More on Moderates

I've said some unpleasant things about moderates, especially moderate politicians and pundits. This doesn't mean I have anything against the concept of moderation, nor do I think all moderate human beings are squishes. Many people moderate their drinking, shopping, emotional responses, sexual conduct, their time spent working, their gambling in places like Vegas, their food consumption, etc., and this is admirable -- however, I'm not convinced the virtue is transferable, necessarily, to politics.

The problem I have with the Thomas Dewey-like moderates is that they are okay with government intervention as long as it's paid for. The term "moderate", in politics, is troublesome -- some moderate Republicans even refer to their political designation as "progressive" Republican. Is this a Teddy Roosevelt progressivism? I also wonder what is the difference between moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, and if "progressive" is thrown into the mix, the lines are blurred to the point of being senseless.

I often hear pundits say that moderate Democrats are separating themselves from liberals on a given issue -- if the moderate Democrats are not liberal then this also begs the question -- what makes them different from the moderate Republicans? Does it all boil down to how much debt is acceptable? In other words, is statism acceptable to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives with the only difference being how much statism and debt each group is willing to accept? I suppose, if this is true, that at some point a line is drawn separating the moderate Republicans from the Democrats, therfore distinguishing which party the moderates fall within. We know that the liberals and progressives fall within the Democrat Party, but the line is blurred with moderates from each party.

But even this is not clear, because Republican moderates also claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so which really defines them, if they accept that a certain amount of statism is acceptable? Don't moderate Democrats claim the same thing -- that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Is it really just a matter of degree? This doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to justify different party designations, because even within the Democrat Party there are disagreements among moderates over how much government intervention is acceptable, so Republican moderates, like Arlen Specter used to be, could fit right in, just as Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others could blend right in. It appears the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republican moderates are all in the same political group with marginal disagreements over how much statism is acceptable. The particular local issues are not that important when looking at the difference between parties -- here, I'm more concerned with political philosophy in a broader sense, as between statist and anti-statist.

As a libertarian-leaning thinker, I can understand fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but where I separate from the moderates, and the liberals and progressives, is their willingness to use government intervention in the economy and for the greater good of society, especially after the performance of the state since the turn of the 20th century. Moderates aren't working for a limited government and private realm solutions to social problems, and they appear to see the Constitution as fluid according to the needs of the time. So, who is left to defend the classical liberal principles on which America was founded, or have we moved past our beginning into a more global political philosophy, or anti-philosophy, of socialization and internationalism?

Most libertarians still uphold the classical liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, charity, and self-determination, and the conservative movement is presently re-embracing these principles, although many in the base have always embraced these principles, they've just been too willing to use statsism to achieve socially conservative ends, and the conservative choice of Bush in 2000 showed a statist weakness in the Republican Party.

The moderates might be right when they say that if the Republican Party is to re-gain power it will require moderate support, but what good is the Republican Party in power if it advances statism? The Democrats are doing a better job of advancing statism, if that is the goal -- the Democrats just need to get spending under control, and the moderates in the Democrat Party are working on that -- the Republican moderates can join them and give them more fiscally conservative firepower. The question is who is going to fight against statism? Are the libertarians and conservatives enough? Will the libertarians and conservatives split over social issues? Is the independent movement a new, anti-statist, political formation?  

Next, as a follow-up, I'll write about the concerns I have surrounding the liberal/progressive definitions. The current babble regarding political designations is simply too confusing.

Remember Afghanistan?

It seems like just yesterday Afghanistan was a hot topic -- oh, it was. But, that was yesterday, and, now, yesterday's gone.

It seems like Obama was making a decision about sending more troops, or something, but he had to wait until a real election was held, but then the guy with two like names backed out and the election went to the drug-dealer, then...well, then there was silence.

Did the war end? Or did we get, like, real busy and stuff?

Ten point two

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0243717320091106?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

The unemployment rate rose to 10.2, but don't worry -- Obama is going to build infrastructure.

Obama did say he would consider lowering business taxes -- you think? Why didn't someone think of this earlier? Uh, President Obama, your Sirship, you...uh...don't need to consider it, you...uh...just need to...uh...DO IT!

Where have all the real liberals gone?

In the tradition of Sukarno, Nehru and Nasser, Obama is an internationally favored celebrity who talks much better than he manages, and who destroys the domestic economy while pontificating on global advances of cosmic proportions. America is in dire need of leaders who understand capitalism. Even if many liberal goals are questionable, true liberals must still exist, right?

 

The business of America is business, and liberal goals will never be achieved by destroying capitalism, so I have to wonder where the principled liberals are hiding. Its clear that the right opposes Obama's progressive agenda, but where are the liberals? I don't believe that all liberals are progressives -- writers like Alan Wolfe, for instance.

Most modern liberals depend too much on the state to achieve their goals of public welfare, but many liberals still believe in the free enterprise system. Obama states he believes in the free market, but his actions, past statements and associations contradict this claim. And, aside from Obama, other progressives in power have made no secret about their disdain for capitalism.

 

In order to stop the war against capitalism, courageous liberals must step forward and join the alliance aimed at fighting against the progressive onslaught. Luckily, not much damage has been done so far, but if progressives have their way, capitalism will be completely savaged and replaced with state marketism -- much like has happened in European countries with mediocre economies which would collapse if these countries had to pay for their own defense and weren't propped up by our research, development, innovation and funding of the IMF and World Bank.

 

This brings up another point -- the world can't afford the destruction of capitalism in America. Perhaps there's some type of One World Order strategy where nations think they can bleed industries of the money necessary to bring about a global governance, but this is highly unlikely. Productive people aren't going to produce on demand -- production requires the freedom inherent in a capitalist system -- the lessons of Russia are still fresh, so it's amazing that liberals here in America can't see this.

The almost impossible task

We can continue to piddle at the cusp of our problems in America, or we can begin facing our problems, identifying them for what they are, and then find solutions. The progressives are still hammering away at the narrative that the state is necessary to correct past injustices, and that the only way to do this is to transform capitalism into some form of socialization and central planning. There are those who look at government intervention then say that without intervention certain things wouldn't have happened: education, post office, roads, strong middle class, assistance for the poor, Medicare, Medicaide, food stamps, unemployment insurance, technology research, dams for energy, infrastructure of all sorts, public transit, safety, environmental protection, Social Security, de-segregation, women's rights, civil rights, building standards, food and drug standards, consumer protection of all sorts, financial regulations, on and on and on.

It's almost a hopeless case because we have given government so much power to control these areas of concern, that all people can see is what has happened due to government intervention. It would take a genius imagination to go back to the beginning and imagine other routes to the same results, or much better results. You would have to assess the effectiveness of all the areas of government intervention, then build a fictional alternative -- "fictional", because in most of these areas of concern the private sector was never allowed to, or never forced to, deal with the problems.

This would be a herculean task, although many libertarian writers have shown how some alternatives would work -- writers such as Rothbard and Friedman. But to address all government interventions would be a lifetime task, and even then people would have a difficult time understanding the alternative vision, because they are trained from childhood to accept government intervention as vital. Another herculean task is the one presented to libertarian-leaning policy makers who promote privatization for this or that -- for every area of concern which would be better off privatized, there are thousands of bureacrats dependent on a government program connected to the concern, politicians who are trying to save their power-base, and perhaps millions of dependent citizens who are afraid of change and don't want to risk losing something the government has provided.

I have no idea how government can ever be limited as it should be limited short of a collapse and rude national awakening. Our government is presently driving the country to financial disaster, and we can no loger pretend it's not an all-out attack on the free market -- between the energy efforts and healthcare reform we're talking long term, permanent costs, not just one or two time bailouts or a stimulus package here and there. Plus, with the attack on free enterprise, unemployment is likely to be high for a long time, costing us much more in benefits to support the out-of-work, with permanent unemployment rising. Safety net costs will go through the roof. It also appears we're politically stuck in two wars which will require long-term maintenance.

Baby boomers are retiring, so SS and Medicare will sink even further in the bog of unfunded liabilities. With government regulating the financial industry into stupor, lenders are going to be skittish and very conservative. Capitalism is being strangled and government spending is rising at record levels. This can't be sustained, and if government tries to soak the rich, money will flee even faster. The big question is -- Who is going to pay for all this? More and more young people are leaving high school with no marketable skills, barely able to read and write. It's incredible that small and medium size businesses are not organizing people to take to the streets -- but, so far, I don't hear any loud reaction.

I'm afraid people are stunned and hoping it will all go away, but from all the evidence it's only getting worse. More and more people are becoming dependent on government assistance and this is not good. We need another revolution, but most intelligent people are capitulating to power, playing the political game and burying their heads in the sand. A nation full of competent men and women, and we're being led by a handful of new age techno-fascists. The only ray of hope has been the Tea Party movement but it should be quadruple its size. This is no time for a replay of intellectuals slobbering over Stalin -- and, no, I'm not comparing Obama to Stalin, just weak intellectuals to weak intellectuals.

We're in a period where ordinary people are protesting, doing something they've never done before, participating in politics as free people should, and the intellectuals are trying to ridicule them into silence. Anyone who chooses the corrupt status quo of state power over people who want to limit the size of an over-reaching government are complicit in the destruction of liberty -- the media, Hollywood, representatives, big corporations, academics, unions, and every man and women who remains silent because they are afraid of losing some bauble from the gift-givers in D.C., they are all complicit.

Big corporations are hiding from competition behind the skirt of the state, comfortable in their international business, unconcerned with the damage done to the American economy, but when government gets desparate for money they will drain these sorry rent-seekers like hogs on a hook at the slaughter-house.

Just look at how Pelosi and Obama have strong-armed the insurance industry and shackled the finance industry, plus what they are in the process of doing with the auto-industry. Whatever company gets in their sights will be at risk. But, these companies asked for it -- when you make a deal with the devil you have to read the fine print.

The problem now is that it's doubtful we can stop this. One thing is for sure -- docility, capitulation and compromise will not help matters.