The Portrait of Socialism

Share

I recently began re-reading Oscar Wilde’s, “The Portrait of Dorian Gray.” It was prompted by two things actually: one, a friend recommended I see the latest cinematic adaptation of it (“Dorian Gray”), which I didn’t know existed and two, I came across a copy of Wilde’s essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” “The Soul of Man...” reminded me of Wilde’s hatred of Socialism and the masterful way that he weaved his political views so seamlessly into his work; granted, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” wasn’t exactly subtle.

“The Portrait of Dorian Gray” tells the story of a man who inhabits a stately London home while enjoying the extravagance common to those of his class. A friend paints his portrait and before long, Dorian Gray develops a deep hatred of the piece. That portrait will forever be the image of the beauty that he will surely lose as the years progress. Consumed with maintaining his youthful beauty Dorian delves into the dark arts and falls every more into depravity. Dorian has found a way to remain young and beautiful forever but the portrait begins to show his true soul and with each act of debauchery the picture grows more hideous. I wont give away the ending here since I would hope that you would either read the book or see the film. But in re-reading it, I suppose it was inevitable that a political connoisseur like me would see something deeper in a story that is essentially more to do with vanity and narcissism.

In brief, this story is a perfect allegory of modern socio-economic conditions. Consider the US where Socialists now control or dominate every area of society: labour, academia, journalism, religion, entertainment, government and the judiciary. Nearly 200 years ago, when the proponents of these ideas first began their crusade to reshape man and the world he inhabits they did so openly and honestly. Their romantic utopianism was a beautiful thing. But as time passed, they could not hide the hideous nature of their beliefs. Despite its desire to present itself as a purely altruistic endeavour on behalf of mankind, Socialism produced nothing but economic calamity, social decay, national and ethnic hostility, mass murder, internecine conflict, serfdom and one dictator after another (to name a few). By the mid 20th century, it was more important than ever to banish that image to the attic. The French Revolution and the flurry of bloody revolutions it spawned throughout Europe have been stripped of all traces of Socialism, Stalin and Lenin are forgotten, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge erased from history, Hitler posthumously relegated to the “political right” and every radical Socialist movement of the Islamic world is treated as nothing more than religious fanaticism. The errors of Socialism mount year after year and the degrees to which the adherents will go to hide those errors seem limitless.

But try as they may, the portrait still shows the hideousness of the idea and those fortunate enough to see it recoil in horror. They have thus far succeeded in hiding it from the world and themselves, but it remains there; a constant reminder of who and what Socialism truly is. Like Dorian Gray, I know that they occasionally gaze at that portrait in anguish knowing that the utopia that others see is only a masque to hide their true identity.

Barbarians at the Gate

Share

What I am about to say will sound like the ramblings of an extremist. I know this. But as the late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

During the Nuremburg trials following WWII, several former German officials based the entirety of their defence on the fact that they did nothing more than follow orders. What more, they offered irrefutable evidence of the fact. Yet the question before the tribunal concerned was one of individual malfeasance. Without regard to their duty to obey the orders of their commanders, they had a moral and ethical duty to refuse orders which necessitated unconscionable barbarity.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I came upon a California Highway Patrol checkpoint. Now I didn’t know it was a checkpoint. Actually I saw orange cones and equipment ahead which led me to believe someone was working on the road. I was somewhat taken aback however when a uniformed officer beckoned me to the side of the road. My first thought was that I might have been travelling too fast in a construction zone. But to my utter shock, the officer informed me that the State of California has decided to randomly subject motorists to “on-the-spot” smog checks. Never mind the fact that my registration tags were current. In California you cannot receive these tags unless and until you submit evidence from a licensed Smog Test Centre, that your vehicle’s emissions fall below the State’s mandated threshold. From a legal standpoint I should not have been stopped unless (1)my tags were expired, (2)my vehicle was spewing smoke and/or (3)I had committed a moving violation or reasonably presumed to be wanted in connection with a crime. Nevertheless, I was being stopped so that the State’s police agencies could conduct an impromptu pre-emptive investigation to determine IF I had violated the law. What on earth could have prompted this gross violation of the law by the people sworn to uphold it?

Well, the State of California decided to crack down on illegal Smog Text Centres who, for a few extra greenbacks on the side, will doctor the results of the test to obtain a passing Vehicle Inspection Report. Rather than simply go after these violators, the State, in all its Stalinistic wisdom, arrogated to itself the authority to subject its citizens to these unlawful investigations. Now I know that some people will accept any government intrusion into their lives even when it involves obvious violations of one’s Constitutional rights. Some will even say, “Well, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the harm?” The harm in is the very act of conducting an investigation without cause. The harm is in being stopped by law enforcement agents not because I violated the law, but to allow them to see if I had. What is the next evolution of this concept? Will they begin conducting random searches of private homes just to see if one has anything illegal therein? “Extreme!” you say. Once you surrender the principle, there is no limit to its applicability. We have seen it time and again and not only here in the U.S.

For my part, I refused to allow them to conduct the test. Clearly this was an unxpected turn of events, for the poor patrolman had to call a supervisor for assistance. They simply had no idea how to handle this situation. Without going into the details of our exchange, I can only say that the officers were forced to concede my point and bid me goodbye with their apologies. Perhaps I could have been more cordial in my response to this assault but cordiality was beyond me. These people are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. They are charged with protecting and serving the people. Yet more and more they are becoming the government’s weapons against the people. They routinely behave as if their duty is to protect the government from the people. Just as those officials in Nuremburg were ultimately punished for failing to refuse immoral and unethical orders, this country’s police agencies should be expected to live up to the same standard. The orders in hand may not violate the laws of the land but they most assuredly violate every law of decency and humanity. Any man or woman capable of wearing the uniform is also capable of making this distinction.

My only regret is that I did not have the presence of mind to capture this on video during the initial encounter. I did however return later to record the scene. Unfortunately the cell-phone video isnt exactly stellar.

What Is Economics?

Share

It never fails that when I ask people to describe the field of economics, the typical response is that it is the study of money or how to earn money. Moreover an ever increasing number of people regard economics as a form of politics or perhaps political science. Grading on the simple pass/fail basis all would of course fail.

Economics is mistaken for finance by some and politics by others. The later tends to sting a bit. Nevertheless, perhaps the confusion is understandable. After all economics must by necessity address matters common to both areas of understanding. Such has been the case since inception. Be that as it may the fact remains that, economics is best described as the study of human behaviour.

“What?” you say. “What about money, debts, saving, budgets?” Well economics certainly involves all those things and economists have been known to go on for hours on the pros and cons of public policy decisions. But at its core economics is the study of how flesh and blood human beings (not abstractions thereof) and the institutions they engender actually respond to various types and degrees of stimuli. Economics addresses financial implications without addressing the organization of financial data which is best suited to financial experts. Economics addresses the incentives and/or disincentives resulting from public policy and not necessarily the policies themselves which is best suited to politicians. Hence the economist focuses not so much on the tax rate as on the manner in which said rate affects human behaviour which in turn has a direct even if long term effect on the overall state of social institutions. Most importantly, economics answers the ever-ellusive “Why?” Why does an increase in demand drive prices higher? Why does welfare (corporate and social) incentivize licentiousness on the part of the recipient? Why do even good ideas generate diminishing returns over time? Why do certain policies produce results at odd with the intensions of those who author them? Why?, Why?, Why?, ad nauseum.

The problem is not that the confusion exists. Rather it is the fact that it causes the layperson to misconstrue economic laws for political rhetoric. This is particularly problematic when one is confronted with Austrian Economics for the “Austrian” is always deemed to be championing the political views of a specific politician and/or political party.

How to correct the problem? Well, I’ll leave that to the social theorists. I’m only an economist.

Nothing New Under the Sun

Share

Here's a fascinating nine-minute video of excerpts from two speeches given by Robert Welch in 1974. In the first speech you'll hear him quote from his 1958 speech about the ten dangerous trends for the U.S. In the second speech you'll hear his platform for what should be done to preserve freedom in our nation. Listening to this speech over 30 years later, it is amazing just how similar Robert Welch's prescription for America in 1974 is to Ron Paul's campaign platform in 2008. It is even more fascinating how prophetic those words appear to have been.

The More Things Change…..

Share

Journey with me eight years into the future. It’s 2016; Obama has served a second term in office and his Treasury Secretary is asked to explain the economic situation to an anxious and worried U.S. Congress:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot."

But these are not the words of some unnamed official of future fantasy. These are the words of Henry Morgenthau taken from the Congressional Record of May 1939 (House Ways & Means Committee). Who was Henry Morgenthau? Only the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Roosevelt. This is the man who oversaw implementation of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies which after seven years had produced no positive changes in the economy. In fact, by May 1939, the national unemployment rate had once again climbed above the 20th percentile.

The "Why" of Moral Hazard

Share

In the past few weeks, particularly since the growth of government “stimulus”, there has been increasing talk of the inherent moral hazards of such policies. A close friend, Pia Varma, addressed the issue in an article entitled "I Wanna Rock and Roll All Night....", then I learned of another take on it by Jeff Bezos and by now virtually ever carbon-based life-form living above ground has probably heard of Rick Santell’s now infamous trading floor rant on CNBC. It seems this well-worn, yet heretofore, little acknowledged law of economics is finally gaining some margin of public interest.

We know that “moral hazard” exists. Buts why do mature, intelligent and well-informed people behave in such ways? Is it a cognitive response or is it simply a trait encoded in our psyche?

In its simplest form “moral hazard” is what results when the individual no longer bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his actions. And while we are all prone to such behaviour, not a one of us would admit that we would react this way. The fact is, such behaviour is hardwired in our nature. Therefore we are correct in denying deliberation for we do not do so knowingly or wilfully.

All human beings are guided by a dual nature, one higher, one lower. At our basic level we are much like any other animal in that we act and react instinctively. I do not believe, nor have I seen evidence sufficient to allow me to presume that human behaviour is cognitive though there are certainly times when we naturally think through our actions beforehand and choose the worst alternative. Why? Because our instincts drive our pursuit of the maximum pleasure with the minimum pain. Hence in an economy driven by profit and loss for example, we are encouraged to take risks by the lure of profit and simultaneously encouraged to minimize our risks so as to avoid loss. In other words we take calculated risks. But what happens when we assuage risk to the point of eliminating the consequences of imprudence?

We each have a level of risk with which we are comfortable. One instinctively (as opposed to cognitively) measures consequences involved in a given situation and compensates by adjusting risk exposure to achieve a level thereof commensurate with ones existing comfort level. Such is the premise behind the concept of risk homeostasis.

Consider ultra-cautious, mild-mannered, John. John buys a new Chevy Subcontinent. It’s large, powerful, sits higher than nearly everything else on the road and has the most advanced safety features you could imagine. A vehicle slightly smaller than a Challenger battle tank with roughly the same fuel economy of an aircraft carrier and approximately the same cargo capacity, in cubic feet, as Sri Lanka. So John sits in the cockpit of his new Subcontinent and suddenly he gets a sense of invulnerability. John dispenses with his normal predisposition towards behavioural restraint and proceeds to drive with reckless abandon. Now John isn’t doing this because he doesn’t care about other drivers, nor is he consciously making decisions in utter disregard for the safety of himself or others. No John is merely reacting instinctively to the false sense of security he feels and therefore compensating for the perceived diminutive risk by “pushing the envelope” if you will. The important point here is that this occurs on a purely subconscious level which is to say, instinctively, not cognitively. And once we understand that John is not an aberration, but a normal human being reacting to what he perceives as a low risk situation, we can reasonably predict human behaviour in innumerable circumstances.

When consequences are diminished (even if only perceptively so), people are naturally incentivised to take greater risks. This is just a true in driving as it is in investing and just as true for the janitor as it is for the investment banker.

Therefore, while it is wrong to say that government policies cause specific problems such as the current financial crisis it is entirely reasonable to charge that such policies created an environment wherein individuals and institutions take on risks in ways and to degrees that they would never considered but-for said government policies. That's why we call it the law of unintended consequences. It makes us feel good to protect individuals or entities from the risk of failure or to shield certain persons from the harsh realities of life, but in so doing, we only create conditions wherein greater harm ensues. It's in our nature.

1933 Pro-Inflation Propaganda Film

Share

This is a 10-minute propaganda film by the Roosevelt Administration advocating in favour of inflation. One often wonders how so many people have been led to believe something so vacuous. This may help you understand it. The sad reality is that the current government is, with the help of the media and academia, repeating the same sins.

WARNING: The following video is intended for intelligent audiences. Viewing this information without at least a marginal understanding of basic economics or an IQ above room temperature may prove hazardous to your political beliefs. Please do not view in the presence of leftist politicians, professors, journalists or government employees as they have been shown to become sexually aroused by economic inanity.

Why Elections Matter

Share

Well California, you’ve done it again. For years on end you’ve stacked your elected offices with Leftists of all stripes who have in turn filled every government agency with like-minded minions ever-ready to do the bidding of left-leaning special interests groups pushing the golden State further over the edge of reason and into the waiting arms of Mephistopheles. You have my permission to suffer the consequences of your deliberately crafted Faustian Deal.

Governor, Arnold Taxenegger (R) and State Senator Abel “The Enabler” Maldonado (R), joined Democrats in passing a budget that includes more than $70 billion in new taxes. Of course they assure us that it is mildly offset by spending cuts. From what I can tell, the total value of all spending cuts in the new budget would, if given to me in cash, allow me to purchase a Snickers Bar.

Far be it of me to say “I told you so” but….well, you know.

Why Do So Many Reject Free Enterprise?

Share

I'll turn to an old master for this one:

"One can hardly expect people either to like an extended order (free enterprise system) that runs counter to some of their strongest instincts, or readily to understand that it brings them the material comforts they also want. The order is even “unnatural” in the common meaning of not conforming to man’s biological endowments. Much of the good that man does in the extended order is thus not due to his being naturally good; yet it is foolish to deprecate civilisation as artificial for this reason. It is artificial only in the sense in which most of our values, our language, our art and our very reason are artificial; they are not genetically embedded in our biological structures. In another sense, however the extended order is perfectly natural; in the sense that it has itself, like similar biological phenomena, evolved naturally in the course of natural selection." [Parenthesis mine] – F.A. Hayek, Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

Painful Lessons of Economics

Share

In every major event these days we are inevitably greeted with a plethora of books rushed into publication, and a few re-released in “updated” form, heralding the supposed knowledge and foresight of our esteemed intellectuals and commentators. Many haughtily present a “See!?! I told you so” attitude when they were in fact, about as prescient as Wyle E. Coyote after falling into one of his own traps.

So it should come as no surprise that the most prolific sector of the economy at present is in books heralding the death of “laissez faire capitalism” as a result of the current market meltdown. After-the-fact rationalizations aside, this problem was predicted long before the first signs of impending doom materialized. Those predictions came not from otherworldly mystics glancing into a crystal ball. They emanated from the minds of the defenders of “laissez faire capitalism.” I won’t delineate them here but the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are among those who, as early as 1999, issued the well-worn caveats in the face of foolhardy government polices. Derided as Cassandra mavens at the time yet we would be so much the better had we listened. After all, I believe Cassandra turned out to be right as well.

No one was willing to listen when warned that interference with the market mechanism would alter the functions of the system in ways contrary to its natural character. The market works on the basis of laws as important as the physical laws of the universe and when you introduce burdensome regulations, quixotic government policies, confiscatory taxation, ad nauseum you violate those laws and are forced to deal with the consequences thereof. Prices, profits and losses are integral facets of the market system which exist to relay signals to us all of how we should invest our resources. Once you attempt to regulate prices and/or insure against loses, you permanently obscure those signals and the market if it is to survive must react, not on the basis of legitimate data, but on the basis of distortions over which the players have no control and even less reliable information.

Now the politicians react as politicians are expected, by pointing the finger of blame at anything and everything but public policy. And they are trying ever so desperately to convince the public that the cure lies in even more government policy. In essence attempting to “fix” the problem using the very thing that caused it: socialism/statism. This isn’t a flu wherein we can treat it with a milder form of the virus. Socialism is a cancer. And like all cancers, it must be excised now before it irreparably afflicts the entire organism.

Laissez faire capitalism to balme? Laissez faire capitalism was not allowed onto the playing field. Like Wyle E Coyote, the statists among us set traps to ensnare the market, and they find themselves yet again, caught in their own device. And they have the nerve to look surprised.

Senator Tom Coburn (R) Blasts Stimulus Bill

Share

This is a must-see video clip from CSPAN of the Senate floor debate on the “Stimulus Bill” wherein Senator Tom Coburn (R) details the unconstitutionality of the Bill. Coburn is no late-comer to this issue as he also opposed previous similar measures under Bush. This is unfortunately an unedited CSPAN clip. I've adjusted it so that the clip opens to Coburn's remarks.

Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

Share

Please excuse the language of this post. Now considering the subject matter you’ll find it ironic that I am apologizing upfront for some of the rather harsh language that follows, but hey! My mother may be watching.Tough guys!! The kind who are gentleman enough to hold a door open for a woman and man enough to break the nose of the silly sod who crosses her. Those guys who were once staples of major motion pictures: Sean Connery, Humphrey Boggart, John Wayne, to name a few. Today however men are vilified for being tough. We are expected to be sensitive, to open-up and to get in touch with our inner child. In short, men have been completely feminized. This is the once proud culture that prompted singer Paula Cole to ask, “Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?”

Well, take heart Paula, for there are still a few notable exceptions, including yours truly.

Clint Eastwood comes to mind. During a recent interview with Letterman, Eastwood wondered aloud when America became “a pu**y society.” And famed Cleveland Browns fullback, Jim Brown recently laid into Leftists in a January interview with Esquire Magazine noting, “A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-assed favour. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don’t deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch.” Yes, these are among the few remaining public Tough Guys. But why are there so few?

As far as I can tell, we're being eclipsed by the Tough Girls. I know many women who admit that while the love the fact that men are not always boorish, coarse and just plain gross, they miss real men. So failing to find them in sufficient quantity, these Girls are starting to take up the slack. And I’m not talking about the flannel-shirt-wearing, butch-cut sporting, comfortable shoes, type Girls. No, I’m talking real women who want an America filled with real men.

Ann Coulter is one example. One of my favourite Tough Girl commentators and authors whose current book Guilty is causing a state of extreme apoplexy on the political Left. She dares criticise the “victicrat” mentality that so permeates American culture. What a horribly mean Girl!! And don't get me started on Michelle Malkin. I could write volumes on these Girls.

But there’s an up-and-coming Tough Girl who is poised to become the veritable Joan of Ark of modern America. Her name: Pia Varma. This young, fiery, passionate Los Angeles native is making waves in West Coast political circles that will soon be cresting on the Potomac. She’s fighting to bust the balls of the current GOP leadership and force the nancy-boys on the Left, to cry “uncle!”. Pia recently launched PiaVarma.com coupled with the LaissezFaireLounge.com and I have it on good authority that you are in for a wild and wicked ride. With the intellectual verve of Ayn Rand and the tough-as-nails attitude of Margaret Thatcher, Varma will be a force to be reckoned with.

There may not be many Tough Guys left out there but these Tough Girls and their ilk (and the list is growing) will listen with sensitivity as you open-up and when the moment is right, they’ll find your inner child and kick its little ass.

Here’s to the Tough Girls.

Care to Test Your Knowledge of the Great Depression?

Share

You have 20 minutes to answer 25 questions covering one of the pivotal moments in US history. Dont worry if you answer incorrectly, just enjoy the ride.

Powered By ProProfs: Create A Quiz

The American Illusion of Capitalism

Share

"He who desires or attempts to reform the government of a state... must at least retain the semblance of the old forms, so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though they are in fact entirely different from the old ones." - Nicolo Machiavelli

Americans love to tout the power of American capitalism whether as a blessing or a malediction. To the Left, capitalism is faulted for all that ails you, hence the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the Great Society and similar such schemes are means of saving the people from the ravages of laissez faire capitalism. To the Right, capitalism is under constant assault from Socialists/Statists. The sad truth is both are wrong and in many ways for the exact same reasons.

The main problem lies in the term itself. For the word “capitalism” like “capitalist” says nothing of ones views on matters of political economy. The assumption common to those blessed only with “conventional wisdom” to borrow a phrase from Lord Keynes, is that “capitalism” is somehow opposed to “socialism”; that it epitomizes the “laissez faire” order. If this is true, “capitalists” would naturally be inclined towards the “free enterprise system”, the “extended order” (Friedrich Hayek), or the “liberal order of the economy” (Gunnar Myrdal).

The evidence suggests that “capitalism” is in no way antithetical to Socialism. In fact, many Socialists throughout history have been entrepreneurs and industrialists and quite successfully at that. These are the men and women who have financed the permeation of Socialism the world over, notwithstanding the fact that they have usually been the first targets of the Socialists once coming to power. Churchill once derided this tendency as “feeding the crocodile in hopes of getting eaten last.” But I digress. The confusion occurs I believe because of a general ignorance of political science which leads many to the erroneous assumption that all Socialism is Communism and therefore all Socialists are opposed to “capitalism.” Fact is, most Socialsits favour some degree of private enterprise. What they object to is the free and unfettered market system. In other words, they oppose Hayek’s “extended order” and Mydral’s “liberal order of the economy.” Consider if you will the vestiges of a market order which existed under Germany’s Zwangswirtschaft Socialism, Italy’s Fascism, Great Britain’s Fabianism or America’s New Deal.

In the US, so-called “capitalists” have been the chief proponents of Socialists or statists policies since at least the 1930’s. Many US corporations and entrepreneurs, always quick to don the banner of “free enterprise” when convenient, have done more to usher the US along the path of planned economy than any Leftist political activist would ever have attempted. Each beseeches the government for protection from competition both domestic and international. Each demands laws which mandate the use of its products or services but always “in the public interest.” Each seeks special privileges under colour of law. Whatever term you use to describe it, this is not “capitalism.” I choose to call it what it really is, “mercantilism.” That damnable system so prevalent in Adam Smith’s day which prompted him to inquire as to the nature and cause of the wealth of nations. And, yes, that same system which John Maynard Keynes, resurrected in the 20th century. It’s an easy mistake of course. Mercantilism has the appearance of capitalism but in reality it is a system of “every man for himself, at the expense of his neighbour.”

Perhaps Americans need accept the fact that they long ago lost any traces of a free enterprise system. America doesn’t have to protect some nebulous conception of “capitalism” she has only to abandon “mercantilism” and make a hasty return to the “free enterprise” system.

Frederic Bastiat said it best, “the fight we face is not with the committed Socialist, rather it is with those who do not realize they are Socialists.”

Johnny Rocco - The George Soros of 1948

Share

Environmentalism vs Humanity

Share

We have long been subjected to the sanctimonious palaver of the world’s environmental crusaders regarding Global Warming. But what we never witness is the true cost of these ideologically-driven movements in human terms.

Window repairman arrested for practicing "economic stimulus"

Share

“Times were so tough for Redlands window repairman Timothy Carl Klenke, police say, that he decided to take proactive measures. So he armed himself with a slingshot and began cruising around the city, shattering at least five windows and car windshields as he went.” – David Kelly, Los Angeles Times (see full article here)

It’s really funny to me how life tends to come full circle and often in the strangest ways.

While speaking with friends last night, one of them mentioned a discussion she had with an individual who insisted that government spending is the most efficient way to stimulate an economy. Naturally we drifted towards Fréderic Bastiat’s “Parable of the Broken Window” wherein he makes the case that breaking windows to stimulate economic activity is a fallacy common to simple minds in general. Yet this well thought out argument from 1848 was laid to rest when statist governments, including that of the US, adopted Keynesian economics as the default standard.

So coming across this article this morning of poor Mr. Klenke who decided to put this fallacy into practice for himself, I thought for a moment it has to be a joke. This man should not be punished for breaking the law. He is merely practicing Economic Stimulus on par with the boys and girls in Washington.

When will Americans come to the understanding that one should not give the government the power to do anything that the individual does not posses the right to do on his own. So if “breaking windows” is illegal for Timothy Carl Klenke, it must by right be illegal for the government. Or maybe I’m missing something.

The GOP Rejects Obama’s “Porkulus” Bill. So what?

Share

I find it rather difficult to feel appreciative of the GOP’s tortured decision to oppose Obama’s “stimulus” Bill. Ungrateful you say? Nothing of the sort.

Republicans are sent to office by voters who expect them to uphold certain principles and philosophical views irrespective of the demands of political expediency. Therefore it should never have been necessary for the constituents and commentators to demand that their Congressional representatives do that very thing. It was their job to resist the advance of Socialism. So why should they get special praise for being forced to do their duty?

This is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy ends at the voting booth. Voters are expected to be informed and candidates expected to be honest with their views so that once the vote is cast, the electorate may rest assured that their representatives will uphold the principles on which they campaigned. Those principles must stand always in opposition to Socialism. In the words of James Madison, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

I will no sooner praise the GOP for rejecting this Bill than I would praise a bird for spreading its wings and flying.

Obama Invokes the Carter Doctrine on Foreign Policy

Share

President Obama has promised to “rebuild America’s image abroad” by way of aggressive diplomacy. The idea being that the world hates America because, under former President George W. Bush, the US became an international bully. But this theme is not new. It was echoed some 35 years earlier by a US President with the worst foreign policy record imaginable, President Jimmy Carter.

Arthur Herman of Commentary Magazine, takes up this argument brilliantly in an article entitled, “The Return of Carterism?” Herman relates, in pertinent part:

“…..Carter proclaimed, governments that violated their own citizens’ human rights would no longer receive American support but would instead incur our opposition. A foreign policy so constructed would, theoretically, encourage the growth of democracy in third-world countries and reduce the appeal of more radical or revolutionary ideologies.

In the event, the opposite happened. As Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out at the time, instead of paving the way to democracy, the withdrawal of support from petty dictators in Latin America paved the way for a surrender of American interests—at the expense of our hopes for democratization.1 The only countries on which the U.S. could bring significant pressure to bear were those ruled by authoritarians who restricted certain freedoms while leaving others intact; by contrast, we enjoyed little or no leverage at all with totalitarian regimes that systematically destroyed all
freedoms and treated us as their ideological enemy.

Thus the fallacy turned out to be not the old cold-war mentality but the new Carter human-rights policy. When we ceased supporting our bad allies, they were replaced by far worse antagonists.”

Socialism’s Honesty Problem

Share

You might think this strange, but I yearn for a return to the days of the pre-1950’s Socialist movement. That time when Socialists possessed the indispensable characteristic of intellectual honesty. You may not know it given today’s political discourse, but Socialists were at one time, quite candid about their views and their prescription(s) for societal transition.

Professor Harold J Laski was one such individual. A well-regarded Socialist intellectual and member of the British Fabian Society, Laski holds his place among the most powerful figures in the movement during the early 20th century. In “Labour and the Constitution” (10, Sep 1932) Laski questions “whether in a period of transition to socialism, a Labour Government can risk the overthrow of its measures as a result of the next general election.” He leaves the question unanswered at least affirmatively. In reading the essay in its entirety, one is left with no doubts as to his feelings on the matter.

Then in Democracy in Crisis (1933) he elaborated these ideas even further. Laski concludes that parliamentary democracy must not be allowed to form an obstacle to the realization of Socialism. For in his view, not only would a Socialist government “take vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree” and “suspend the classic formulae of normal opposition” but the “continuance of parliamentary government would depend on its (i.e. the Labour government’s) possession of guarantees from the Conservative Party that its work of transformation would not be disrupted by repeal in the event of its defeat at the polls.”

This, of course, was the plan for Great Britain. Yet it would appear that the American Socialists of the Democrat Party have with considerable élan, taken up the Laski formulae.

HELP!! I see dead principles

Share

We often ask ourselves with regard to motion pictures, whether art mirrors life or life, art. The concept was brought to the fore yet again as I pondered the current socio-political landscape of the United States, particularly with respect to the status of “Reagan era conservatism.”

Do you recall the M. Night Shyamalan film, The Sixth Sense (1999)? It’s a very entertaining piece of work indeed. But what interests me at the moment is the story of one of its title characters, Dr. Malcolm Crowe.

You see, Dr. Crowe is a brilliant therapist who one evening gets a visit from a patient whom he failed to help. That patient shoots Crowe and then kills himself. Fast forward a few years and Dr. Crowe is back in business with a new troubled patient whom he is dedicated to helping more than ever in light of the previous failure. This young man’s problem: he sees and communicates with the dead. Crowe, at first incredulous, ultimately comes to believe that his patient may not be delusional. And as he opens to the possibility that such things may in fact be possible, he is able to give this severely troubled child the help he really needs. When the deed is done, Dr. Crowe is in for yet another revelation. He discovers that he himself never survived the attack by his former patient. Dr. Crow realizes that he is one of the dead his young patient sees. Though a gifted therapist, a man of scientific realities, he never knew or even conceived the possibility that he was no longer among the living. Isn’t Dr. Crowe the epitome of the GOP and “conservatism”?

For months now we have been fed a steady diet of lamentations by “conservative” columnists and talking-heads on the death of “conservatism” or “the Reagan era”, etc. All are presented in reference to the victories of Democrats in the last mid-term Congressional elections and/or the victory of Democrats in the elections last Fall which effectively put them in a position of unchecked power at the Federal level. Now I certainly concede the fact that the Left wields enormous political power but this didn’t begin with recent electoral victories.

The sad reality is that the “Reagan era” ended when Ronald Reagan left office. An associate of mine recently penned an article entitled, “The Fault, dear Republicans, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” wherein she castigates Republicans/conservatives for wallowing in the glory of minor victories for decades rather than staying on the offensive. Fact is this is exactly what the Right has done since Reagan. Sure there was the victory of the GOP in the 1994 mid-term elections. But after securing this victory, the GOP forgot about the struggle. The Party ultimately became the principle defender of the very bureaucratic and Statist (or dare I say Socialist) policies to which it was supposedly opposed. By 1996, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats was becoming titular, at best. If I may borrow from an old bard, Socialism by any other name is still quite odious.

The reason Socialists have been so successful is that they never allowed a victory to lull them into a false sense of complacency and security. Socialism is in every respect, a constant struggle. The battle never ends. Hence with every victory, they behave as if they are still the downtrodden masses. It takes no more than a cursory gander at the society around us to appreciate the fact that the Left dominates every aspect of the culture (journalism, entertainment, academia, government), and has so for decades on end.

Obama’s ascendancy did not signal the death of “conservatism.” “Conservatism”, like Dr. Malcolm Crowe, has been dead for quite some time. The signs have long been visible to those of us with the sixth political sense. It just took a while for "conservatives" to realize the fact.