Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

I can’t claim an extensive understanding of progressive thought, but I am willing to give it a hearing; I’m mostly willing to do so in order to exemplify the ideals I’m always preaching about; namely that ideas need to be heard and debated, not cut down without analysis. So how do I determine what to address or discuss? I will have to use media sources, first, because I am not as intimately involved as I should be in reading and researching progressive thought; second, I won’t use this particular post to critque the ideology in question, merely to spell it out and gain an understanding. I’ll leave the commentary to the comment area (a bit of a confusing phrase?) if any will take place.

First, what role should government play in our lives? What I get from liberal friends and from a basic reading of the news is that many of these individuals are, in general, a passionate group and often place the well-being of others at the forefront of their philosophy; this is why they do what they do, for the less well-off. What can be done to ensure that these folks are taken care of, and how best to accomplish this goal?

In general, it is best to support a government that is vast and far reaching in order to help the most people; plus reform doesn’t move fast enough in society and provides a less reliable motivator; for social justice it is best to force change through legislative action; barring that, perhaps judicial activism. This philosophy “holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to person and property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a reproach to the justice of society.” ¹ So in a sense, the right to work becomes a natural right, which is granted by government, a right which is to be protected at all costs, while inequality indicates how certain segments of society are served poorly by current institutions.

The focus is generally on the good of the community as a whole rather than what is good for individual actors, so that everyone can live an equally good life. “It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals. Social liberal policies include government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and social welfare, and protection of human rights.” ¹

A small critique of this thought process. While I said I would not offer criticisms, it best to provide a little balance. The state has been described “as the entity that maintains a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given territory.” ² Meaning, the state is the only entity that can manipulate actors in any meaningful, legitimate way. In order to accomplish progressive goals by attempting to provide work and reasonable wages means that the state must force it’s citizenry to comply with any edicts regarding work and wages in order to ensure compliance. ² I would like to assume that the citizenry wouldn’t normally accept this kind of pressure to conform without a rational reason, though.

In my opinion, what makes progressivism so dangerous is the nobility of its causes. When taken in the abstract, for instance, there are few who would disparage the importance of progressive priorities such as health care and education. The difference between progressives and conservatives, however, is that progressives consider these issues to be matters of “social justice,” thereby necessitating government provision. Politically, we often see progressive policies gain more traction because it is easier to create massive deficit-financed entitlement programs than to ask people to make spending sacrifices in their own lives. This makes intuitive sense since whatever money the government borrows needs to be paid back by future generations. Therefore, we can almost think of the government as a hidden financing mechanism for American households. Yet, while progressive policies might seem attractive—since they allow Americans to collectively finance social programs via low interest government debt—they ultimately require people to pay a much higher cost: their own freedom. That is, every time we expand the government’s mandate, we effectively socialize private rights, especially those pertaining to property. ²

In short, this is why so many people align themselves with progressive/liberal policies. Because it is noble, and just to do so on it’s face. Thus, one could come to the conclusion that the converse was true of classical liberal thought; that it is merely heartless and self serving–well self serving perhaps is sort of accurate.

What are your thoughts on progressive ideology? What role should government play in society? Why do you subscribe to/not subscribe to progressive ideology? Could you see the opposing sides view in a positive light and would you be willing to try to understand it in order to better understand your own views?

I want to leave you with a thought from F.A. Hayek, brought to my attention by Mr. Hollander: “If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” ²

I’m going to rant for a little bit; I’m going to do this because I’ve had it with being considered a government hating, racist, ignoramus, low-life conservative minded person. My views are not extreme; my views are not heartless; and my views are far from racist. Each of these arguments against my beliefs lack legitimacy in that they do not address my thoughts in any way. My beliefs are completely ignored, but my character is attacked; I’m considered an idiot and heartless for bringing this up.

When I disagree with a set of opinions, my disagreement is misguided, dangerous–subversive even–yet when those with whom I disagree are in opposition to what I have said their protestations are of the highest order of patriotism–intelligent, and well guided. Really, they’re just fucking enlightened–while I am clearly not.

Disgust is displayed prominently on my face.

Where did these ideas come from? Obviously there are some legitimate arguments to be had on both sides of the governing philosophy coin, but the complete dismissal of one of those viewpoints is indeed subversive and antithetical to the ideals with which we are supposed to have been taught since birth; the real crime, though, is the manner in which they are dismissed rather than the disagreement itself. Character attacks do not advance political debate; they change the nature of the debate, while solving nothing.

It’s no wonder a lot of conservative minded folks are such conspiracy theorists when their beliefs are attacked in this way by the national media, politicians, and just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry in Hollywood; this is all they hear.

A list of my crazy, subversive, and supposed racist beliefs and thoughts:

1. Governments are for securing and maintaining the natural rights and liberties of members of society; the social contract is legitimate under these circumstances. When a government no longer follows it’s rules and instead becomes a body that doles out rights and liberties its purpose is muddied and it begins to protect liberties less.
2. Governments exist to maintain security in society and to protect from foreign actors; this is how liberties and rights are protected.
3. While taxation is important to maintaining government services and security, the increased amounts of taxation required to maintain the modern welfare state begin to encroach on one’s right to property as the government increasingly sees those earnings as theirs first, and yours as a pittance for your time. Thus, taxation is not evil, it is that taxation for redistribution helps no one over time.
4. We should help one another in society. People need a hand every once in a while, a leg up, something to get them moving; however, using taxation in order to force a helping hand is not charity. Governments are not for creating happiness.
5. People are free to do as they wish, as long as it harms no one; so, people may marry who they wish, drive whatever car they wish, believe what they wish, and act in a manner conforming to the no harm principle.

Please, if any of these ideas are racist, crazy, anti-intellectual, ill informed, or heartless, let me know.

I spend a lot of time reading; so much so that my wife tells me I’m a bit of a moron for spending so much time doing something that is so inherently boring. Her paraphrased words, not mine. IF by some chance you didn’t guess by reading the title, or by knowing me, that the subject matter I happen to read most about is politics (and history, and science, and….), then I should let you in on a little secret: I am often immersed in politically oriented reading. For many months I’ve grown tired of it and the vitriol involved in political debate; however, I generally stay tuned in. The freak show can be amusing.

Something I’ve noticed, and not all by myself but in addition to the observations of others, is the way in which the left and right are often characterized by those in the know. Policies are not debated based on evidence and evaluated for what they are; cause and effect have no place in the debate, rather judgments are based on hyperbole and rhetoric. No one is innocent.

But people take these views to heart, and bring it to work, to school, to churches, and to the dinner table; all the while espousing a view that really doesn’t get to the heart of the matter at all; never addressing the lackluster policies brought forth by either group; doing a great disservice to the national character by involving themselves in something they hardly understand; honestly, democracy is not a good thing. Representative republics are. Democracy relies on rhetoric and vote buying, while republics presumably rely on rationality and vote buying…wait, what?

Look, the heart of the matter is both sides have it wrong; governments are for the protection of a given society’s members and their natural rights, not for the distribution of rights. The more this philosophy has shifted in the citizenry over the years, however, the more the government has taken steps to entrench itself; ultimately the social contract becomes null and void.

Cynicism:1, Me: 0. Semi-colon usage: 7(ish). Semi-colon wins.

At this point, it seems more plausible that the cost of health insurance will keep rising, just as the costs of health care services have continued to climb. The upshot is that the burdens of mandatory purchase, the subsidy costs and the associated implicit marginal tax rates will all increase, eventually to the point of unsustainability. — Tyler Cowen

We continue to debate healthcare proposals in this country, almost non-stop, while the economy burns and fails to recover in any meaningful fashion. On the minds of politicians is not the well-being of the citizenry, or it’s interests, but rather it is the progression of a certain agenda above all else, as the mechanisms are in place to do so; whether or not it can be accomplished within the ranks of the party is mildly debatable, at least.

What the government might consider, rather than this agenda that is, are ideas proven to generate a little momentum in the recovery process: tax breaks, tending to the fiscal health of the federal government, reducing regulatory control on private sector practices, etc. But, health care is just too important.

The quote below is a from Tyler Cowen, How an Insurance Mandate Could Leave Many Worse Off, discussing why the current proposals are eventually doomed to thrive in the pile of unsustainable government ideas.

A further problem is “mandate creep,” which we’ve seen at the state level, as groups lobby for various types of coverage — whether for acupuncture, alcoholism and fertility treatments, for example, or for chiropractor services or marriage counseling.

There are now about 1,500 insurance mandates among the various states, and hundreds of others are under consideration. The dynamic at work here is that the affected groups have a big incentive to push for mandates, while most other people are unaware of the specific issues and don’t become involved.

Because mandates don’t stay modest for long, health insurance would become all the more expensive. The Obama administration’s cost estimates haven’t considered these longer-run “political economy” issues.

Why politicians will not look to these sorts of predictions as an indicator of why their current plans are foolhardy and dangerous is nerve wracking. This is all via, Tyler Cowen. Be sure to read through the comments as it is usually an interesting discussion.

I was walking down town the other day, looking for a spot to grab a quick bit of lunch, when I ran into my old friend, Johnny. He asked, “Did you see the news? Our president won the Nobel peace prize!”

I gasped rather noisily. Johnny asked, “you ok?”

“Sure, Johnny, I’m fine. What did you say about the prize?”

“I can’t believe it either, but it’s a sign to conservatives in this country to get in line with our great president’s, and the world’s, agenda. That’s for sure!”

I had to ask him, why he thought this was necessary or even good for our nation and those living in it. A world wide agenda designed to create equality does not necessarily create favorable outcomes. “What do you mean it doesn’t create ‘favorable outcomes?’” He air quoted that last part. I explained that by drafting and passing legislation designed to create expensive entitlements, entitlements that would eventually need to be paid for with taxation, they were creating an environment of diminished liberty.

“But Bush was a fascist!” Woe, Johnny, woe! What made Bush a fascist? “Well, he just was. He stomped all over the constitution by lying about a war and people died! And that made us lose our rights, like freedom of speech and stuff!”

Wait, we lost our rights? There aren’t many examples of this situation, I’m sure because I’ve not seen any laws produced or evidence that this has occurred. If it has, please let me know. Opposition was rarely denounced by the administration or by any members of Congress, so I’m not sure how any free speech was stifled. The issue here, Johnny is what I mean by diminished liberty, and how this administration deals with the rights you were so concerned about under the Bush administration.

In order to pay for the entitlements that I mentioned earlier, our government (left and right politicians are guilty of this) must reduce our right to the fruits of our labor, our property if you will, our money, in the form of heavy taxes. This burden more often than not will fall on the moneyed, wealthy class; the folks that provide jobs, drive innovation, and have the money to invest in future growth. The more you earn the more you pay. This encourages the wealthy to limit their earnings in an effort to curb their tax burden. With poorer individuals, it is also in their best interest to limit the amount of money they earn in order to ensure they maintain their entitlement benefits.

Keeping individuals on the dole allows for them to create an environment of reliance on the government, while government grow ever so slowly in order to cater to that new found need.

Johnny screamed, “Liar! They would never do to our liberties what Bush did! They care about people!”

And so do conservatives, it’s just that their principles encourage individuals to go out and work hard to attempt to make it for themselves, but when they don’t make it they should rely on the charity of other individuals, churches, and groups that are privately owned and operated to pick up the slack and give people a hand. It should never be the government’s role to do these things, as they will be done inefficiently, will expand the role and scope of government in society and create a life that will not be worth living as property rights are diminished in an effort to collect more taxes. In that case, wealth creation is a burden.

And Johnny, individual liberty has more to do with making a go of it and failing than being guaranteed a good home, a hot meal, and a job by the government. It sounds nice, but breeds a situation of equal misery.

Both parties in this country are as guilty as can be of statist tendencies, their speed and outright efforts are just a little different.

“Huh?” Johnny asked blankly. “You’re getting that hate filled diatribe from Fox News! Your hating, hater, hate speechiness!”

What are you talking about Johnny? Where’s the debate my friend?

Johnny walked away screaming.

Let me preface this by stating that I completely support an effort to reform the current state of health insurance; any effort that legitimately seeks to introduce an environment that creates a more open and competitive market will get a resounding, “Aye!” from me.

With that said, I will not, and cannot support the reform measures being pushed in Congress, touted by the President, and expounded upon by many a celebrity. The introduction of a government plan will ultimately fail to produce the sort of competition being promised, and I have a sneaking suspicion this is just fine by them. The other factor that makes support difficult is the long term cost of the plan; if projections are to be believed the solvency of the United States is at stake.

I won’t guess at, or talk about, what I think their goals are for introducing this sort of legislation, but you know the reason is hardly related to competition when they reject the notion that allowing insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines would breed at least part of the competitive reform they’re seeking in a way that benefits businesses and individuals. Watch them weasel their way out of that conversation. It doesn’t go well.

It’s incredibly hard to pass the plan they seem hell bent on passing. The support isn’t there.

But here’s the real kicker. You absolutely cannot, and really should not, blame Republicans for the possible failure of this reform. Democrats have no excuses with majorities in both houses of Congress, and a Democrat President ready to sign whatever plan they produce.

We are constantly assaulted–verbally bloodied, really–by the message that we are not beyond the issue of race in this country—that racism/sexism/et al runs rampant in the system, and that we have very little chance of progressing positively on this matter. In light of these facts, it is claimed that we must positively discriminate in order to make up for our past wrongs. ¹

And boy, are our past wrongs terrible. Don’t get me wrong on that point, we have certainly not afforded liberty to individuals who should have had it, but I must ask: how in the world are we ever expected to move beyond race, when it is such an obvious factor in determining anti-discriminatory discrimination? That sort of logic is a hell of a thing to figure out.

I don’t believe that we can realistically eliminate the discriminating nature of individuals, however wrong their conclusions may be, simply because we’re wired to do so. We judge situations, we judge ourselves, and we judge others based on actions, our surroundings, and past experience. You cannot eliminate that through legislation, no matter how badly you would like to do so.

To compound matters, we are dealing with a class of individuals who use such language (crying, “Racist!”) in a way that stifles debate on the matter; by many accounts, and by my own experience, I believe we are beyond race or gender being a realistic barrier to any sort of future opportunities. There is an equality of opportunity that surely exists, and there is no question about that. Unfortunately, not all individuals are born rich, well off, in the right neighborhood, attend the right school, etc. but we cannot possibly rely on the government to provide a level playing field in that regard.

Today, I learned of former President Jimmy Carter’s statements concerning opposition to the agenda of President Obama. He feels deep down that any opposition can primarily be attributed to racism, and racist attitudes. Mr. Carter refuses for a single moment to consider that it is opposition to the man’s policies, and not his color or creed, that causes individuals to refuse to support his agenda.

But, once it is claimed that we are racist in our thinking, it becomes difficult to defend our position in a debate–frankly, it is impossible to do so–and thus the debate is ended. In spite of the vitriolic way in which this is done, it is often brushed aside or given legitimacy as an argument against any opposition.

I find it difficult to believe this sort of rhetoric concerning race. In my own life I have not seen the effects of racism on others–though I attended a racially diverse high school–but what I have seen is the unequaled tolerance for diversity my generation has shown.

In brief, the United States seems unwilling to have an open, honest discussion on race simply because it is convenient to maintain the status quo; convenient only because of what it offers in terms of drumming up votes and maintaining the power of the few who would use race, gender, and identity to do so. We will never eliminate discrimination, but we’ve certainly created an environment of equal opportunity, and that is all that we can do in a society that favors liberty.