Posts
All Comments
In my earlier post I concluded by writing: Surprise me, Massachusetts voters, with a new showdown at a rude bridge. I was surprised indeed. After years in the Kennedy wilderness, it would appear there has been a homecoming.
I also wrote that, in the then unlikely event of a Brown victory, ...we will have another big-government Republican in congress, and, on balance that is a moderately good thing. And I believe it is.
How conservative is Scott Brown? We can't be sure. Ed Morrissey offers some caveats in this article.
But the senator-elect has taken a firm stand on opposing the destruction of American healthcare, he is a fiscal conservative and is strong (not at variance with George Bush) on national defense. In fact, on almost all issues dear to conservatives, he has consistently spoken as man of principle. Given his stated positions, it is truly amazing that he could have been elected in Massachusetts. Perhaps the best thing about Scott Brown's victory is the apparent indication that voters are finally perceiving the extent to which the left has overreached.
Above I characterized Brown as a big government Republican; I hope to be proven as wrong about that as I was in estimating the likelihood of his election.
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks -- failed or successful -- post-mortem analyses typically reveal that necessary intelligence was in hand but not integrated in ways to prevent disaster. One thinks of 911, of course, but also of Mumbai and more recently Fort Hood and the Christmas flight to Detroit. But the broader anti-terrorist methodology and especially the seriousness of governments must also be called into question.
In the US airport screening, for example, seems focused on preventing what has already happened, relying on what passengers may be carrying rather than who they are and how they answer probing questions. Widely reported is the successful approach used by the El Al Airlines, and it is worthwhile to contrast the assumptions of the American and Israeli political classes that drive security systems.
How to protect ourselves from the violence of Jihadi savages? Let me begin by asserting that in matters of security, the trope-imagery of "connecting the dots" is a poor one in context. Assembling a jigsaw puzzle might be better, but it too is misleading. If there is anything to be connected to good effect, it may be the negative assumptions of decision-makers -- reality negated in aid of a political ideology and underpinned by political correctness. So we begin by connecting the nots of denial.
Connecting the nots shows us why we are not secure from terrorist attacks. Unlike our own political class, Israelis clearly understand that seeing the world-as-it-is is a necessary condition of survival.
There comes a time, we may imagine, when even the most neglectful parents, unable to abide the unpleasantness of baby's soiled nappies, are finally moved to change them. In the same way, the left is periodically moved to change its name.
During the early years of the last century (and the latter part of the one preceding) the American left referred to themselves as "Progressives". The end of the 'progressive era' came with a wave of popular resentment following a train of political excesses beginning with T.R. and culminating in the Woodrow Wilson administration. The progressive label had become tarnished.
It was then necessary to embrace a new name behind which to conceal discredited political ideas. The left became the "liberal" party. With a risible irony, that name was co-opted from Enlightenment thinkers of the 19th Century most closely associated with today's American conservatives. (1)
When John Kennedy came to the presidency liberalism was poised to enjoy a period of popular support which was to endure until the early part of the Carter administration. With the election of Ronald Reagan the failed policies of the left, from Roosevelt-the-first -- but especially in the public mind -- from Hoover onward came into sharp focus. Liberalism had lost its luster. What to do?
Counting on a failed system of public education and a short public memory, the contemporary left has reverted to calling themselves "progressives" once again. Under whatever name, the left retains certain traits: elitism associated with a desire to control the lives and activities of others, a "religious faith" (unassailable by fact) in the possibility of attaining a Utopian state of human perfection and a failure to reconcile their actions (always motivated by good intentions) with maladaptive and destructive outcomes. Finally, they place blame for the world's ills -- falsely -- on the right wing. That hated straw-man is often a creature of leftist extremes.
To avoid being identified (publicly or in their own minds) with their soul-mates -- Bolsheviks, (especially) fascists and other virulent strains of socialism and anarchy -- they follow the lead of early soviet leaders to characterize them as right-wing. (2) In this, with the aid of the left in academe, media and entertainment, they were remarkably successful.
--------
1 Adam Smith, John Locke and Montesquieu come to mind.
2 Frustrated that Germany and Italy had chosen national socialism over their own devoutly sought world socialism, they characterized those countries as being on the right. Fascism in Italy, Germany -- and to some extent in the US -- was a structural methodology of national socialism.
I don't ordinarily comment on political contests, but in this case I will. There is much hopey optimism among Republicans and some conservatives that Scott Brown will overcome his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley. If it happens, we will have another big-government Republican in congress, and, on balance that is a moderately good thing.
At best, a Brown victory may be indicative of a trend toward shrinking the liberal majority. Still, given the shameless tolerance for corrupt liberalism chronically demonstrated by Massachusetts voters, I will be surprised if it comes to pass. A state that repeatedly elected a thoroughly feckless and corrupt* Edward Kennedy to office until, by reason of death he was no longer eligible, can scarcely be expected to exercise the judgment required to abandon a proud history of pernicious liberalism.
Surprise me, Massachusetts voters, with a new showdown at a rude bridge.
*------
Coming to mind are the Mary Jo Kopechne affair, The "Big Dig" shakedown, government healthcare and the senator's affection for all things socialist.
Much is revealed about our adolescent ruling class by its use of language. Many of their phrases point to a grossly inflated sense of power and competence; the former may exist insofar as it is vested in government, but the latter is notably absent. They suggest the sense of omnipotence felt, perhaps, by a video-gamer able to conquer the hazards of his virtual environment with a joystick.
Reset button Here we have a term that might be used by someone who is confident in his ability to restore the function of a balky electrical appliance. The notion that complex international relationships, freighted with years of mutual antagonisms can be turned around with a simple, mechanical gesture. Forget the past...
Bending the cost curve This, perhaps greatest, oversimplification conjures another simple, manual exercise capable of changing the economy.
Bottom-up economy A mantra of candidate Obama. What can it possibly mean...?
Pivot Obama looks to a hard pivot on Iran. A foreign policy danse macabre?
The educated classes Elitist self-caricature. Who, we may ask, are the persons not included in the educated classes? Certainly George Bush, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh. By usage the meaning is clear enough; the speaker or writer is referring to classes not educated "like me". The candid translation is "anointed".
A recent, short article by David Brooks -- NYT's token pseudo-conservative -- has deservedly drawn considerable fire, mostly but not exclusively from the right. Brooks uses the phrase as a foil to the tea-party movement -- presumably ignorant, recalcitrant folks who disagree with the educated classes on matters such as global warming, abortion and gun control. But the writer earns high marks for one succinct and accurate observation (one, by implication, he laments):
The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.
In his unfinished Metamorphosis, Kafka's protagonist, Gregor Samsa, awakens to find himself transformed into a vermin (cockroach). To Samsa's credit I would point out two things: he did not transform himself, and he had the wit and grace to despise what he had become.
Our congress, on the other hand, is a different matter. They have transformed themselves, and they regard their present incarnation as superior to their former status. About cockroaches Wikipedia tells us that "The insect[s] can travel quickly, often darting out of sight when someone enters a room..." Nocturnal creatures they scurry for cover of darkness when lights come on.
Figuratively sequestered in darkness our Democrat representatives conspire, behind locked doors and out of public view, to impose their will on a human polity that is clearly opposed to their schemes.
Rasmussen describes the general disconnect between congress and the public when he tells us that "Only 32% of voters are even somewhat confident that their representatives in Congress are actually representing their best interests. That figure includes just eight percent (8%) who are very confident of that fact. " A sampling of specific issues polled is revealing: healthcare, drilling for oil and climate change legislation -- all opposed by the majority of voters -- are the very issues congress is determined to force on the public.
I conclude with apologies to natural-born cockroaches, God's creatures all. If any remain of the Archy sort*, I'm sure to get flaming comments and emails. I will know them by their use of lower case.
*__________
Probably forgotten or never known to most readers, the reference is to the Archy and Mehetabel series.
Human Nature, Behavior and Consequences
Despite the naive, ideological assertions of cultural Darwinists and utopian dreamers, human nature is a constant; it has not, does not and will not change. And it is important to recognize that men are not inherently good or evil -- they are both. To paraphrase Shakespeare, man is neither good nor bad but thinking (characterization) makes him so. I might add the poet's biblical borrowing that "there is nothing new under the sun". Men have weaknesses and strengths, and we are prudent when we organize ourselves in ways that discourage the former and promote the latter. It was the American Founders' unparalleled understanding of human nature that led them in the design of the most successful political and social system that has ever existed. But that system -- like the Founders themselves -- is imperfect and decays when our weaknesses overcome our better natures.
In societies that operate at Hobbsean subsistence levels the correspondence between behavior and consequences is bright-line clear. Strategies for obtaining food and shelter and for protection against predators, animal and human, demand close adherence in the cause of survival. In prosperous, secure societies the linkage between behavior and consequences tends to become obscured. Though it is no less real, its forms change. In primitive life one is well-advised to be ever-alert for things that bite and sting, for extramural warriors, for natural disasters. In our current environment we must be on guard against politicians, zealot ideologues and schemes of organized fraud, theft and deceit. We must know what is true in relation to our survival and prosperity and rely upon it. The venom of vipers may bring us a quick death, but the venom of tyranny is not less lethal. The latter is slower but enjoys better concealment.
Knowledge and survival
For persons living in primitive societies (or tyrannical ones) accurate, empirical knowledge of the environs of one's world -- dangers and opportunities -- wisely exercised, is essential to survival, security and prosperity. One must recognize and defend against the dangers of the natural world and aggressive fellow men; know how to obtain essential needs and protect himself and his family. We may imagine that persons in poor circumstances can ill-afford the luxury of denial, (1) but we are mistaken to think it a luxury we can afford.
In advanced, abundant societies that are largely free of existential threats, the linkages between imprudent behavior and serious consequences are attenuated. In a wealthy politea social safety nets expand, and the penalties for violations of civil and criminal laws tend to become relaxed, since, excepting some crimes of violence, transgressions are no longer seen to threaten survival. In many large business and governmental organizations linkages between knowledge, productivity and reward often become obscure. Similarly inadequate knowledge and false beliefs may be rewarded so that the very foundations of civil society become corrupt.
Labor and reward
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us". That phrase was a common, ironic expression in the states of the former Soviet Union, where slackers and producers were equally rewarded. Where the true rewards were more closely associated with party loyalty that performance. In America we are not so far removed from the destruction of of the labor-reward linkage. It is most clearly seen in large, bureaucratic institutions -- businesses grown overlarge (2), public education, big eleemosynary institutions and particularly in governmental and quasi-governmental bureaucracies such as many NGO's and most notably the U.N., where any sign of accountability in the accomplishment of its stated missions has seemingly vanished. In terms of sheer fecklessness, employee perks and high salaries the European Union is rapidly gaining, if not overtaking the U.N. In these examples personal and political loyalties rather than performance to standards of efficacy are the engines of advancement.
It is important to consider the role of bureaucracies. They are, in their beginnings, useful in providing infrastructure support for executive productivity. But they tend to grow and when they reach a certain size and command of power, their focus shifts from executive support to self-interest. As organizations expand the power and remuneration of their leadership grows commensurately.
The most serious erosion of the linkage between labor and reward can be seen in highly progressive tax schemes. When the most productive citizens are heavily taxed to support the less productive, incentives (rewards) are reduced and the creation of wealth suffers at the expense of broader society. The "pursuit of happiness" envisioned by the Founders is possible only when the sanctity of property rights is guaranteed; taxation for purposes of redistribution clearly violates those rights.
Entire classes have evolved in the US from small institutions that once formed a useful symbiosis with the productive class but have drifted away from their original purposes and grown to be parasitic. Examples include much of academia, public education, most government bureaucracies, the arts establishment, unproductive corporate divisions and staffs, politicized churches and synagogues, media and much of the intellectual class, public health institutions and many research organizations. These classes tend to expand while consuming more public and private wealth and delivering increasingly less useful product. As parasitic entities they divert wealth from entities that might have produced more of it.
Virtue and civil society
Figuring importantly in the Founders hope for a successful and enduring republic was the idea that virtue -- personal and civic, private and public -- was the necessary condition of its maintenance.
To the ears of tribal intellectuals (and to those educated by them) "virtue" may ring as a notion that is puritanical, Victorian or simply quaint; its practice largely abandoned, its meaning is largely lost. (3)
Respect, it seems to me, is at the heart of the concept of virtue. Respect for one's self, one's work, one's moral precepts and for others. It is essential to the success of civil society, since voluntary association is at its core, so that persons who are not seen as virtuous -- who are, say, dishonest, venal or generally contemptuous of others -- will tend to be excluded.
Summary
The ideas and beliefs behind this essay are these: (1) that human nature is an historical constant, and the best organized societies are those that practically account for its virtues and vices by linking behaviors to appropriate consequences, and (2) that these linkages can be broken with individual impunity only in societies of abundance, where there is sufficient wealth and freedom from existential threats to support those who do not produce or sustain them. Individual impunity, however, does not account for the cumulative, pernicious effects that inevitably corrupt societies. The constant companions of success are hubris and the waiting Nemesis.
-----------------
1. One of the best examples of the workings of denial (especially among elitists) is cited in an earlier post linked to a French TV discussion. One cannot deal with the world as it is without knowing the world as it is.
2. The citation applies primarily to business, but the mechanisms critiqued are common to all large institutions. A broader picture can be found by following the links at the bottom of the article.
3. Honor and shame have likewise become epistemological curiosities.
Note: in this essay I try to establish a framework for specific, concrete examples to follow in Part II.
As the title suggests, I have some reservations about Wikipedia, but, on balance they are few.
Criticisms of Wikipedia are numerous (1) and broad, but correcting as best one can for the uniqueness of the Wiki model, they are much the same as for traditional encyclopedias. The Wiki staff, itself -- refreshingly -- examines the matter at some length. For a good overview see this New Yorker article.
I find that on matters not in general dispute, Wikipedia is generally a convenient and reliable source. As is the case with traditional print encyclopedia, one must maintain a healthy skepticism, and, when in doubt, examine source documentation.
Since many contributors, presumably, are academics or academically oriented, one might expect a certain liberal bias. An interesting study of contributors finds them "grumpy" and "disagreeable", but I'm not certain what to make of that...
In summary, discounting my own and others' perception of liberal (or PC) bias, I find Wikipedia a welcome, useful and convenient resource with few serious shortcomings. Still, caveat emptor.
---------*
My last Google inquiry of "Wikipedia bias" returned in excess of 3M hits.
And now I find myself writing a fourth essay commenting on Sarah Palin. But it's not Palin herself who commands my attention so much as the predictably irrational elitist response to her. Indeed, my earlier postings (here, here and here) have dealt more with elitism than with Mrs. Palin.
A better expression of elitist animus than this video interview with Martha Stewart (1) is not easily found. Ms. Stewart's choice of words is instructive.
"Boring" Translation: she is unworthy of my attention (or that of my ilk).
"Dangerous" Translation: her view of the world threatens mine. She's so ordinary. (2)
"Confused" Translation: persons who do not think as I do are intellectually deficient.
"I wouldn't, I wouldn't watch her if you paid me." Translation: I don't know anything about her, and I don't want to. But that doesn't alter my opinion.
Unrelated to Mrs. Palin but characteristic of elitism is the opening statement in the interview.
"I think everybody should give back..." Translation: I made money in this disgraceful and unfair free-market, capitalist economy. Hear my (pro forma) words of atonement.
Summing up. Self-arrogated sense of superiority, strongly held opinion in tandem with ignorance and mock PC self-effacement.
----------------
1. I am an admirer of Martha Stewart's entrepreneurial achievements, her intellect and her work ethic, and I took her part in the contretemps with overbearing federal prosecutors. I do not admire her immense personal arrogance.
2. How can a person be seen as at once boring and dangerous..? Why is she dangerous? "She speaks...she's so confused..." Dangerous behavior indeed.
She's baaaack... Well, she never really went away, but her pre-print best seller, Going Rogue, has returned her to the spotlight. As Dracula might shield his eyes from a crucifix, so the left* scrambles for the cover of darkness.
What is it about Sarah Palin that so unhinges the liberal establishment? Why the hysteria that exceeds even Dubya-derrangement? While there are many things in play, I believe the preeminent one is the left's correctly perceived threat of exposure -- of unmasking, disrobing, tearing away the veil of hypocrisy, unwinding the swaddling of narcissism. Under Palin's gaze liberal elites feel suddenly naked and alone. Feel exposed as when a purveyor of fine art forgeries is confronted by the original. Faux meets real.
Palin has the temerity to be who she is -- without apology a practical, commonsense, constitutional conservative who stands her ground. Ready for all comers. Unforgivable.
The Palin fault line divides not only the political spectrum but also the human one of authenticity and pretense.
A Personal Note
I am not particularly sanguine about Sarah Palin as a potential candidate for the presidency, but I think she will have good effect in sorting the wheat from the chaff in the Republican Party, principled conservatives from the dodgy. I think she has, with deliberation, placed herself on a road to build credibility, knowledge and gravitas which may or not lead her to the White House.
Palin's expressed political opinions (closely akin to Fred Thompson's in my opinion) are congenial to mine, and I find little about her to criticize generally.
What I like best about Sarah Palin is her effect on the left, driving them to paroxysms of self-parody.
Regarding a possible presidential run, Victor Davis Hanson makes some good points in an article at PJM. That Palin will have to accumulate a body of knowledge superior to any opponent she may face, and she must deal with critics in her own party.
-------------
* I can't fail to add the unprincipled poseurs on the right. It is more about elitist culture than politics.
Probably not. At least not by traditional methods of incremental change.
The problem is one of inertia. Regardless of who occupies the White House and congress, the enormous bureaucracies and career staff -- which if not uniformly ideological liberals -- are statists who favor the left's bias toward the constant expansion of government. In terms of political effect it is a distinction without a difference. That is unlikely to change given the fact that these firmly established institutions are loath to hire new applicants for employment who are conservative. (1)
Beyond the machinery of government (but connected) are the entrenched liberals in media, entertainment, organized labor and education who promote socialist principles. It is perhaps in education (K12 through graduate school) that the deepest and most lasting damage has been done. (2)
A resurgence of popular conservatism (or conservative populism) might "boot the rascals out", but the new lot would quickly find that, in fact, it has little real power to change or override the dominant bureaucracies and institutions.
Ugly Alternatives
We find ourselves at a place where popular revolt in one form or another may be the sole alternative that will drive political change. Methodologies would seem most likely to include the following: a widespread refusal to pay federal taxes; states firmly exercising the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment and, finally, secession.
A tax revolt might have the most immediate effect -- a Cloward-Piven strategy turned on its head. (3) But, like belling the cat, it is fraught with practical difficulties. Given the general fear of the I.R.S., and the anticipation of draconian government reprisal, I think it would difficult or impossible to enlist the commitment of enough citizens -- particularly among the top five per cent of taxpayers -- to make the strategy work.
State exercise of Tenth Amendment rights seems more promising, and an increasing number of states are paving the way. The usurpation of powers reserved to the states is not new, but under recent administrations -- particularly the current one -- it has become blatantly aggressive, and it seems certain that the constitutional principle will be tested in the near future. In fact the testing has already begun, but it has not yet attained high-profile status.
Once a federal-state conflict (likely over medical marijuana, guns or universal healthcare) becomes the focus of news media attention, it will be interesting to see the response of federal government. We may reasonably expect that the initial tactic will be denial of federal funds to the offending state followed by the filing of lawsuits in federal courts. Assuming that a state refuses to be intimidated, what form of coercion might follow? And how would the state respond?
Which leads us to the possibility of secession -- the last and most parlous alternative to federal tyranny. I will deal with this in a future post that will attempt to make the case for secession and account for the probable consequences.
-------------
1. This series of articles by Hans von Spakovsky gives a revealing insider's account of institutional bias.
2. Whether wittingly, unwittingly or half-wittingly, educators have been drawn into the Gramscian mold of progressivism.
3. This strategy is designed to bring down government by overwhelming it with financial demands. A tax revolt would have a similar effect by depriving government of revenues.
