Ah, Tony Perkins

Mr. Perkins, in charge of the Family Research Council, just said on CNN that "fiscal conservatism" means small government, and "social conservatism" means personal responsibility. Really? First of all, the two cannot be separated, but commonly are, both by liberals and conservatives, to fit their narrow agendas. If a fiscal conservative wants small government and low government intervention in financial matters, then it is logically inconsistent to decide that one wants the government to dictate one's socially acceptable behavior. The reverse is also true, but on to Mr. Perkins's claim about personal responsibility.

Social conservatism does not mean personal responsibility. It just simply is not true. Personal responsibility, like personal liberty, are not just non-partisan issues, but a-partisan issues. They simply are not ideas which are developed or motivated by any one area of the political spectrum. They are, however, abused and misrepresented by many areas of the political spectrum. Social conservatism is the idea that the government has the right and/or duty to enforce moral behaviors on its citizens, not merely to protect one another from harm but to promote tradition and moral order, however one defines that order. Personal responsibility is the idea that when a person engages in behavior, he or she is responsible for the effects of that behavior, legally and morally. The big difference is that morals are not laws. Morals and traditions, due to our Constitutional rights, do not have to be followed, so long as they do not break a law.

Logically, we have to decide then whether morals should be laws. In this country, the founders of the nation thought that the law should be designed to protect people from being harmed. Prisons are made to house those who have done harm, and civil suits can be filed for compensation; however, the legislation of taste is one of the things we are protected from in America. One ought not be prevented from acting because the action is distasteful, unpleasant or annoying, only directly, demonstrably harmful. That is true personal responsibility, not legislating some religious sect's preference.

Pragmatism v. Idealism

There has been a lot of talk lately about how great it will be for the next four years to have a pragmatist in the White House. Obama, the media loves to note, is a pragmatist, willing to cross the aisles to negotiate and be flexible enough to represent all the people. Why on earth would we want that?

If Obama is what I fear he is, a purely pragmatic, solution-obsessed politician, then an Obama administration has no principles. He will see an issue, discuss the possible uni-partisan answers, and come to an agreement which partly satisfies everyone. There is an extent to which that process is effective, but it only goes so far. Sometimes pragmatism is bad. Negotiating on issues of principle is impossible if one seemingly defers to pragmatism over principle. Obama does not appear to have any core issues with which he will not part, except a string of murky notions of hope and fairness. Where does he put his foot down? Even if I dislike the issue, I hope he can put aside practical solutions and be a man of principle. Indeed, it seems that we are going to go from an unflinching ideologue to an unflinching pragmatist.

The Lincoln comparisons with Obama have begun already, because Lincoln appointed a group of politicians with whom he was not particularly enamored to serve as his Cabinet. I find no fault in appointing those from differing political perspectives to positions on one's staff. Obviously, GroupThink is to be avoided in politics, but Obama has a strange fascination with Lincoln. Having dissenting opinions around one helps to knock out bad ideas and facilitates the molding of good ones. Every good leader knows that. As Matthew Pinsker notes, though, it did not work out too well for Lincoln.

Finally, there is the Union-stomping elephant in the room. Lincoln's Presidency has become a myth, much like Franklin Roosevelt's reign. Lincoln ruined the very nature of a voluntary union of states under a common law by forcing the Confederacy back into the United States. Putting the issue of slavery aside (and keeping it legal in states which did not secede), Lincoln declared a war to save the Union, but the 'Civil War' led to Lincoln maiming the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus, founded a state, imprisoned and killed civilians, did not support equal rights for blacks (at least not before deporting them), and so on. The excellent Tom DiLorenzo explains here.

Obama is like Lincoln in a few good ways, like his oratory and aims for unity. Let's hope he's not going to ignore the Constitution and strip states of even more of their rights.

Don't Fail Me, Cheeseheads

Here's an excerpt from an article in the New York Times:

Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve...People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.

Now some Wisconsin health officials and civic leaders are calling for the state to sober up. A coalition called All-Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education started a campaign last week to push for tougher drunken driving laws, an increase in screening for alcohol abuse at health clinics and a greater awareness of drinking problems generally.

Here is a good example of the dilemma facing many places where laws do not seem to deter behavior, and we once again find beer as the measuring stick: do we punish everyone (prohibition), or only the offenders? The fact that people drink, even heavily, and even with their children, is no doubt cause for concern on its own, but it is a moral, personal issue. The fact that Wisconsin's drunken driving-related death rate is highest in the country is another story. The article notes, however, that the AWARE group wants to "dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin." Raising AWAREness is one thing, but forcing people not to drink is another. In Wisconsin, it takes until the fifth DUI to be charged with a felony. Rather than giving 12.6 million taxpayer dollars to state agencies for "screening, intervention and referral services" why not simply punish those who break the already existing laws more?

The truth is that most people enjoy alcohol responsibly. That does not mean the "responsibly" promoted in beer promos. I read an article stating that in Australia more than four drinks in one sitting is "binge drinking." Blanket statements like that show little effort by researchers, and I think are attempts at demonizing drinkers. The way to prevent poor behavior is to punish it when it harms someone, not because you don't like it. So Cheeseheads, next time I'm in Wisconsin, drinks are on me.

Bailout Redux

Well, it did not take long. The automakers are lined up like they're in Oliver Twist, asking for more food. They all saw Wall Street bailed out, and now they believe it is their turn. Some lawmakers want the bailout for the auto industry to come out of the bazillion dollar bailout from earlier this year, and some want it to be a separate loan with certain rules. Not surprisingly, the change we can believe in is that there is not change: there is near-consensus on Capitol Hill that we need to do it, and near-consensus throughout America that we are getting hosed.

GM is begging so obviously for free money (after all, they only have $16B cash on hand), that CNN wrote this: GM executives say the $25 billion loan money would come with enough strings attached to it that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis. That's right: getting money they did not earn from taxpayers who may not use their goods cannot have strings attached. It's gotta be free and clear, or GM is not happy. The truth is GM and the other American automakers are going under unless they drastically change their business practices. A blank check is no incentive to do so.

The National Taxpayers Union has an open letter to Congress, which I'm sure will not be read, let alone considered, by nearly all of Congress. In the letter, they make some great points. First, those not working for the "Big 3" in the American auto industry make only 65% on average compared to those working for the American companies. A sound business model, for sure. Next, they say this:

Most Americans recognize that risk is a fundamental element of our economy. Some businesses succeed tremendously, some fail spectacularly. But they should do so at their own risk, not with the unwilling backing of millions of citizens' paychecks. It is little wonder so many American taxpayers feel that Congress is not looking out for them.

Couldn't put it much better.

While I'm at it, here is another good read on the issue:

Bailout to Nowhere by David Brooks Brooks supported the original bailout package, but at least he puts his foot down, albeit too late. He makes an argument against the auto bailout which many made against the financial one: when does it end?

Some interesting links

I am a bit behind on my blog posts this week, and in the interim I thought I'd post some very thought provoking links I came across in my reading this past month.

This first link is to an article by George Will in the Washington Post entitled "'Socialism'? It's already here." Published on Nov. 16th, I think the article ties in nicely with some of the points I made in "The Real Change We Need, Part I" about the similarities between the parties and the hypocrisy of John McCain decrying Obama's so-called socialism, while endorsing it when it comes from the Bush White House. Anyway, definitely worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html

The three links posted below all deal with the book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf. I had not heard of the book until recently, and in my search for more information on it, I came across some interviews that the author gave on the topic. The interviews on YouTube are from last year, while the one given to the A.V. Club is from November 3rd of this year. The videos and article were eye-opening, to say the least, with Wolf comparing the actions of the Bush administration in the last several years to those undertaken by historical fascist and dictatorial movements across the globe; the similarities are very disconcerting. Both YouTube videos go over basically the same information, but they are both worth a watch. Keep an ear open at the end of the first video for what she says about 'candidates supporting the Constitution.' The A.V. Club interview obviously is a more recent take on things. So here are the links:

First YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Second YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs

A.V. Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/naomi_wolf/1

This next link is to an article in the Boston Globe which is also older (from 2006), but worth a read nonetheless. It is entitled "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" and discusses the President's use of signing statements. Here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

After those fairly disconcerting articles and interviews, I thought I'd leave you with something a little lighter. It is another article from Mr. Will, this time about how drinking alcohol may have exerted a selection pressure on the human race; certainly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901934.html

Anyway, enjoy -

Romo

Veterans' Day

It is Veterans’ Day again, a time when we recognize those who have served our country and defended our borders. Many people claim that the men and women in our armed services fight to protect “our freedom(s)”. The phrase has been commandeered by statists and military apologists recently, to the detriment of those who do serve bravely. Beside failing to make the leap from protecting our freedom to forcibly spreading ‘democracy’ (read: rule by a party or cartel of parties of which the current American administration approves) around the world, those on the left and the right ignore the “freedoms” they do not like or would prefer not to confront.

One such right came up this election cycle when it was reported that Gov. Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd, allegedly had been a member of an Alaskan secessionist party. The party was decried in the media, especially on the left, and the word ‘secessionist’ was derided with a contemptuous sneer each time the issue arose. The very mention of ‘secession’ was mocked, when the real problem with the Alaskan Independence Party is that the party’s founder was a violent secessionists, promoting secession specifically through armed revolt. Peaceable secession is nothing to be mocked. In fact, it is the basis of our society. The party now claims that a referendum on Alaskan independence would be accepted by its members, regardless of the result. That sounds much more like reasonable discourse on the legitimacy of our government than a group of crazy, gun-toting Yosemite Sams in snowshoes.

Thomas Jefferson wrote prodigiously on the issue of the “consent of the governed,” which even appears in the Declaration of Independence, America’s own secessionist document. How can a secular state, which has no Divine Right or other external claims to legitimacy, not recognize that the people are allowed, and even obligated, to change or disband their government when it no longer serves the people? Without the people the government does not exist; as Jefferson writes, it is the people “to whom all authority belongs.”

Zogby put out a poll in July which found that 22% of Americans think peaceable secession is a right for states or regions. Of those polled, fewer said they would support such a movement, which is a great sign that people are thinking about the issue rationally, as showing support for a right which one does not personally advocate displays empathy, logic and fairness. Interestingly, 44% of those polled felt that the United States governmental system is broken and cannot be fixed by two-parties and elections. If the last point is not a clear indication that the American people are becoming aware that the two parties have an alliance to protect their power, I’m afraid we’ll never have one.

In all, secession is not likely, whether by a state, like Alaska or California, or a region, as the case of Jefferson, a proposed state consisting of parts of Oregon and northern California; however, the right to do so is pre-American, and every veteran who has fought to preserve the rights of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and spirit of America has done so to protect that ability as well.



EDIT: here's an article from lewrockwell.com on changes they'd like to see over there.

Where do our rights come from?

In every country, in every treatise, in every essay and every thought on human freedom, the question emerges: where do our rights come from? Each time you watch television in America and the host of the program refers to the right of free speech, or the right to bear arms, he or she assumes the origin of those rights, which are spelled out in the Constitution and its Amendments. In the United Nations Charter, every person on earth is guaranteed “life, liberty and security of person” by signatories of the Charter. Most famously, John Locke declared more aptly that humans are all entitled to life, liberty and property. Regardless, one must examine the root of all these thoughts before determining where rights come from.

One very common claim, especially in the United States, is that God secures our rights. Unfortunately, there is no sound proof that there is a God, let alone that he grants us rights. Beside not clearly stating what our rights are, he also conveniently leaves it to us to enforce them. Men violate rights which are guaranteed by some religions, but not others. Even in states where God’s laws rule, like Sharia in some Muslim nations, violations can occur and go unpunished. Finally, we can and do create rights without any deity’s sanction, and in fact America’s separation of church and state requires that we do so to protect those who do not defer to the Almighty. Since there is no way to either adequately discern or enforce any human rights God may endorse, we must remove them from discussion of where our legal rights as American citizens derive.

Another common argument, also seen from early in American political discourse, is the idea of natural rights. Having natural rights implies that simply being born a human being guarantees that we are endowed with special privileges and ‘inalienable’ qualities; however, what rights of nature cannot be violated? Which rights are guaranteed? Certainly an American in Yosemite alone for a week is not protected by natural rights from starving, drowning or being eaten or mauled. Even the idea of justice has no bearing on the natural world, as revenge, retribution and punishment are essentially unknown to any animal but man. Why, then, do we claim that rights are natural?

The truth, then, is that we made rights up. Humans created rights. They are a product of our sense of obligation, of right and wrong, of preference. The law of man is violable, though, just as the laws of a god are. Erase the law, and you erase the right. Laws are dangerous: they are subjective, opinionated, biased in every way. None of our rights exist a priori, and none are guaranteed, except by collectively enforcing them.