There is no Serious Problem -- Social, Political or Economic -- that is not Either Caused by or Made Worse by Big Government

Read more!

The Course of Empire Destruction (Thos. Cole, 1836)

For a number of years now I have been posing the title statement as a question.  In print and in conversation.  Crickets and bullfrogs; the query might just as well have been rhetorical.  Few have responded, and no one has ever offered an apposite answer. Big-government types occasionally make an attempt, but only after they've changed the question to suit a prepared answer. The most common response, for example, is to reply that government does some things right, which I've never denied and which is entirely outside the scope of the question.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law (Part I)

Read more!

Hydra

I begin with a brief reprise of a subject about which I have written at length [1] -- the pernicious consequences of any comprehensive reform. I have argued always for incremental reform. Comprehensive reform – by its nature – has two serious weaknesses. The first is hubris; the second, obfuscation and legal murkiness that creates the certainty of mischief.

The American Project Is Undone

Read more!

Humpty Dumpty

For many reasons I have not looked forward to writing this essay.   Some readers will surely view it as a pessimistic and panicky jeremiad; all Henny-Penny.  And I'd love to be wrong; I hope that my arguments will be found wanting and, if not rebutted definitively, at least convincingly.  My thesis is this: America has passed the tipping point in its long journey toward Marxist solipcism; that, barring the miraculous or the sudden emergence of a black swan, we cannot return to being a free society.

Don't Stand If You Can Sit; Don't Work If You Can Steal

Read more!

The Great Train Robbery

Allowing for cultural exceptions, such as the Protestant Work Ethic, labor is most often motivated by the desire to satisfy physical [1] needs.  We don't like to be hungry or cold or thirsty or standing wet in the rain or being unprotected from human enemies and predatory wild things.  Human nature, being what it is, we try to find shortcuts (not always a good thing) and efficiencies (usually good), or when we can get by with it, not work at all. But working is not always necessary, particularly in rich societies where stealing may be an attractive alternative.

Voter ID is Clearly Discriminatory

Read more!

Karl Marx

Laws that require careful verification of a voter's identity discriminate not so much against blacks, Hispanics or other ethnic groups and the poor as against an entire political class -- cheaters.  Known also as Democrats. [1]  Polls indicate that as many as 80% of the American public (including many of those said to be injured) favor stringent voter ID laws.  The Marxist-Progressive Left, however, behind lamentations and crocodile tears, stands in utter contempt of the righteous public will.  Citing a litany of imagined (and therefore real) abuses of helpless 'victims', they howl with feigned outrage.  If strawmen, in company with the dead, could vote, Marxists would never lose another election.

Illegal Immigration: Seen and Not Seen

Read more!

Frederic Bastiat

As with most things in Western politics, America's illegal immigration question is argued within contending narratives.  The Marxist Left points to cultural enrichment, tolerance, virtuous altruism, abundant and cheap labor and "diversity".  Conservatives point to enormous burdens on Federal and local governments in the areas of healthcare, public education, law enforcement and revenues.  Given that both are imperfect, which narrative is more correct?  Does either go beyond what is easily seen?

Evaluating The Republican Field

Read more!

In company with many Tea Party conservatives, I am not particularly sanguine about the current field of Republican candidates.  But my choice at this point is not a difficult one to make.  Simple elimination leaves me supporting only Rick Santorum.  A year ago I would not have thought it possible, but things change.  The candidates currently in the early lead are not, in my view, core conservatives.  If either makes the nomination cut, I will vote for him in the general election.  With all the enthusiasm I felt for John McCain; maybe a tad more...

The big talking-point issue with establishment Republicans in general (and other wobbly conservatives) is "electability".  A combination of hubris and elitism causes too many to think it is a knowable trait.  Makes them confident they know what the electorate will decide in November.  A conceit of known and would-be pundits everywhere.  I think more in terms of principle than what is believed to be the most likely outcome.  Let me explain.

Human Nature

Read more!

Utopia

Human nature is imperfect, and it is unchangeable.  The failure of the naive to acknowledge and accept those two simple, yet elemental facts leads inevitably to grief.

But grief does not discourage idealists; when their schemes fail they see only error in planning and execution, never questioning the possibility of -- nor their own faith in -- achieving a perfect end-state.
 
Utopian Dreams
The belief that men are capable of creating a perfect society is an old one, attested in Biblical writings and in Plato's vision, articulated in his Republic.
That vision echoed through the Middle Ages and persisted, with growing momentum, into the current era.  Along the way it found expression in Thomas Moore's Utopia (most famously), in the writings of Rousseau and in the early codification of communist socialism by Marx and Engels in reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. [1]

The Historical Roots of Statism in America

Read more!

Opposing Statism: The Incomplete Conservative Argument 

Until recently, I had never been satisfied with with conventional explanations of the steady rise of American statism.  Within the conservative pundit class there seems to be general agreement (or, at least, emphasis) that beginnings lay in the presidencies of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson and the rise of the Progressives.  To be sure, anti-Jeffersonian policies flourished in their administrations as it later did with F.D.R., Lyndon Johnson.  But the nagging question for me was how, after the Founding period, did this trend -- more or less suddenly -- emerge?  Say with Theodore Roosevelt...?  So recent?  What about the Hamiltonians, the Federalist Party?  Some of our conservative voices, Glenn Beck, for example, will talk about Alexander Hamilton (a good start), but then they seem compelled to leap over a big chunk of history to the late Nineteenth Century.  Why is that?  What are they avoiding?

Wanted: Strong, Artilculate Men Of Principle

Read more!

In the current political war over the US debt ceiling and reductions in spending, I find myself more than slightly annoyed by the want of a certain kind of courage on the part of establishment Republicans.  John Boehner, Speaker of the House comes to mind [1].  Like others of his experience in politics, he is foremost a pragmatic man.  He weighs his options and carefully considers their political consequences.  Pragmatic men are precisely the kind who are needed to conduct the day-to-day business of government, but only so long as two conditions are met.  The first is that their political opponents act in good faith, and second, is that there not be an issue of such magnitude that the future of the nation is in peril.  Neither condition is currently satisfied by the current administration and the Democrat members of congress.  It is no longer the time for leadership to remain in the hands of moderate pragmatists.  Sorely needed are men of principle with the political will and courage to stand fast by their values and those of the American people.

The Left Deals in Good Faith: A Dangerous Assumption

Read more!

There is an on-going argument among conservatives that Obama and the Progressives are simply misguided and ignorant, on the one hand, or that they are deliberately bent on America's destruction on the other.  That argument is perhaps best exemplified by the thinking of Michael Medved in the first case and that of Rush Limbaugh in the second.  I believe Limbaugh is correct.

Both men are deeply rooted in the Western Tradition's norms of civil society, and that is a good thing.  Limbaugh, however, is canny enough to recognize that Progressives, while careful to appear otherwise, entertain no such notions.  They are deconstructionists whose sole motivation is the will to power, and they well understand that their ends can only be achieved by the calculated and deliberate dissolution of American society and its roots in the heritage of the West.

Mr. Medved, like other "moderate" conservatives, naively -- and dangerously -- assumes that the Hard Left upholds the same values and plays by the same rules honored by the Right.  He fails to see that Progressives have launched upon a course of triangulation in aid of division and conquest: the fascist "third way" [1].

The Institutional American Left, Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling Battle

Read more!

Our politicians are engaged -- not in debate but in ideological war over the conditions for raising America's debt ceiling.  A game of brinkmanship is being played out as the deadline (variously defined) approaches.  Both sides agree that the US credit rating hangs in the balance and that the ceiling must be raised.  At issue are government spending and taxes.  The Right is intent on reductions as a quid pro quo for an affirmative vote, and it has offered numerous good faith proposals, while the Left is equally intent on the continuation of deficit spending and raising taxes.  On the one hand, there is concern for putting the nation's fiscal house in order and on the other there is a real fear that the continuation of political power is at stake.

Transaction Costs: The Best Argument Against High Taxation

Read more!


Vigorish, as readers will recall, is a term famously used by the Mafia to describe the seizure (skimming) of the profits of a business under the threat of force. [1]  Percentage varies according to the mob's need for cash and calculations about what the market will bear.  Our tax system is nearly analogous.

Persons (outside government) who favor increasing taxation seem unaware of the losses in the tax system, arguing -- and wrongly assuming -- that collected revenues will go, more-or-less dollar for dollar to support various projects and causes they favor.  One wonders if they would remain sanguine knowing the amount of monies diverted from tax purposes.

The Fundamental Significance of the Tea Party Phenomenon

Read more!

O.K., the title seems pretentious; the use of the word "fundamental" in context may suggest that I am laying claim to some special insight. Maybe, maybe not. That's for the reader to decide.
In short, I think what is most important in the Tea Party movement is unity; unity that transcends, and may ultimately overcome, the politically-driven balkanization of America. (1)
This unity, as I see it, is certainly not a lock-step agreement on most issues, but it seems clear that there is a consensus on certain principles, ideas and approaches strong enough to trump other areas of disagreement.  It is the unity suggested by e pluribus unum.

The Left's Big Gamble

Read more!

For a number of reasons I believe the Left has made a calculated and careful assessment of the American political scene, and it has decided to gamble for the seizure and control of American political and economic power.  They believe, arguably with good cause, that that their hold on the strongest factions in American politics is sufficient to enable them to consolidate and exercise power over an increasingly hostile majority.  Whether they will succeed in the long term is not known, but, given the erosion of liberty we have seen over the course of the last century, the wind of history would seem to be at their backs.

Assault on Western Civilization

Read more!

What do ACLU-led attacks on public religious observance and the increasingly scant attention now given to Greek and Roman history by the K12 curriculum have in common? Together they symbolize the consequences of a powerful, ubiquitous, longstanding, relentless and largely successful assault on the values and traditions of the West. It is not confined to the Western Hemisphere or to Europe; it is virtually worldwide. We have come to expect it from the UN, controlled by Third World despots, but it is the West, itself, that leads this suicidal charge.
The pillars of Western civilization are the classical tradition and the Judeo-Christian heritage. Perhaps the true value of the Western canon lies in the fact that it best accommodates the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.

I argue that the best of the Western tradition was codified in the Anglo strain of the Enlightenment, and arguably achieved its zenith in the ideals, beliefs and actions of the American Founders.

The Enlightenment
I often make a distinction of convenience between the Anglo (Scottish, English and American) and French threads of the Enlightenment. It is over-simple, to be sure, but it is useful and generally avoids the margins of argument.

The French, following the ideas of Rousseau and the leadership of Robespierre and others, chose totally to embrace reason and to turn violently against religion and tradition. They set out with remarkable energy to change not only the present, but the past as well. The Anglos also embraced reason, but they opted to integrate it with traditions of the Western heritage. The Muslims, curiously, decided to abjure reason altogether and strengthen their faith as an alternative frankly hostile to reason. One might say that the French welcomed reason and rejected God and the Western tradition; the Anglos welcomed reason in the context of tradition and thanked God for it; and the Muslims rejected reason and turned to God as an antidote.

The French (and German) philosophes laid the foundations of post-modernist thought, which elevated pure reason beyond the realm of praxis (experience, observation) to the point of logical absurdity -- cultural, moral and intellectual relativism -- leading ultimately to nihilism. This school of thought is very much with us today, and its heritors -- people of the left (1) -- are determined to do all possible mischief to Western Civilization. Interestingly, they are in many ways allied with those who rejected reason -- Muslims.

The People of the Left - Part I
It is commonly observed that liberals are largely concentrated in media (entertainment and news), education, organized labor, minorities and "victim" identity groups, NGO's and government bureaucracies. This is largely true of the world-at-large, but it is certainly the case in Western Europe, North, Central and South America and Canada. It is noteworthy that these entities have much in common. With few exceptions, they are insulated from free-market competition; they are not existentially accountable for their performance -- the consequences of financial failure. Many have lost the traditional linkage between productive work and earnings. Apparently unaware of their debt to it, liberals tend to despise capitalism. One suspects the sentiment is a holdover from European aristocracy.

Insulation is perhaps a key concept. After generations of prosperity and security, unknown in most of the world, notions of existential threat have taken on an abstract (unreal) quality. In places where economies are weak and governance bad concern with survival is likely to be a constant among the people; they are daily threatened by the possibility of death by starvation, disease, violence and natural catastrophe. Life cannot be sustained without an intimate knowledge of quotidian reality.

Liberal separation from the consequences of thinking and behavior is the foundational point I want to make here: I'll have more to say about secondary characteristics -- assumptions and beliefs of the left and about the non-ideological, "accidental" spread of liberalism.

Affordable Self-Deception
In societies that are relatively free of real poverty, infectious disease (medically amenable where it exists), and death by violence, and that have infrastructure to minimize the consequences of natural disaster, things are different. People can afford to maintain a (delusional) distance from reality. If one observes a rattlesnake, safely caged, or a human predator contained in a prison cell, he can indulge in attributing to them qualities altogether superior to their nature. Similarly, a person living in comfort and security may be dismissive of such "abstractions" as tyranny, jihadi terrorism or economic collapse.

Liberals ignore the lessons of history at their (and our) peril, but they are constitutionally unable to recognize or acknowledge peril. They tend, for example, to favor various kinds of collectivism -- from democratic socialism to Marxism -- over individualism while ignoring the devastation wrought under socialism in the last century -- crippled economies and death and imprisonment suffered by tens of millions and, generally, the tyranny that socialism always engenders. Collectivist social structures inevitably suppress the best qualities of human nature and encourage the worst.

The Founders, to their great credit, understood the reality of human nature and how best to account for it in the organization of government.

The People of the Left - Part II
Is the assault on Western Civilization deliberate, planned and maliciously intended? Yes and no.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, there have been individuals and groups actively and frankly hostile the Western Tradition and dedicated to its destruction. Many were the intellectual descendants of the French philosophes, but others were motivated by ambitions to power, tribal mentality, anti-individualism, antagonistic cultural differences or politically organized religious beliefs.

What unites liberal ideologues is a vision of social perfectibility -- whether utopian or eschatological. These are people who measure reality against their imagined standards of Utopia or heaven.

At the other extreme are non-ideological persons influenced by liberal memes in popular culture and the orthodoxies of the educational establishment adopted since the 1950's. They are not consciously anti-Western primarily because the don't understand the concept. In a word they are ignorant -- of history, economics, politics and government. They act upon beliefs uninformed by knowledge or analysis. Excluding functional illiterates this group is theoretically salvageable.

Of all the intellectual bigotries and prejudices the abhorrence of liberty seems to top the list. Flowing from that position are the following corollary fears of and enmity towards: anything that is unorganized or regulated, and thus unpredictable; individualism; capitalism; free markets. In short they seek control over the lives, organization and behavior of others; control from which they, themselves, are exempt (2).

A set of sacred beliefs characterizes the left, and these are zealously guarded: social Darwinism, the idea that men are perfectible if properly governed; multiculturalism, which follows from the fear of making value judgments, in part leading to anti-patriotism and contempt for national sovereignty; the conviction that economies (not governments) are zero-sum; a natural affinity for national governments (particularly fascist and socialist) that use oppressive power to control their polities; wars are caused only by failures of negotiation; all men are inherently good, and when behavior indicates otherwise it is because of environmental factors; nature, in all its manifestations, is superior to mankind; all men and societies are literally equal and many more. All contrary beliefs are intolerable.

Finally, there is a set of behaviors most commonly associated with left. These include: intolerance of dissenting opinion (above) expressed in vicious attacks on opponents; intensity of feeling antithetical to a sense of humor; avoidance of honest debate (on the issue of Global Warming, for example); denial of reality not congenial to their prejudices and contempt for factual verification where it would challenge ideology (they simply rely on repetition of fallacious ideas to counter evidence); the use of intimidation, institutional coercion and violence in service of ideology; willingness to lie in furtherance of the "greater truth"; the use of third person plural in reference to grievance groups (they can't afford health insurance). Again, a sampling.

As I have said elsewhere, there is a remarkable similarity between the left and Islam. Opponents are allowed three options: conversion, submission or death. If this statement strikes the reader as excessive, consider the death tolls at the hands of socialist governments in the last century. I believe that in contemporary Europe and North America the left is restrained only by an incomplete consolidation of power.

Future Of the West
Or, in the language of game theory, does the future of the West cast a shadow? The answer to this question is impossible to forecast with confidence, but weight of evidence bodes ill for the survival of Western Civilization.

As Plato has his revenge on Aristotle, so Rousseau has his on Burke. Cultural, moral and intellectual relativism infects and cripples the governments and peoples of Europe, much of Latin America and Canada and is hard at work in the U.S. The model of infection -- pandemic -- seems appropriate, for spread of collectivist memes appears to have a viral quality and is abetted by intellectual elites and allied institutions such as the UN and the EU -- precursors to world government.

Some assert that the populations of Western countries (taken as groups of individuals) are far more conservative than their governments. This may be the case, but they lack the necessary institutional wealth, power and organization of ruling parties that exert their will through the instrument of government. And managed economies (which most increasingly are) effectively destroy the incentives and motivation for the expression of individual will.

The problems arising out the growth of the left, are greatly exacerbated in Europe by growing Islamic populations hostile to the values of their host countries, routinely living on the dole, and not held accountable by feckless governments that seek cover under the suicidal mantle of multiculturalism. These countries willing or fearfully yield sovereignty to malign immigrants who contribute negatively to their economies and, under direct threat of violence, ridicule existing law and insist on Sharia jurisprudence -- not only for themselves, but their countries of residence entire. The US, so far, has not been similarly affected, but it is only a matter of time.

So the outlook for the survival in strength of Western values seems generally poor. If Western Europe is to overcome the decline, Denmark is most likely to lead the way; on the global scale the US must lead. In neither case are the odds favorable.

Some readers of this essay will inevitably question the importance of Western survival. What's the big deal, they may ask. Political change and the realignment of cultures and values, after all, is the natural course of history.

So it is, I would reply. But consider that in all the past, no better organization of human society, governance, and economy ever existed than that informed by the classical tradition melded with the Judeo-Christian heritage that culminated, by way of the Anglo Enlightenment, in the thoughts, actions, systems and structures passed on to us by the American Founders.

Today's Western Civilization has created and deployed, via free-market capitalism and sound, moral, republican political systems grounded in the rule of law, more wealth and security
worldwide than would ever have been thought possible a century ago. The practical work of that civilization has never been surpassed outside the realm of hypothesis.

--------------
(1) The terms, "left" and "liberal" -- as I use them -- refer to persons who have adopted (consciously or otherwise) the ideology and thought of the continental philosophes.
(2) Think of neighborhood and condo associations. While many persons who offer service to these organizations act out of a sense of civic duty, others seem attracted by a fundamental need to organize and manage the behavior of others.

About Power: Collective vs. Collectivist

Read more!

Pat Santy and others have written extensively about Obama-Left, Inc. being out of touch with reality and perpetually in denial. I agree with the analysis, but in the interest of simplicity, on the one hand, and praxis on the other, I have adopted a kind of bare-bones way of assessing liberal performance in the world. A way, that for me, answers the question, “so now what”?

I would argue that these people* are absolutely in touch with reality; but it is their reality. Where most of us perform to standards of quotidian efficacy -- i.e., paying the mortgage to keep the house, investing money for retirement, not meddling in other people's business, and so on -- liberals are busy making for themselves a place in Heaven (read Utopian 'justification'). What does it matter if their diplomatic strategy weakens and endangers the nation? If fiscal policy is profligate? If social policy enslaves us? Never mind -- their motives are pure. They have a vision. They belong to a tribe that sanctifies them.

We may call them elitists (which they are) or narcissists (which they are), but we need to know that the reality of our world is not the reality of theirs. We see their behavior as pathological and bizarre, but to them it makes perfect sense. They simply perform to different standards.

A useful conclusion: it is pointless to reason with liberals, for reasoning (in the traditional Western sense) runs counter to their primary goals -- defense of a secular religion and its belief system and the acquisition and maintenance of power. Power (collective power), they understand perfectly. It is their stock-in-trade. And it is opposing, naked power alone -- not persuasion -- that will cause them to change.

One knows one has scored points when hysterical cries of 'righteous' outrage are heard from the left. The potential loss of power threatens their very being. The argument for power is sustained by observing the effects (ranging from defensiveness to open hostility) of tea parties, town halls and the growth of conservative media and the Tenth Amendment initiative. Though the right, historically, has been uncomfortable with the collective exercise of political power and will, when liberty is at stake the time for that exercise has arrived.

It all comes down to this: it is one thing to understand the enemy (I use the word advisedly) but another to know how to defeat him. The left will use whatever power is at their disposal to subject or eliminate -- in one way or another -- those who hold a different world-view. To force non-believers into submission, forced alliance or extinction. Here, there are remarkable similarities to Islam.

One thinks of the dreary, demeaning, undifferentiated existence of persons living in the former Soviet Republics -- statism in one of its more benign forms. But is a short journey to recall crematoria, gulags and killing fields. Only a few years ago I would have dismissed that last sentence as pure hyperbole, but no longer. There is no want of historical precedent in the annals of collectivist governance.

When individual liberty is attacked by political powers that are not amenable to reason or persuasion, it must be defended by political power. Modest conservative organization (above) has so far been surprisingly effective, which suggests that the power of the left may be overrated. But the left, over the span of a century, has had enormous influence in government and society precisely because its power has been organized. Therein lies a lesson.

____*
When I use the terms "liberal" and "Left" in most of my critical essays I am referring to to committed ideologues on the far end of the political spectrum -- those whose intellectual heritage derives from Rousseau and Marx. These are the True Believers and their enablers.

Does BHO Rhyme with WHO? It Should.

Read more!

The metastasizing, coercive power of government, increasingly unchecked by constitutional restraint, led by a narcissist and his far-flung elitist cohort of KGB-progressives from the houses of congress and offices of bureaucrats to the streets of ACORN. One and all channeling the shades of Rousseau, Marx, Gramci, Marcuse and Alinsky; recklessly betting the wealth of our nation and the liberty of its people on the impossible prospect of reaping a bountiful harvest from the tainted soil of Utopia. Grownups who live on this side of the rabbit hole have reason to be afraid

Childish Fear

The darkened, crape-hung rooms, cobwebs, spaghetti intestines, pans of blood, severed heads, painted-grape eyeballs, skeletons, moans and screams from dark recesses... pretty scary stuff for an impressionable kid. You round a corner and come face to face with a motionless, ghoulish figure. You freeze and sharply draw in a breath. But by now you're beginning to sort things out -- it's just a prop, another dummy meant to terrify you. You relax and then the 'dummy' comes alive, jumps out at you and grabs you by the shoulders. BOO!

Adult Fear

The state of American politics today is somewhat reminiscent of that first haunted house. It has the same eerie, menacing otherworldly quality. And the same terrifying BHO!

Chairman BHO! now rules the haunted house, and if he holds sway, we may see it furnished with real body parts. There is ample precedent.

Comprehensive Legislation: Just Say No - Part II

Read more!
Across the political spectrum, this mantra is often repeated: “Real immigration reform must be comprehensive…”

It’s the word “comprehensive” that really bothers me when used in connection with any big government program. Stimulus, healthcare reform, Cap and trade, Energy policy and the former, failed initiative for immigration reform — all are comprehensive. And bloody-well scary.

Here, I deal with immigration reform because the content of that legislative proposal is less unclear than, say, healthcare reform. The only kind of comprehensive reform I can imagine endorsing is one that addresses dysfunctional law-making (Part I).

Government regularly shows itself to be inept and incompetent even when writing simple, targeted law (such as the “wildly successful” Cash for Clunkers), how much worse will be legislation that addresses an issue as complicated as immigration reform?

Any comprehensive law will typically be embodied in hundreds or thousands of pages that are virtually incomprehensible — sections filled with arcane legalisms and referencing equally incomprehensible prior legislation. Perfect vehicles for the deliberate obfuscation of all manner of pernicious agendas. Perfect vehicles for engendering unintended consequences that will themselves eventually require more comprehensive laws.

Rather than comprehensive, reform (any) law ought to be incremental, carefully prioritized, narrow in scope and clearly written. That would permit quicker implementation and allow for empirical evaluation and adjustment, as needed. The sum of incremental legislation would, over time, become, effectively, comprehensive.

Over time? one might object. But we haven’t got time; this is urgent (another scary word in government)! I would reply by noting that healthcare reform under the Clintons was the most urgent problem facing that administration; what might have we accomplished by now if we had approached that issue incrementally?

If, in the case instant, the elements of reform (many complex, but not complicated) were properly prioritized, many parts of “big bang” style reform might become moot. For example, if we began with aggressive law enforcement (requiring a robust form of state ID) — employer sanctions, penalizing “sanctuary” violations etc., it is likely (in fact, already proven) that illegal immigrants would return to their native homes of their own volition. In itself, serious enforcement would eliminate the need for a complicated and almost-impossible-to-administer legalization program — the major and most controversial element of reform. Likewise, if would simplify and reduce the cost of healthcare burdens (simplifying reform in that area), presumably reduce the cost of policing in major metropolitan areas (addressing crime associated with illegals), and soften the pressures on the prison system. The list goes on.

Aside from ad hoc efficacy, there are other benefits to the incremental approach. They are best illustrated by looking at the destructive effects of comprehensive bills. They cause confusion, social and political tensions, frustration, resignation, apathy and contempt among American voters. Worse, the public’s sense of confidence in their representatives and government itself is eroded, inviting a pervasive cynicism that effectively discourages citizen participation at all levels of government. High prices to pay.

I conclude by saying that comprehensive legislation (read sweeping changes) in any form is a bad idea. One would hope for a time when legislation was written in a way that voters — let alone congressmen — could not only understand, but explain to others. The simple, clear and broad language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should stand as a model. On that point I entertain some hope but no optimism.

Comprehensive Legislation: Just Say No - Part I

Read more!
This essay is meant to provide some background for a subsequent posting which opposes any kind of "comprehensive" legislation (reform or otherwise) and argues for a radical simplification in the crafting of law. What is at stake is the principle of individual and community sovereignty.



Beginning with the Johnson administration it became the mission of government to write all laws -- general and regulatory -- in a way that they would be extremely detailed, anticipate future judicial scrutiny, be self-executing and account for all contingencies. * That trend continues unabated with the result that these laws are largely impenetrable by legal minds and laymen alike. Tax law is the example most often cited, though environmental law may be even more labyrinthine. Among the consequences are the sheer difficulty and cost of deployment. implementation, compliance and enforcement. Laws that once might have been simple, clear and brief are now beyond understanding. Perhaps the worst effect of the current state of affairs is the fact that the courts can interpret law in a way that suits them; in other words, the rule of law has been superseded by the rule of men.

It was the intent of the Founders that laws be made as general as possible to be adjudicated by the courts on a case-by-case basis. It is worth noting that the most important, foundational law of the land -- the constitution -- was written in just such a way. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights exceeds a single paragraph! Of these some of the most important (I think of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) each comprise a single sentence.

The intent of the modern style of legislation is to increase the power and control of central government. Perhaps the best contemporary example is the EU constitution, which has grown from a mere 27,000 pages in April 2008 to about 40,000 today. Compare that with the widely circulated Cato edition of the Constitution, all amendments and the Declaration of Independence, which fits comfortably in a shirt pocket.

____*
Phillip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense, Ch. I