thus better explains my enthusiasm. Better yet, on reflection, it may actually provide some hope for a future different than I would have supposed just a few months ago.

In short, I like how he’s sticking it to the worst elements of the left.  Those watching the media and the public reaction to it over the past decade may reasonably have concluded that too many of the American people have stopped thinking for themselves.  The left leaning national media seemed to have an almost magical ability to define the issues worthy of public attention and then set the narrative as to those issues.  Similarly, leftist academic speech police and self-appointed enforcers of political correctness seemed to have acquired the ability to thwart the free exchange of ideas whenever their personal sensibilities were offended or the legitimacy of their perspectives were threatened.

Trump has demonstrated that the national media doesn’t necessarily control the narrative and that perhaps the ‘thought police’ are all bark and no bite.  Just maybe there aren’t quite so many stupefied citizens who blindly follow the prompts of the national media and leftist elite.  Maybe good people just needed a champion to give them a voice.   I understand the concerns over his sometimes heavy handedness but I have to wonder whether he would be so successful in foiling the leftist machinery without the entertainment factor.  Let’s face it, people like it when bad actors get called out and exposed.  Trump’s brashness may be a necessary ingredient in his recipe for success.

The important question for the future is this: has Trump set a workable example for how others might successfully neuter the national media and leftist elites?  If we ever manage to elect a President who will work to persuade people to the societal benefits of liberty and constitutionalism, can he or she learn from Trump’s example in order to deny the left the power to control messaging and impose sanctions on those with whom they disagree?  If so, that may ultimately be the prevailing legacy of his presidency, and a worthy legacy that would be.  If the Trump experience permanently exposes the fallacy of the leftist elite’s ‘authority’, if he enables the American public and those in positions of power and influence to not only see, but comfortably declare, that the emperor’s new clothes are imaginary and the leftist elites are naked of the power which they have presumed for themselves and in which too many have acquiesced for too long, then he will have provided at least one great and lasting service to his country.

In the meantime, I hope to continue to enjoy watching the leftist elites flounder as they employ their old playbook over and over again to no avail while I wait with fingers crossed to see what Trump’s presidency actually brings.

 

Please follow and like us:
0

In Defense Of The 2nd Amendment

In response to the Orlando terrorist attack, David S. Cohen penned this article which was published on Rolling Stone’s webpage.  It’s title, “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” is refreshing for its honesty.  Statists who wish to further empower government at the expense of individual liberty usually do so in small doses, with suggestions of ‘reasonable’ impositions on our liberties in order to give the government ‘just a little’ more authority over us in order to fix some perceived problem.  The goal is usually to induce us to take that first step out onto a slippery slope where we will then be expected to acquiesce to further incremental losses of our liberties.  Cohen’s call for the complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment is refreshing because it is honest.  No slippery slope here – he wants you to agree to an outright repeal of your right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, the honesty is confined entirely to the title.  The body of this short article is filled with unsupported leftist propaganda.  Included are inaccurate criticisms of the Founders (they “enshrined slavery into the Constitution in multiple ways”); straw-man arguments against the perpetual perfection of the Constitution (no one seriously argues that the Constitution is perpetually – or temporarily – perfect); a leftist checklist for how the Constitution might be improved (an equal rights amendment, Senate representation based on population); and misdirecting arguments about gun control which avoid discussing the reason the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified (firearms are capable of more damage than the founders could have imagined; the risks of the right to keep and bear arms now outweigh the benefits; though Cohen offers no analysis or comment on what the benefits are).

Though Cohen has posited several assailable propositions in just a few sentences, one who wishes to clearly and demonstrably refute them is forced to do so in substantial detail.  The refutation necessarily takes more time, and words, than does the statement of the simple proposition.  For that reason, I’ll limit my criticism to only one aspect of Cohen’s article…the conflation of ‘liberty’ and the ‘right’ to be safe and secure.

Statism cannot prevail for long where liberty is understood and appreciated.  Statists know this.  For that reason, they’ve gone to great effort over the years to muddle the definition of the word ‘liberty’ in order to introduce confusion. We see this tactic utilized in Cohen’s article.  He wrote:

“Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.  But liberty is not a one way street. … It includes the liberty to…go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.  The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered.”

Cohen misunderstands and therefore misrepresents liberty.  ‘Liberty’ connotes the relationship between government and citizens.  It involves the question of what impositions the sovereign can place on the freedom of citizens.  It has no place in any discussion regarding citizens’ actions among each other. The usage of the word ‘right’ in the context of interactions both between and among individuals and between individuals and government has possibly helped to further this confusion.  A good case in point is the 2nd Amendment itself which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Thus, the right to keep and bear arms, like the right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to free speech, is a liberty because the government is restrained from limiting or regulating our autonomy in that regard.  In contrast, the right not to be murdered by a fellow citizen is not a liberty because it does not involve the misplaced force of government.

When Cohen attempts to place the ‘liberty’ to keep and bear arms in the same context as the ‘right’ not to be murdered, he implies a false equivalency between liberties (from government intrusion) and rights (vis-a-vis fellow citizens).  These concepts are not one in the same.  Statists hope that the casual or uncritical reader will accept this false equivalency and perform their own balancing test between a real liberty (the government can’t infringe on gun ownership) and a right mislabeled as a ‘liberty’ (not to be murdered by a fellow citizen).  Faced with that deceptive choice, some would quickly determine that that the ‘liberty’ not to be murdered is more important that the liberty of keeping and bearing arms.  Thus, statists hope that the failure to understand and appreciate the difference between liberty from governmental intrusion and a right not to be murdered by a fellow citizen will lead one to embrace the notion of voluntarily yielding liberty in exchange for a mere promise of better security and safety.  While some would suggest that such a trade-off is advisable, one should come to that conclusion only after coming to a full understanding of what the tradeoff is – real liberty for a mere promise of security – rather than what Cohen portrays it to be – yielding one liberty to enhance or protect another.

Once properly understood, the proposition that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed gives rise to some obvious questions which should be carefully considered before yielding a liberty which has been held inviolate since the founding of the country.

  • How will the government meet its promise of providing better security?
  • What basis does the government have to suggest that we will be safer without the right to keep and bear arms?
  • If we yield our right to keep and bear arms, we’ll be less secure in our own homes.  How will the government replace the personal security we can now provide for ourselves and our families?
  • Once we amend the Constitution to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms, it will be very difficult if not impossible to turn back.  What if it doesn’t work and we end up less secure as a result of the fact that we may be prohibited from owning guns to protect ourselves?

Finally, we must keep in mind the real reason the 2nd Amendment was ratified in the first place – not for hunting, target shooting or even home defense, but to safeguard against tyranny.  Just a few short decades ago authoritarian tyranny was rampant in the world.  Today it still exists, though in smaller, often ignored pockets.  But throughout all of human history, authoritarian tyranny has prevailed.

Over the course of the decades since World War II, democratic governments across the world have acted to restrict the liberty of their citizens to keep and bear arms.  As such, America stands as the last major western democratic nation where the people have retained that liberty.  We once learned and should now remember the horrible consequences that can befall an otherwise free people when their liberty to keep and bear arms is breached.  We should not be so cavalier as to yield our liberties when times are such that they may not seem to be crucial.  The liberty to keep and bear arms is crucial and will always be crucial because times change. History is not static.  We must maintain that particular liberty in order to have any hope of maintaining all our other liberties should the day come when it is necessary to defend them.  If we yield the liberty to keep and bear arms, all others will be placed in a state of perpetual jeopardy and we will have willingly exposed ourselves to all that history should by now have taught us to guard against.

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Trump, Cruz & The ‘Establishment’

The Republican Party ‘Establishment’ is beside itself.  Whether conducting a private island meeting off the coast of Georgia attended by the likes of Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and several other GOP members of Congress, or the dusting off, winding up and marching out of Mitt Romney to throw down the gauntlet against the Trump candidacy, the Establishment’s recent actions bespeak desperation.

Accustomed to taking turns at the White House with the Democrat Party, it seems the Establishment either did not recognize, or did not take seriously, the risk that its hold on the GOP might be meaningfully challenged.  It attempted to follow the tried and true strategy for success (at the primary stage if not the general election).  Just hand pick one of its own with a career in mainstream republican politics and a record of embracing big government, stuff his pockets with millions in campaign contributions, and wait for the money/marketing machine to grind the political bones of the rest of the field.  This time it was Jeb Bush’s turn; but there were signs almost immediately that the strategy wasn’t working.  With each passing week, the Establishment’s concern must’ve grown more dire.  By the time it became apparent that Jeb Bush would not be able to gain ground, the Establishment found itself without a viable champion and facing the reality of massive voter support for an anti-establishment candidate in Donald Trump.

Enter Marco Rubio.  Whether Marco Rubio is a ‘dyed in the wool’ establishment Republican is subject to serious question.  But it’s clear that the Establishment has now cast it’s lot with Rubio’s campaign.  Though not its first choice, Rubio is the candidate the Establishment has determined gives it the best chance of maintaining control of the Party.  John Kasich likely fits the mold well, but he was running far behind Rubio when the Establishment was forced to shift its support from Bush to another candidate.  Kasich was simply much longer odds than Rubio at the time.

Ted Cruz could never be its candidate, having demonstrated on multiple occasions that he stands on his own principles and won’t play by the Establishment’s rules.  Recall for example his highly criticized filibuster against the ACA and his reference on the Senate floor to Mitch McConnell as a liar for paving the way for the reinstitution of the Export-Import Bank.  The Establishment’s rejection of Cruz as its candidate has been obvious – his name is roundly omitted by Establishment talking heads as an alternative to the front running anti-establishment candidate Donald Trump, and none in the media or in the Party suggests that Cruz is meaningfully supported by any of the Establishment contingent.  And as Trump has eagerly pointed out, until very recently none of Cruz’s fellow senators had endorsed him.

The primary election process has revealed the severity of the Establishment’s problem. Thus far, the popular vote of the four remaining GOP candidates is as follows:  Trump: 4,339,971 votes, Cruz: 3,576,646 votes, Rubio: 2,399,505 votes and Kasich: 1,088,865 votes.  Counting only the votes cast in favor of these four remaining candidates, the anti-Establishment candidates have commanded 69% of the popular vote against 31% for Rubio and Kasich.  Again, whether Rubio is truly an establishment candidate is subject to debate.  Assuming for the sake of argument that he is, the anti-Establishment candidates have a near 7 to 3 margin over the establishment candidates at this point in the race.  Take Rubio out of the equation and the Establishment fares far worse.

In a recent column, Bruce Bartlett, a former treasury official who self identifies as a Republican despite the fact that he voted for Barack Obama, wrote that he voted for Trump in order to destroy the GOP.  “I believe that only when the GOP suffers a massive defeat will it purge itself of the crazies and forces of intolerance that have taken control of it. Then, and only then, can the GOP become a center-right governing party that deserves to occupy the White House.  The death of today’s Republican Party is, therefore, necessary to its survival, in my opinion. And Donald Trump can make it happen, which is why I voted for him.”

The popular vote thus far does not support Bartlett’s thesis.  The results demonstrate a disdain for the Establishment so severe that a loss by populist Donald Trump in the general election in November may be more likely to give rise to a subsequent movement toward Cruz’s constitutional conservatism or Rand Paul’s libertarianism than a resurgence of the Establishment.  Rather than a “center-right”, corporatist, statist Republican in the White House come 2020, Mr. Bartlett might have to be satisfied with a Constitutionalist or Libertarian who believes the Federal government should be a fraction of its present size.  Or perhaps the throngs of GOP voters who are obviously sick and tired of the Establishment will just stay home the next presidential election cycle.

Any of these scenarios foretell doom for the Establishment, at least with respect to the presidency.  Perhaps it’s time for the Establishment to consider the possibility that the grass roots is simply leaving it behind. An ineffective, if not compliant Congress, both houses of which have been controlled by the Establishment led GOP, has rendered the faithful angry and looking for alternatives.  There’s no immediate reason to expect they’ll change their minds and embrace the Establishment so long as it stands for cronyism, corporatism and cooperation with Democrats in continuing the expansion of the Federal government and in ignoring the desires and demands of such a large portion of the Party.

Please follow and like us:
0

Clarifying Mussolini

After World War I signaled the end of government by aristocracy in Europe, a lot of debate ensued regarding alternatives to replace them.  As autocratic dynasties were relegated to history, the next generation of leaders and academics argued the question of how nations should be governed in a post-aristocratic era.

In 1932, Benito Mussolini wrote about fascism, seeking to distinguish it favorably from other systems, including democratically structured governments.  In doing so, he conflated democracy and classical liberalism.  He wrote:  “Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation  Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of (classical) liberalism born in the political field and the field of economics…”

Mussolini’s initial comments are accurate—pure democracy or ‘majority rule’ cannot effectively “direct human society”.  But he later seemingly equates democracy with classical liberalism by using the terms more or less interchangeably.  In truth, classical liberalism is the antithesis of majority rule.  Classical liberalism is a moral and social philosophy standing for strictly limited government.  Government authority should be limited to the protection of individual rights, ensuring security from outside and internal threats, and administering civil and criminal justice.

America was founded on classical liberal first principles and the governmental system the founders thought best to safeguard these principles was a constitutional republic—a representative government which, though it would operate on democratic principles, would be constrained by the Constitution’s strict limits on government power.  The reason America was not a country where the majority attempted to “direct human society” was because the government was so effectively limited.  Only when the Constitution has been disregarded, has American government slid ever closer toward the conditions Mussolini describes—a democratically instituted government attempting to direct all of society.

Mussolini also made a prediction which proved sadly accurate, but not in the way he anticipated.  “(F)or if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the state…”  We now know that Mussolini’s particular brand of fascism failed upon defeat in World War II.  But communism and socialism gained an ever larger foothold through much of the 20th century and fascist principles are often employed by governments without regard to the manner in which leaders are selected or otherwise established in office. Further, the American government slowly but consistently metamorphosized from a constitutionally constrained republic founded on the principles of classic liberalism to representative majoritarianism as the Constitution’s constraints on the government’s power were systematically diminished over time.  This didn’t happen because it was inevitable, or because classical liberalism doesn’t work.  It happened because we permitted the Constitution to be too much and too often disregarded, rendering it weaker and less effective as a constraint on government.

Viewed from the turn of the millennium and beyond, the 20th century proved to be “the century of the state” as Mussolini predicted, not through the despotism he expected, but at the hands of democratic governments with powers too broad to allow classical liberal principles to thrive.  Liberty and statism are inversely correlated.  One only expands by displacing the other.  At the turn of the 20th century, America was a stalwart of classical liberalism.  As a result of the diminishment of our Constitution throughout remainder of the century after Mussolini’s comments, America devolved into an ever more statist country.  Though it is now perhaps one of the last fields upon which the battle for strictly limited government and unalienable individual rights is still waged, that battle is now mostly confined to the arena of ideas.  Our political reality is that nearly all of our elected representatives now embrace the use of unconstitutional power and expansive state authority far beyond what our first principles contemplate or our real Constitution authorizes.

Please follow and like us:
0

Hillary’s “Ridiculous” Hypocrisy

Hillary Clinton’s effort to avoid blame for her breach of protocols due to the “ridiculousness” of the rules she broke violates her core statist principles which dictate that the state should regulate human activity because it does more good than harm when it does so.  Those principles motivate her policy positions…at least as long as they don’t inconvenience her or get her into trouble.

Last week, Hillary Clinton seized on a Politico article authored by Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department official, in defense of her e-mail account misconduct.  Miller wrote that “the sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.”  Clinton jumped at the chance to justify her conduct linking to the article and tweeting “‘Our ridiculous classification rules’ are the real problem”.  In doing so, she acted contrary to her core beliefs as a statist in order to provide a defense for her misconduct.

Hillary Clinton is a modern liberal statist and advocates government regulation of human activity.  She thinks the government should regulate citizens in farming, industry, employment, health care, food safety, drug safety, and virtually anything potentially affecting the environment (which of course means just about everything).  She thinks the government can and should undertake such an aggressive and all-encompassing regulatory effort because society benefits if it does so.

She is aware of the monetary costs, inefficiencies and lost opportunities these regulations impose on citizens.  She knows that the rules and regulations which touch upon every aspect of life must prove unfair or unreasonable on a daily basis in their application to specific individuals whose unique circumstances could not have been considered in the adoption of rules to be universally applied.  She obviously does not think that a plea of “ridiculousness” is a defense sufficient to overcome the application of a rule or regulation applicable to society at large.

The three legitimate functions of government are, (1) ensuring individual liberty, (2) securing the nation from foreign aggression and (3) administering civil and criminal justice.  Though modern liberal statists like Clinton go far beyond, advocating the routine violation of the first function by virtue of myriad regulatory and redistributive schemes mandated by force of law for the supposed benefit of society at large, modern liberals still formally acknowledge those three core functions of government.  Obviously, the classification of information for national security purposes falls within one of those core functions, namely, securing the nation from foreign aggression.  Accordingly, virtually everyone agrees that the protocols for classifying that information play a key role in fulfilling one of the government’s core functions.

Without hesitation, Clinton seized upon the argument that the rule proscribing her conduct is unfair, unreasonable, or “ridiculous”.  She made this point despite the fact that the rule she complains of is integral to one of the primary functions of any government.  Implicit in her tweeted statement, is an acknowledgment that the government cannot always get it right, even when performing its most essential functions.  Also implicit in her statement, is an assertion that the statist political class isn’t, or shouldn’t be, subject to the same stringent inflexibility with respect to the rule of law as the great unwashed masses.  Of course, hypocrisy in the application of laws to the political class is nothing new.  Recall Congress’s ObamaCare exemption.

The bottom line is this – top down, invasive, abusive regulations are just fine when imposed on you for any reason the government thinks is a good idea.  If regulations aren’t reasonable and you suffer expense or inconvenience, that’s ok because it’s all for the greater good.  You aren’t sufficiently important and don’t have enough “pull” to achieve an exception for yourself.  But expect the Secretary of State to comply with protocols deemed crucial to national security which she thinks are unreasonable, cumbersome or inefficient?

Don’t be ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
0