Why Al Franken Has More Guts Than Rush Limbaugh

Allow me to begin by saying that I am no fan of Al Franken and I’m not specifically picking on Rush Limbaugh. If and when Al Franken takes his seat in the senate, it will be a bad day for America. And I am using Rush Limbaugh as an example for all the radio and television talk show hosts, all the writers and bloggers out there including myself, who have ever despaired of the direction of the country, deplored the behavior of our elected politicians and thought that we had more common sense in our little finger that they had in their whole body.
The media has an important function in our society, which is why it is referred to in the first amendment. The ability to educate, inform and persuade is a powerful tool in the political process. But for all the words spoken by Rush and the other talk show hosts, for all the words written in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, the stimulus package passed for want of one vote in the senate. Government health care, a nearly four trillion dollar budget, cap and trade may all be forced on us for the lack of one or two votes.
For all the talking, all the educating, all the informing done by talk radio and other conservative/alternative media, the country is falling rapidly into the black hole of statism. Why? First, while Rush’s fifteen to twenty million listeners sounds like a lot, there are over three hundred million people in this country, over one hundred million voters. And not all those listeners agree with Rush’s viewpoint, some are just entertained, and this goes for all of talk radio. The point here is that the vast majority of people in the country don’t tune in to talk radio, they don’t follow the news closely, they are not politically educated or aware. As products of a government education and fans of reality TV, they easily fall for a demagogue like Barak Obama.
Second, it is an “us vs them” approach to politics and this is encouraged by the behavior of both sides. On one side is the “us”, the average citizen who actually seeks to inform himself and those who seek to do the informing. Then there is the “them”, the “political class”, the people who actually make the rules that govern our lives, rules that are increasingly intrusive and destructive. Too often we have the mindset that we are merely subjects of the king who stand outside the palace gates shouting our pleas and hoping we are heard. On the other side of the gate is the political class who turn a deaf ear to our pleas because they are confident in their power and position. When the vast majority of the incumbents are elected regardless of what they do, they see no problem ignoring the interests of anyone but themselves. The whole system turns on its head. Instead of serving us, the politicians serve themselves. Instead of seeing ourselves as part of the process, we are reduced to servants of the political class. We fear them, they don’t fear us. According to Thomas Jefferson, that is the definition of tyranny.
This was a primary cause of the revolution. Parliament and the king, three thousand miles away, were making the rules without any input from the colonists. They were free to ignore them because there was nothing, short of armed insurrection, the colonists could do about it. The colonists could not vote for any representation yet they were told they were British subjects and had to follow the dictates of such an elected body. Today, we have the same problem. Washington may as well be on the moon for the amount of impact we, as average citizens, have on it.
Finally, and this is probably the most important point, talk radio, and the media in general, is reactionary by its very nature. Commentators, by definition, are reacting to something that has already happened. News, by definition, is a description of an event in the past. Conservatism by its very name, is reactionary. It seeks to conserve the status quo, conserve the liberty that remains. If we look back on the last hundred years, or even the decades since President Reagan, any objective observer can see that as a movement, it has done a lousy job “conserving” liberty. Government has grown and liberty has retreated under both major parties. For all the growth of talk radio and the “alternative” media, its real impact has been negligible because it is reactionary and has no cohesive agenda.
That is why the progressives, the statists, have been so successful. First, they have a cohesive agenda and a long term vision. If all else fails they can fall back on Marx as an ideological rallying point. Everything they do is geared toward expanding the power of the state until everything is under its, and their, control. Second, they are patient and persistent. If something does not work, they try something else with the same goal in mind. They will use legislation, the courts, the mob, executive order, bureaucratic fiat, whatever it takes to get their way. Third, they manipulate language to confuse their enemies. Look at he words liberal and conservative. Liberal once meant what libertarian does now. Personally, that is why I don’t use it. I prefer statist, one who believes in the state. Conservative now means bigot, out of touch, sexist, redneck, hyper-Christian homophobe. President Obama is moving this along at a rapid clip. Success no longer means money but the poverty of government service. Wealth is evil, freedom is slavery, ignorance is bliss. Finally, and this is by no means a comprehensive list, the statist knows how to set the agenda. We have been dancing to the statist tune for one hundred years. Some may have tried a few new steps but the music hasn’t changed.
If those of us who love liberty want to save our country from the statist vision that is quickly becoming a permanent reality, we must stop being reactionary. We cannot be like the little boy with his finger in the dike because there is an army on the other side always drilling new holes. The dike needs to be rebuilt with an impenetrable steel and concrete structure we once knew at the constitution. The only way to restore the constitution is to take power away from Washington, not to simply stop them from acquiring more. Consider the original Revolution. Samuel Adams and his friends in the Sons of Liberty didn’t just write letters to parliament and the king asking them to please not take away their God given rights. They had an agenda, independence, that they worked towards for twenty years through networking, protests, pamphlets, “slanted” news, property destruction and intimidation of government officials; whatever they could do to move toward the goal of liberty.
It is time we stopped reacting and started acting. It is time those who loved liberty started setting the agenda and removing the ability of our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to make our lives miserable. If ACORN can rent a mob to intimidate corporate officials, it is time we showed up outside the homes of our elected officials with signs and pitchforks to get their attention. It is time we stopped being intimidated and started doing the intimidating. We need to develop long range plans to eliminate all non constitutional functions from government. For example, we can start with the Department of Education. The statist knows that as long as he can keep creating good little government robots through government education, his plans will succeed. If we return education to the state, and ultimately, the local level, we will once again have control. We need to defund the government. I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that income taxes are immoral and therefore we should work toward repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Without the ability to take our wealth, it will be hard to redistribute it. The seventeenth amendment should go as well to to give the states themselves a voice in government as originally intended.
Ultimately, however, we need legislators who believe in the liberty of the people more than their own power who will introduce and pass such legislation. Al Franken threw his hat in the ring for the statist agenda. It is time those who talk a good game “put some skin in the game” as Joe Biden said. It is time to put up or shut up. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty were not just rabble rousers. Many of them were elected assemblymen who shaped the course of our nation’s history. If men like Rush Limbaugh really care about the country, prove it. Do what needs to be done to change it. Take the pay cut and endure the media “anal exam” and put yourself in a position to really accomplish something. The statists have plenty of leaders, the lovers of liberty have none. We need a plan and courageous men and women to push it forward. Not career politicians but people who are willing to step forward as they did in the past to do a job that needs to be done. If it doesn’t start happening now, if the agenda is not removed from the hands of the statist, the country our children inherit will be a nation no Son of Liberty would recognize.

Capitalism and the Culture war

The imminent departure of Justice Souter has brought all the old issues to the forefront as the sides gear up for the battle over the next judicial appointment. The issues of the “culture war”, as most people understand it, will fill the pages of what newspapers are left, and become endless fodder for the talking heads on television. They will discuss abortion, gay rights and marriage, school prayer, civil rights and a whole host of other issues. For now, however, we are going to forget the fact that giving so much power to these nine people, and the judiciary in general, was not the intention of the founders of this country. What I am going to propose to the reader is the idea that the culture war cannot be won without reestablishing the individual freedom that is part and parcel of free market capitalism. The free market economic system, by its very nature, encourages the development of values that make societies vibrant, healthy and successful. It is cause and effect. In a free society where individuals are empowered and there is little government interference or control, people are responsible and innovative and local communities are strong. They have to be because there is no outside entity to rely on. In societies where power and wealth is concentrated at the top and the people are powerless, there is no incentive for people to be responsible or industrious because there is no reward or upward mobility. Those at the top are manipulative and corrupt politicians who care only about the maintenance of their power. This creates a stagnant society that produces nothing of value and soon enters the dustbin of history.

I will offer a few cases to illustrate my point. In the ancient world, the democracies of Greece and the republic of Rome created societies that grew into empires. The empires and the dictatorships they degenerated into were their downfall but in their heyday the free citizens of these nations achieved great things. The outnumbered Greeks defeated the Persians again and again. The Roman republic rose from a small city state to an empire that surrounded the Mediterranean and beyond. A more recent example, other than our own in America, was the rise of the British empire. Although smaller in land area and more recent in organization than many of the nations of the continent, Britain limited its monarchy, empowered its citizens and rose to become a world power. In opposition to nations like Spain, who achieved power and wealth through conquest and enslavement, Britain achieved her wealth and power primarily through trade, that is free market capitalism. Growth through conquest, by its very nature, is limited, which is why Spain’s exploitation of the New World did not create staying power on the world stage. Britain's empire, on the other hand, was based primarily on trade, free market capitalism. However, the traits made these nations great and powerful were abandoned and resulted in their downfall. Power became concentrated at the top whether in the person of an emperor or king or, the case of Britain, the government as a whole. Moral and literal corruption set in among the people and decline became inevitable.

What does this have to do with the culture war, you may be asking? Everything. For a society to be successful for the long term, it must have citizens that make it so. A great leader may make a nation powerful in the short run but for a nation to have staying power, success measured in centuries, not years or decades, that nation must have successful people. Those kinds of people are developed in societies that value individual liberty and economic freedom and are suppressed by totalitarian societies. This applies to all areas of the culture, not just military prowess. Most societies throughout history, because the individuals in that society were responsible for the consequences of their actions, developed a set of mores and values, a moral code, that enabled the individual within that society to thrive within the confines of his political and economic environment. The central position of the family, nuclear and extended, respect and honesty in dealing with others, frugality and forethought in economics, organization and charity in the local community, the need to be self educated, respect for life and religious devotion, these are all things that people one hundred and fifty years ago took for granted as the norm.
I would argue the reason for these norms is not primarily due to religious or ideological input but that they came about as a result of trial and error through the centuries. At a basic level, people are motivated by one thing, their own self interest. The reason this does not create a society of narcissists is because people realize that if they are to survive and thrive, it is in their self interest to follow the norms and values previously listed. It makes their lives better in the long run because everyone understands the consequences of violating those values. To illustrate this, let’s look at a typical family one hundred and fifty years ago. When a child is born to a poor family, as soon as he is able he begins to work on the family farm or in the family business. His parents are strict but fair because they know that he and his brothers and sisters are their security in the old age. So raising those children to accept the “civil religion” is a necessity for their prosperity because it encourages hard work, frugality, honesty and responsibility. The parents take care of their parents until they die and those parents pass down their wealth and values to their children. The married couple knows infidelity would destroy the family they all depend on. The children would be harmed and in the future, they could have no one to care for them. “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” was the basis for their economic decisions because if they went under, they would lose everything they, and their parents, had worked for. In order to be prosperous, they needed to show themselves honest and trustworthy to their neighbors and community, which was central in meeting needs that could not be met by the individual.
Now, remove the consequences of ignoring those values. Hundreds of years ago, it was the “ruling class”, secure in their economic circumstances, that could string along a series of mistresses, consider children a nuisance, gamble and treat all those around them with contempt. Then came the industrial revolution and the migration into the cities, which resulted in the deterioration of these values among more of the poor and working class. Moving to the cities changed the circumstances that created the previous values and produced a new set. The extended family was no longer part of the equation because people left their families to go to the cities. The anonymity of a city loosened the bonds of the community and its ability to censure behavior. Without community censure, people could engage in all kinds of personal and economic activities that would have been frowned upon in a small community and the mobility of a rootless existence allowed people to escape some of the consequences of their behavior. It is in cities where civil society takes a few steps backwards and crime and corruption become the rule rather than the exception.

Move forward to the present. Because of the mobility and anonymity of a society in which only a very small percentage of the people live in rural circumstances, the previous trends have become widespread. What makes it exponentially worse is that we now have a government that has inserted itself into the mix and removed any economic consequences from behavior that was previously understood as negative. In fact, they now subsidize that behavior and by doing so, encourage it. Once upon a time, unwed, teenage pregnancy was a stigma to be avoided, and an economic disaster. Now, the government subsidizes that behavior and, lo and behold, we have more of it. As we get more of it, society begins to accept it and now we have a whole generation of young people who see nothing wrong with it and a government that is expected to help for the sake of the “children”. Too lazy to work? There is welfare. Got in over your head with debt? The government will rescue you too. Tired of your spouse? No fault divorce if for you. Children a nuisance? The government has day care, pre-school and K-12 education to keep them out of your hair and remove the pesky responsibility of actually raising them from you, if you can just put up with a few evenings and weekends. Community and individual relationships deteriorate because and individual's primary relationship, in all the areas that really matter, is with the state. We no longer depend on each other for help, we depend on the government. This is a disaster because our self interest is no longer directed at our neighbors. We see no reason to be civil, honest or compassionate toward them because there is no longer the mutual expectation of assistance strong communities once fostered. Now we are interested only in “pleasing” the state because that is where our needs for assistance are met.

Any government that inserts itself to such an extent and takes on this much responsibility also takes control and creates a distorted and unhealthy society. Common sense would indicate that this is counterintuitive, so why do governments choose paths that support detrimental behavior? Because it creates dependency and by doing so, enhances the state’s power. Politicians in such a state are willing to sacrifice the long term health of society for the short term gains they experience. There is one other motivation we can ascribe to politicians who proscribe destructive policies on the country they are supposed to be serving. They are doing it with the full knowledge that what they are doing is destructive and that destruction is the objective, not an unfortunate side effect of their pursuit of power. In the United States there is a certain segment of society that has been taught that America is the root of all evil in society, that free market capitalism is the cause of all injustice, that American military might is responsible for all the oppression in the world and therefore, America, as we know it, needs to be destroyed so something better can grow in its place. Unfortunately, many of the people who think this way are now in charge. It is a lethal combination. On the one hand you have people adopting policies that will destroy what made this country great. On the other hand, there are people that are adopting statist policies because they enhance their own power. The policies are the same and the two groups make a majority. It would appear that we are now on a rapidly accelerated path to a totalitarian state and it is we who have placed the bonds on ourselves.

So what does such a society look like, what will we look like very soon? For the masses, that would be you and I, we become like the people of the Roman Empire in its decline. The emperors who ruled absolutely with just a sham of a republic kept the people happy with free bread and entertainment. The people themselves, in a society in which they are basically powerless, have no incentive for being responsible, industrious or ambitious. There are no rewards for acting in such a way for there is no possibility of moving up and improving one’s lot, nor is there a downside to acting irresponsibly because the free bread is always there.

Even worse than this is the way one actually does achieve anything of value. When the government controls everything significant, politically and economically, the only way to get ahead is to do so in the context of the governmental system. Within the artificial construct of the political system the way to get ahead is through favors, backstabbing and corruption. This has always been true and will always be true. Power corrupts, which is why the founders of this country did their best to limit government, they wanted to limit its corruptive influence. But with an unlimited government the corruption is unlimited because everything is within the sphere of a system that by its very nature encourages corruption.

This then becomes the nature of a totalitarian society, and I use that term in its true sense-there is no cultural, economic or individual sphere of activity that exists outside of the government’s interest and control. The masses of people are reduced to serfs, occupying space until the state has need of their labor or blood. They are kept stupid and left lazy for the state takes care of all their needs and the state controlled media convinces them they have the best life they can expect, the best life the government can give them. People are reduced to commodities to be used rather than individuals who have value in and of themselves. Those who rise up economically or politically do so according to the corruption endemic to such a system. Those who do achieve prominence do so not because they are the best and the brightest but because they play the political game better than anyone else. They lie, cheat, steal and deceive better than their countrymen. The rule of law means nothing, it is rule according to the whims of those in power and they achieve their aims through intimidation and violence. This was life in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It is a losing hand. Why did Hitler lose the war when he had achieved such great conquests? Because a statist society is limited by those at the top and the free societies of America and Britain had the depth to recover from their deficiencies at the beginning of the war and utilize their resources, material and intellectual, more efficiently. The Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency after decades of state control. Under the communists they produced nothing of value for the rest of the world in any area of endeavor. It was the system and the kind of citizen it produced that led to their downfall. In every other nation that has adopted the statist vision under whatever name-socialism, fascism or communism-their societies have stagnated or they are torn by unrest due to the oppression. There has never been a statist society that was a long term success. Its very nature leads to its destruction.

In the age of Obama the choices are becoming more clear on the surface but in many ways, we have lost the battle for the soul of our nation. The founders were very wise men who understood the nature of individuals and governments better than most. The knew that within some men, the desire to control was insatiable and such men would choose to use the power of government to achieve their aims. By specifically limiting government, the tools of the would be despot would be limited and blunt. It was also understood that one cannot have just a “little bit” of statism/socialism just like one cannot have a little bit of cancer. It is freedom, economic and political, that makes a strong society and statism is a cancer that eats away at that freedom. It needs to be destroyed as soon as it becomes apparent. The sooner it is eliminated, the easier it is and the better the prognosis of the patient.

Today, however, we have allowed the cancer to spread unchecked, and have embraced it. The cancer of statist control, that is totalitarianism, has wrapped its evil tentacles around every area of society. By allowing it to do so we have shifted the battle lines from whether statism is good or not to what degree of statism is good or bad. We now argue about how to “reform” statist programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare. That is not the argument we should be having. These programs are bankrupting the country, morally and economically, and a tweak here or there will do nothing except delay the inevitable because the programs themselves, like a cancer, are bad for the country. The cultural issues we opened with are another example. We argue about where the state should come down on the issues of gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, school prayer and a host of other issues. The argument should really be about whether the state should have any say in these issues at all! But the vast majority of people in this country have conceded that ground, they have come to accept the statist vision and all we are left with is the debate over the terms of liberty’s surrender.

Of course, I can hear the chorus of critics now. You hate old people, you want people to be sick, you have no compassion! There is the buzz word for our time. We must be “compassionate” which means we must allow the state to take our money and spend it on programs that are supposed to heal all our social ills. How’s that working out? Have we eliminated poverty through our government forced charity? No. Government welfare has created a permanent underclass in this country and destroyed the black family. Is that compassion? Is it compassionate to rob the productive of future generations to pay a pittance to senior citizens today? Is it compassionate to ration health care, denying people treatment because a bureaucrat has decided that it isn’t “cost effective”? Is it compassionate to force children to attend dangerous schools where they are taught few, if any, skills necessary to assist them in the “real world”? Most cities are run by statists and are rife with crime and corruption. Is it compassionate to create such an environment for people to live in? Liberty is the most compassionate thing of all because it empowers people to be self sufficient in meeting their needs, it does not put us in the straightjacket of government acceptability. It empowers communities to effectively meet the needs of the “poorest” among us with innovation and effectiveness. It strengthens familles to work together to provide loving, nurturing environments for children and senior citizens. Liberty does not rob our children and grandchildren to pay for our stupidity. Liberty does not create dependency through lies and deceit. Liberty brings out the best in people, it encourages real compassion. Liberty puts the power and responsibility for your life where it belongs, with you.

By forcing our hand, perhaps President Obama has given some degree of hope to those that love liberty. He is forcing the American people to look at the statist vision in stark terms. We are asking the question as never before, “Do we really want the state in charge of every aspect of our lives?” People are looking at the spending, the waste, the lies, the corruption and the total lack of common sense that is endemic to Washington and wondering if this is really the path we want to go down. The monumental task before the sons of liberty is to convince the people that stopping here is not the solution. Sure, we want to fight government run health care and illegal immigration but hasn’t the last forty years taught us anything? The statist will just come back and try again, hoping new language or a new generation will accept their vision. Statism is a cancer, probing, growing and expanding into every area it can. If it is stopped in one place, it will find another. Stopping the growth of a cancer is only a stopgap measure, it will grow again as soon as the pressure is off or it will grow unseen in other areas. The cancer must be taken out, piece by piece until it is gone. If government health care is bad, why do we put up with Medicare? If welfare destroys families and encourage negative behavior, why should we have it at all? Why should we allow the government to take our income throughout our lives and then give us a pittance to live on when we could do much better on our own? Most people still believe the government doesn’t do anything well outside its constitutionally enumerated powers. For those of us who love liberty, we must encourage that sentiment and push it to its logical conclusion. The very survival of our nation and society is in the balance and President Obama and the statists with him are trying hard to push it over the edge, past the point of no return. These are the times in which the true measure of a man is revealed. Will we go quietly into the long night of statism, sacrificing what little liberty remains for the empty promises of state security? Or will we grasp the robes of lady liberty and embrace and exercise the freedom and responsibility we were created with and entrusted with by the men who founded this nation? The choice is ours and the whole world, literally, awaits our decision.

The Socialist Lie in America

The other morning I was watching a documentary on Fidel Castro made in the late sixties, less than a decade after the “revolution”. The film crew was allowed to follow him around the countryside as he met with the Cuban people. He rode around in his jeep wearing his trademark green uniform, he and his army escort bouncing over muddy roads. He was doing what statist politicians have always done-listen to every problem, no matter how trivial, and promise to fix it. He promised roads to every village and milk to every family. He vowed to root out corruption and provide a pension for every man and woman “just for being old”. All the people smiled and cheered, believing that he cared about them as individuals and that father Fidel would take care of their every need. Hmmm, sounds familiar....I can hear a faint chant....”Yes we Can!”
The most telling part of the program for me was an interview they had with a jeweler/watchmaker. Before the revolution he had his own shop and made a good living. He had a nice house and a good car. After the revolution, however, he said that the first thing Fidel and his gang did was eliminate private businesses. The man continued what he was doing but the shop was no longer his and he was now paid a wage he said was a fifth of what he made before. I was nodding in agreement at this point. We see it here. President Obama is following the same playbook. He is forcing himself and the federal government into the private sector, nationalizing industries, extending government control, firing CEOs and determining what people make, not just at the low end, but at the high end as well. The goal is to raise the low end a little, bring the high end down a lot, until everyone makes and has the same amount of money regardless of talent, productivity or laziness.
Continuing with the interview, the man then talked about the benefits he received from Fidel. His children went to school, one of them even became a doctor. He didn’t have to pay a cent. When his wife had a baby, all the costs were covered, he paid nothing. Then he smiled and delivered the punchline-when one considers all the stuff he gets for free, “I make more now than I did before!” He weighed the loss of his freedom to do with the fruits of his labor what he wanted against the benefits of Fidel’s program and decided he was better off. At least he was honest.
That is more than I can say for what is going on with the statists in this country. For the jeweler in Cuba, he could weigh the loss of eighty percent of his income against the benefits of “free” health care and education and decide that for him it was a net benefit. He believed the loss of his freedom, political and economic, was worth it. Of course, I suppose he could have just been putting on a good face about it. After all, Fidel and his boys didn’t give him a choice.
In this country, we are being lied to about our socialist benefits. The jeweler in Cuba understood at some level that his “free” benefits cost him eighty percent of his income, the loss of his property rights and his political freedom. We are being told that for “ninety-five percent” of us, the socialist benefits really are “free”. Candidate and president Obama said ninety-five percent of the people would get a tax cut even if the majority of those ninety-five percent didn’t pay taxes in the first place. Against that promise are the promises of Fidel, free health care and education for all and...wait, there’s more. The government will also help pay your mortgage, buy you a car, give you a job and “if you let us act now, we’ll double the offer and it won’t cost you a penny.”
It is a lie, of course, because even if taxes aren’t raised on the sixty percent that pay nothing, or next to nothing, the amount of spending necessary to provide all of these things is unsustainable without reaching into the pockets of more and more Americans. The problem is that as long as there are people like the Chinese who will lend us money at low rates, we can print the rest without igniting runaway inflation and we can squeeze more out of the top five percent that pay the majority of the taxes, it will be “free” for the majority and they will encourage the statist to do more. Even if they dimly understand the loss of freedom that government involvement entails, rationed health care for example, the majority will look on it as a net gain. Unlike the Cuban jeweler, they will lose little or no income to receive their benefits. In reality, for a short time, it will be a net gain. Money they don’t have to put into health insurance is more disposable income for them. Money they save on a subsidized mortgage is more money in their pocket. If they don’t have to contribute to their child’s education they have money they can put into a new, eco-friendly car. Its all free money! No wonder it is such an easy sell.
There is no “free lunch” however. Sooner or later our credit will become worthless and interest rates will go sky high, if we can get anyone to lend to us at all. Inflation will result in government payments for all the “freebies” being made with worthless dollars. And when the government controls the majority of the economy and taxes the productive to the point they see no point in producing, they will have killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs. When (not if) all these things happen, the true cost of all the freebies will come home to all Americans with a vengeance. All those generous benefits will be cut drastically or eliminated. Everyone’s production will be taxed at exorbitant rates. Dollars will be nearly worthless. Productive industries will have been ruined through government intervention and the economic infrastructure as well as the human capital within it will have been damaged to such an extent recovery will take a very long time.
The question is when all this happens, when the mighty United States of America has been reduced to such an extent, when all our incomes are taxed at eighty percent or more, when we have lost our rights to private property and political freedom is just a distant memory purged from the history books, will we smile and say with our Cuban friend, “I’m better off now than I was before”?

The End of the Republican Party

Recently the leaders of the Republican party have gone on a “listening tour” to try to find a way to recover from their recent losses. They are trying to figure out what it is that will appeal to voters in the age of Obama. Sounds like a focus group effort to me and if that is the case, its all over for the Republicans. There is a simple reason for their recent losses. The Democrat party is much better at selling big government and all its benefits than are the Republicans.
Here is the problem for the Republican image. They say they are the party of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national defense and social conservatism. But for six years, when they had all the power in Washington, they were fiscally irresponsible, they grew government and didn’t even make an attempt at waging war for social conservatism. The evidence points to the fact that we don’t have a two party system anymore. We have one party, the party of “Big, Powerful, Intrusive Government”, with two wings. One wing has been at the game a long time, the other is a neophyte. The Republican neophytes, however, are finding that their usefulness parallels that of a sixth toe. The voters don’t want two parties that pursue the same agenda with different language; they want real choices. Unfortunately, the system is rigged against “outsiders” so the choices remain what they are and a larger and larger percentage of the people feel disenfranchised as they lose their liberty.
The Republicans have a great advantage, if they chose to utilize it. The majority of the people in this country, for the moment, still believe in liberty. They believe in fiscal responsibility, they are socially conservative. They want to control our borders, they want smaller government, they want to hear English. When such ideas have been articulated in the past, they resulted in landslide victories for Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. There are still people in the Republican party that believe this but they seem to be a rapidly shrinking minority. Just look at the last presidential candidate for the proof.
The rise of Sarah Palin and Bobby Gindal may give some conservatives a glimmer of hope but I will tell you here and now why the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs. It is more than a problem of image, it is a problem of courage. The Democrats don’t believe in the give and take of the two party system. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and the reins of government belong in their hands and no other. To a Democrat, the ends justify the means, the rule of law is only useful when it can be used against an opponent, it does not apply to them. Their only principle is the acquisition of power. In this current administration this principle is on display for everyone to see and they are not ashamed of it. The strong arm tactics of President Obama and his cronies would have made Mussolini smile. The naked grab for power in the private sector would have brought a chuckle to Stalin. Encouraging death threats against corporate leaders who dare oppose his will would have brought nods of approval from Hitler.
The crux of the matter is this. The Republicans are not going to become the party of conservatism or, dare I say it, liberty, because that would put them fully in the cross hairs of a Democrat party whose aim is to destroy the opposition by any means possible. It takes a person of great courage to stand up against that kind of onslaught and a career politician is not that kind of person. Why did Sarah Palin connect with so many people? Because she was like us. She was forthright in her speech, she had principles and she stood up for them even when it wasn’t easy. The American people respect that and the Democrats can’t stand it. Palin was not the kind of person that could be bought or intimidated so she has to be destroyed. Dick Cheney was the same way, that is why he was the most hated man on the Hill for eight years.
To make sure that no Republican ever challenges the Democrat agenda in a meaningful way again, even if they do happen to win an election now and then, they have entertained the possibility of prosecuting former administration officials for activities that were legal at the time but now meet with disapproval by those in power, i.e. Democrats. With the thought that a future administration is going to drag an official into court, ruining their reputation and bankrupting them in the process, is anyone going to take any risks? In anyone going to offer an opinion that goes against the statist vision for this country? Is anyone within the government going to stand up for the people’s freedom? No.
In addition to image and courage, the Republicans have a wrong headed strategy for growing the party. The Democrats have developed a strong base of support among those who benefit from the government's largess and contribute little or nothing to receive it. Add to this the unions and community activists who support their Marxist vision and the possibility they will incorporate millions of illegal immigrants into their voting block and they have a secure and formidable base of support. If the Republicans try to compete for that base, they will lose. If they are too intimidated to espouse the principles of the people in this country that still love liberty, they will lose. Unfortunately, it would appear that the leadership of the party is following those tends exactly and by so doing, will accompany the Whigs into the dustbin of history.

Pirates!

The attack on the Meresk Alabama, the heroic actions actions of its captain and the capture of one of the pirates has brought what many thought was an old problem to the forefront. The fact that piracy, some of it supported by terrorists, has been a problem in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia for decades, has been ignored until now. The sad thing is that now that we are recognizing the problem, we have a president who has shown no willingness to be hard on terrorists or pirates.
In the old days, men convicted of piracy were hung outside of large ports to serve as a warning to other mariners who may be tempted to follow in their footsteps. Two hundred years ago we would have tried this criminal and hung him in some port in Somalia to serve as a warning to any of his countrymen who may be tempted to attack another US flagged vessel. Instead, we are going to have a show trial, more like a circus probably, and if the man is even convicted, he will spend his days in conditions far better than those in Somalia, at our expense. When word gets back to Somalia that their compatriot is given three squares a day and a comfortable bed as his punishment, they will be emboldened, just as terrorists who end up in Club Gitmo with constitutional rights and the possibility of being tried and released in the United States are emboldened.
The fact of war is this, and this fact applies to criminals, terrorists or belligerent states. The only way to deter aggressive behavior is to make the consequences of their actions when caught exponentially more horrible than the possible rewards. That is why so many politicians are crooks, there are rarely any consequences for their behavior. The only way to curb piracy is to eliminate the pirates. Piracy and terrorism are basically the same thing, there are simply different goals. The terrorist wants some political reward, the pirate wants a financial one. Piracy, because it is rarely ideological, is easier to cure because few intelligent men and women are willing to risk their lives for money. That is because criminals are basically cowards and why states that have concealed carry laws have lower crime rates.
On the high seas, the pirates know that merchant vessels are unarmed and if they can get past the water cannons, they have the possibility of great reward with little real risk. If, however, there was a security contingent on board who would not hesitate to shoot with real weapons, the pirates would avoid vessels from nations who have so secured their commerce. Over and above that, we have the most powerful navy in the history of the world but it it is not allowed to fire a shot, what is the point? Intimidation will not work if the other side knows you are bluffing. If a group of young men is cruising around armed to the teeth, they need to be stopped and if they don’t stop, blown out of the water. Men who take up the life of pirates or terrorists are violent men who only understand the language of violence. It is time we dropped the Politically Correct mumbo-jumbo and spoke a language they understand. The lives of good people from all seafaring nations depends on it.

The Myth of the Obvective Media

The Myth of the Objective Media

Enshrined in the Constitution, in the first amendment, are the words “Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:”. The founders understood that the communication of ideas, either as individuals or within organizations known as “the press”, was a fundamental right and crucial to the operation of a democracy. They knew that if the government controlled speech and could suppress speech that was critical of it, the people would not be able to make informed decisions when they voted and power would collocate around those who controlled the speech.
Now some may be thinking, that is what we have now. The “mainstream media”, consisting of the major network television broadcasts and a majority of newspapers, is in the pocket of the statists in the Democrat party and they have brainwashed the American people. The other side argues that the “alternative media”, made up primarily of talk radio and the Internet, it unfair to its ideas and programs. Both sides may complain that they are treated unfairly by some member of “the press” but I would argue that this is exactly what the founders intended. The idea that “the press” as a whole is to be objective is a myth we have created for ourselves and was not in any way, shape or form that held by the people of the eighteenth century. If you had an idea or a point of view you wanted to disseminate, you had three choices. First, if you could get the listeners, you could make speeches. Second, you could write a pamphlet. This is what Thomas Paine did with “Common Sense” and in so doing, gave the final push to the Continental Congress to declare for independence. I’m sure King George did not think it a “fair and objective” treatment of his policies. Finally, you could start a newspaper. Samuel Adams and his friends did this to support their revolutionary ideas, as did Thomas Jefferson when he formed his political party in opposition to John Adams. His paper was anything but objective and everyone knew it and accepted it.
The point is that “the press” was understood to have a point of view and its dissemination of the news was understood to support that point of view, a point of view that was political in nature. The papers themselves advertised this fact in their names-the Democrat this or the Republican that. There was no regulation of these papers and the market determined their success of failure. Samuel Adams’ first paper lasted only two years but some of those early papers continue to this day. If their ideas and viewpoint attracted people, it was a success; if they were not, it went under. For the politically active, getting your product noticed in the marketplace of ideas was just as difficult then as it is now.
Over the years, the press has not changed but our perception of it has. We expect the press to simply “give us the facts” and let us fit it into our ideological understanding. We created the myth of media objectivity where there was none, never has been and never will be. Much of the press, for its part, has bought into the myth as well and believes that it is objective and unbiased, lying to itself. Given this situation, we have two choices. We can complain that the media is not what we think it should be, which is what most of those on the “right” do. Or was can delude ourselves into believing that what we receive from the major media outlets is objective and simply swallow their “spin” as true. This is what the majority of Americans who don’t have the will, desire or time to think critically about the issues choose to do. Why? Here is the real issue. Most Americans are products of government schools whose objective, because they are government schools, is to turn out a product that will support the idea that government is good and all the things government does, or tries to do, are good. Americans are not taught to think critically in school, we are not taught to be discerning. Therefore, when students come out of the system, they naturally gravitate toward media that support the worldview they have been spoon-fed for over a decade of their young lives. The more the Federal government controls the schools, the worse this tendency is going to be. The founders knew this which is why there was no “Department of Education” for almost two hundred years. Education was understood to be a family and community matter, not a government matter.
Today, there are more choices than ever before when it comes to receiving information and viewpoints and because of that fact, people who receive it are forced to learn to think critically and be discerning. The marketplace works and we need to let it work, particularly in the areas of political ideology. Any suggestion by any political official that we need regulation in the media should be met with strong opposition. Failing papers should not be “bailed out”, talk radio should not be subject to any form of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the Internet should not be regulated in any way. The marketplace should determine the success or failure of every idea.
The reality is this. The statist, through years of patient work and indoctrination, has bought off larger and larger segments of the population. The current administration seems to believe that it can do pretty much anything it wants and is not constrained by the Constitution, economic reality or common sense. About one sixth of the population of this great country put these people in office. The great question yet to be decided it this-is this the “tyranny of the minority” or has the statist truly won the ideological battle in the marketplace of ideas? If the latter is true, liberty is lost. If the former is true, will the majority rise up before the statist clamps down on any dissenting ideas? It is a race whose outcome has not yet been decided but in order for liberty to triumph, we must actually enter the contest.

Credit Card Crunch

Credit Card Crunch

The congress has inserted itself in to the private sector again in order to save us from our own laziness and stupidity. It has again gone after the evil banks for providing a service that we desire and is essential to the government’s economic recovery plan. According to both presidents Bush and Obama, we are supposed to go out and spend money in order to stimulate economic growth, encourage business production, create jobs and ultimately, more tax revenue. The problem is, fewer people have money to spend so the government says that we are to do what it does when the cupboards are bare-borrow. In this case, we are supposed to run up our credit cards, if we have not done so already. Forget the fact that this is unsustainable and was a major contributing factor for the mess we are in. Spend, borrow and spend!
The banks have a problem, however. During this downturn, many people are defaulting on their cards and the banks are being stuck with the bill. One has to remember that credit cards are designed for people who either cannot get other credit or have used up other available sources. That is why the interest rates are high, they are riskier loans on the part of the banks. As a whole, we have accepted these terms, voluntarily, for the convenience. Just like we may complain about ATM fees but pay them anyway because we are too lazy to go into the bank to get our own cash, we put up with the “unscrupulous” practices and usurious interest of credit cards for the convenience. Now that a larger percentage of people are defaulting, the banks have to recoup those costs and they do so by squeezing more out of those who have not yet defaulted. Sure, this is tough on the responsible people but they voluntarily entered into those agreements. If any of us decide we don’t like the interest rates or the changing terms, we can pay off the credit and not use it. If we can’t, we must live with our choice. Yes, there are negative consequences whether the results of those choices are paying high interest or putting up with the results of bad credit if we default.
Congress. however, is always looking out for us. They don’t think such practices are “fair” so they are going to prevent the banks from doing the things that will help them meet the bottom line. They want the banks to give credit because they need people to spend but they don’t want the banks to give that credit under circumstances that enable the bank to remain profitable or solvent. Just like they want a viable US auto industry but they won’t push for union concessions or allow them to make the cars that people want. Congress getting involved in any area of the private sector in these ways, intruding into the contractual agreements voluntarily entered into by business and consumer is never good. It will ruin the business and restrict the choices available for the consumer.
Congress, however, has a lot of nerve complaining about unscrupulous practices, bait and switch and the like, by these banks. What about President Obama saying he was going to have the most transparent administration, make available all bills for five days before they are signed and would allow no earmarks in congress’ spending bills? What about the voters in Pennsylvania who elected Republican Specter who has now switched parties? Considering the lies and incompetence constantly on display in congress, the banks look like choirboys in comparison. It is time we acted like responsible men and women and took our lumps when appropriate and told congress to get out of our business.