Morning Joe 2/13/2012 -- Political means have failed

On Morning Joe today, the guests were Peggy Noonan, Richard Haas, Tom Brokaw, Jeff Flake and a few others who were not that important to the discussion. Scarborough started out by making fun of Romney's use of the adjective "severely" to describe his conservative governance in Massachusetts. I took "severely" as a description of how Romney's conservative governance affected the liberals in state government, but Scarborough obviously thought it was funny enough to repeat the word "severely" as if everyone gets the joke. Morning Joe liberals certainly got the joke, at least they knew it was making fun of Romney so that's good for them.

More and more Scarborough reveals himself as a Centrist who operates by political means because he doesn't understand and has no use for economic means. If he ever ran for President, he would be a lite version of Obama. Obama knows only political means. In fact, Romney and Paul are the only ones running for President who understand economic means and realize the dangers of continued operations under political means. Scarborough is also either naive or dishonest -- he told Peggy Noonan that the President's "accomodation" with the Catholic Church was made in an effort to solve the problem. Noonan suggested that the administration is attempting to frame the issue as Republicans opposing contraceptions.

Scarborough said that the compromise/accomodation doesn't really solve the problem, but from a political perspective, if Republicans continue to push the issue, it will look like they are opposing contraception. Really? Who will make it look like the Republicans are opposing contraception? Could it be liberal media and every Democrat who was interviewed over the weekend or will be interviewed from here on out during this issue's lifespan? And Scarborough believes the administration was honestly trying to find a solution? This whole issue was a scam, even if it didn't start out that way -- Obama and his media support groups saw an opportunity to frame Republicans as against women's rights, and they played it. It's the political way.

Now, Scarborough is urging Republicans to be "careful", but he implied that they should go forward and accept the "compromise" -- that's the political solution. Santorum is the only one who needs to be "careful". Everyone elese simply needs to be honest and defend freedom. Why did Scarborough oppose the mandates to provide contraception services in the beginning? Because he had cover from the Left -- several Democrats came forth as opposed to forcing Catholics to provide contraception services. But, once Scarborough had to stand on principle, after the phony compromise which gave insincere Catholics on the Left cover to say the issue has been resolved, he folded, because he's afraid that standing on principle at this point will look bad politically. This is what's wrong with Republican Centrism -- it has capitulated to political manipulation over and over for decades and decades, and it has involved itself in political manipulation, because  Centrists know only political means. Scarborough is not a limited government conservative -- he's a Centrist political animal who holds a principle only long enough to make an impression or a deal.

Jeff Blake came on the show and he supports Mitt Romney. Blake defended Romney on Romney's governance record and his economic/management experience. I think Romney is a better choice than Gingrich or Santorum, just because he understands economic reality. Healthcare in Massachusetts was a state issue, so I don't care about it-- not when Romney has no intention of expanding Obamacare and promises he will repeal it. But, I support Ron Paul, because Paul has integrity. Brokaw said he attended Paul rallies in which Paul talked about our government constructing a Taj Mahal in Iraq for an embassy while we're drowning in debt -- Brokaw said he can understand this message. Richard Haas said the problem is that wackos like Paul and Ross Perot have been the messengers regarding serious cuts to government spending. Haas said a mainstream politician has to promote this message. The problem is that the mainstream is made up of centrists like Scarborough who capitulate when it becomes politically unpopular to cut spending --  mainstream politicians use political means to make decisions and design policy, not economic means. The mainstream in politics has been statist power maintenance.

Scarborough and the gang managed once again to obscure the real issue -- the controversy with the Catholic Church is not about contraceptions, and it's much larger than religious freedom -- it's about the danger of government intervention when limits to power have been removed. Obamacare is what we get in a statist system, and Obamacare is just beginning to insert its long fingers in our personal lives and our economy. It's the political means used by power-mongers who believe central planning is better than free choice in a free market.

The centrist/conservative war on libertarianism (warning: sarcasm below)

http://www.frumforum.com/russell-kirk-would-not-recognize-these-conservatives

This article is hardly worth the time, but I've seen such ideas expressed from Centrist, Burkean conservatives too often lately. There has been a libertarian influence on conservatism, but to claim the influence has led to selfishness and shortsightedness, that libertarianism is a god-less perversion which has sickened conservatism, is ridiculous. This writer and others in the Center who lay claim to "real" conservatism are practicing a type of obscurantism they obviously learned from modern liberalism. It's just another statist rationalization for control of the few over the many. This rationalization reduces libertarian thought to solipsism, in-the-moment pleasure-seeking and money-grubbing.

Libertarianism, for the most part, offers an authentic long-term vision in modern politics. As Centrists have defended statist institutions, they reflect the worse kind of Burkean elitism which proclaims a top-down, fatherly benevolence from a powerful State which is the purveyor of moderation and compromise to maintain order, security and general welfare. The guardians of civility and tradition work diligently to establish and protect a wise balance that prevents a chaotic free market from perverting the values of the easily misled flock in need of wise counsel and guidance. All this talk about individual rights, personal liberty and free markets will lead to atomistic consumerism unless the true Keepers of conservative values prevent libertine dynamism and promote orderly economic growth -- a dynamic market beyond  control of the Keepers can lead to people getting the crazy idea government is something that exists only through the consent of the people. These types of crazy ideas fail to grasp a greater purpose known only to the most virtuous among us. Before you know it, the public will limit government to a few basic duties, and then who will guide the process and demand their sacrifice? Heaven forbid!

The clamor for centrism

This morning on Morning Joe the panel yearned for more centrism like government is supposed to do things, getting together and "getting things done". I've heard this a lot from pundits lately, and many of Obama's critics on the Right have been laughed at when they call Obama a progressive -- why, he's just a centrist, after all. What does it mean to be a centrist, a moderate? The way most in the political class talk about centrism, the main characteristic is pragmatism.

Statists claim to be pragmatists when they're charged with central planning and social engineering. The idea is that in modern politics, in this complex world, an ideology is too limiting to deal with all the diverse problems facing the country, and one ideology can't possibly address all the challenges facing us. Therefore, the centrist pragmatically considers each situation and uses comoon sense to find the best solution for the greatest number. Sometimes indivdual rights are violated for the greater good, because pragmatism shouldn't be limited by principles carved in stone. The centrist believes that if there are two opposing views, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle, therefore, finding compromise is the only way to effectively govern.

This centrist view gained popularity at the beginning of the 20th century when government became more active in guiding America's economy and role in international affairs. Pragmatically, we entered two world wars and created the Federal Reserve as a pragmatic solution to recessions, depressions and deflation/inflation. The 16th Amendment came about as a means to fund our new pragmatic, interventionist statist system. Government intervened in the economy and became entangled in foreign affairs before the 20th century, but nothing to the extent of the interventions and entanglements since the 20th century. I don't have the time here to go into all the arguments in favor of interventions, such as freeing the slave, giving women the right to vote and the Civil Rights Act -- these were mostly amendments and adjustments to flaws in the Constitution and laws which didn't go far enough in the beginning to ensure every individual enjoys our basic rights equally.

What I want to consider is the centrist/moderate mindset of the last few decades. Statism became acceptable after the New Deal and surely so after LBJ's Great Society. Kids who grew up in the 80s, 90s and now in the 21st century have been taught that government management of the economy is natural and necessary, and our role as World Police has helped further the cause of Democracy against tyrants of all stripes (although it's also taught we've been imperialist bad guys, too). The State has become powerful in ways the Founders feared in the beginning, but now State power is normal. Recently, though, Americans have started to question the role of government in our lives, the economy and abroad, and many people have gone back to the Constitution for guidance.

We've been told by statists on the Right and Left that the Constitution had to evolve to deal with problems that the Founders couldn't have foreseen. These statists acknowledge that America should not drift into bonafide Socialism or Communism, but we also shouldn't expect a strict adherence to the Constitution -- these two extremes should be avoided in favor of a pragmatic approach which re-interprets general welfare and interstate commerce in particular. The State, through an interventionist government, has taken the responsibility of general welfare to new heights to ensure justice, equality and a safety net for everyone -- also, the State has widened the scope of the interstate commerce clause to regulate business and prevent the jungle of the market from creating chaos and unfair advantages for the rich and powerful. The State seeks civility, order, social justice and stability. Centrist efforts aim to avoid the extremes of Socialism on one hand and a chaotic free market on the other hand. Unions, the Fed, an interventionist government, media, and government/corporate partnerships all go toward maintaining and supporting a powerful State machine that guides the general direction of our economy and our role in international affairs. How has this worked so far?

Well, right now, the State is in serious trouble. Government spending, after building steadily through the years, has skyrocketed in recent years and our welfare/warfare/regulatory State is faced with debt and unfunded liabilities which will crush us if nothing changes. We're at the tipping point. After a series of bubbles and crashes and a Fed monetary policy that has kept us somewhat afloat through borrowed and printed money, American enterprise at home has come to a halt, almost, and real unemployment is close to 20%. We're bogged down in Mideast wars, and our military/industrial complex is basically unaudited, spending billions each year that can't be accounted for. Foreclosures are at record highs, and there's no recovery in sight. These are just a few of our problems. The next bubble to burst is likely the massive amount of student loans which jobless young people no longer want to, or can't, pay back. Banks and auto companies have been bailed out, and now Europe's financial crisis threatens to hit banks and our economy with another severe blow.

A pragmatist might think change of direction is in order. Those who blame the current standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the role of government for our crisis should realize that all these problems didn't start with Bush in 2000 -- these problems have been building for decades, and our "centrist", statist government created most of the problems. Now that some Americans are taking a stand and considering the need to limit government power, cut spending and create a free market, the political class is up in arms screaming "Extremism"! Pundits are pushing for a quick return to the staus quo, the same centrist, statist compromises that got us here. A real pragmatist would search for real solutions. The center now is simply a weak admission that we can't change the system, but systemic changes are surely needed in this mess. History shows us that government manipulations only prolong economic downturns, and if we continue down the centrist, statist path, we'll experience anothe Great Depression lasting another decade or so. Japan did just what our political class is recommending we do and Japan still hasn't recovered -- that was two decades ago.

It appears to me that pragmatism calls for limits on government power and spending and the creation of a free market that can compete in the global market, along with changes to education, the end of the Fed and Fannie and Freddie, evacuation of the Mideast, closure of military bases and a few other pragmatic changes. Tomorrow I will write about the Republican establsihment's push for status quo centrism.

Morning Joe 9/28/2011 -- The Center cannot hold

On Morning Joe today there was more talk about Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The early guests were Nicole Wallace and Jim Kramer. Scarborough and Wallace lusted after Chris Christie. Christie gave a speech at the Reagan Library yesterday, and apparently it was a good speech -- I've only seen clips. Wallace became emotional when talking about Christie's ability to be strong and accomodating at the same time, about how Christie has courage and can tell people what they need to hear, but how he can also cross the aisle when he needs to "get things done".

Scarborough wrote a column about how "crazy" can't win, and after Wallace praised Christie, Scarborough gave his speech to show that he, like Christie, knows how to get things done, that although he was a "small" government, tax cutting, Republican in 1994, now is a different time and we need a strong leader who doesn't allow ideology to prevent compromise and Big Government actions necessary to deal with our economic problems. Scarborough said that, as he's said before, if "crazies" in congress obstruct the plan, the Strong President has to destroy congress to get his/her way.

According to the Centrists like Scarborough and Wallace, conservatives can win but not the crazies like Perry and Bachmann who believe SS is unconstitutional or that the Fed is treasonous. The Centrists are pushing a more Burkean Conservativism, smart, moderate and strong enough to do what's best for the American people who don't always know what's best. Wallace likes Christie because he can tell people what the answers are even if they don't want to hear it. This is fine if what a President is telling the people is that we have limitations on government, and even though the people might want government to hand out goodies, it's not the government's job to hand out goodies.

But the Centrists have something else in mind. The Centrists want to tax the highest earners, and they want government to "invest" in New Deal like projects to get the economy going. The Centrists aren't challenging the Fed and statist intervention, nor are they against entitlements as long as they're tweaked a little so they can extend further into the future.

Christie is against natural gas development in NJ and supports wind energy. Whether he's right or not is beside my point -- the fact that he's in favor of Right-style statism, intervention in the market to push government solutions, is the point. This is what Democrats are for -- statist intervention in the market to guide our economy.

Scarborough says "crazy" can't win, then he praised Republicans for choosing Centrists like McCain and Dole -- they lost, but who cares about the facts. Reagan was called a "crazy" in his time, and Reagan won, but, again, facts are irrelevant. Christie, from what I can tell, has an authoritarian streak -- call it soft-authoritarianism, but this is what Scarborough likes, I suppose. What the Center represents is a defense for the status quo, no radical changes which will upset the authority of the executive branch, with representatives who will work to help achieve the Centrist, Establishment, Executive's goals through a fiscally sound, pragmatic approach to central planning. The Centrists want a vibrant economy, but not a truly free market in which chaos would result. The Center wants orderly economic progress that adheres to soft-authority. What has happened in the past is the "crazies" on the Left win because they have the moral high-ground. They frame soft-authoritarians as gatekeepers for the rich and powerful, and masters over the poor, preventing the poor from getting their fair share, so the Centrists compromise with the Left in order to prove they have a heart and care about the poor. Both Left and Right, when compromising in the Center become One in the State, and the State grows in power as the public is divided, then conquered through illusion of Centrist rationality.

In this scenario, which has been the working model, each side can keep their base happy enough to keep supporting them, and if power changes it doesn't matter, because they all meet in the middle to keep the game going. The monied interests, the Big Corporate Players, just try to keep both sides greased.

This year has been somewhat different, because there are more "crazies" on the Right and Left. Media ignored Obama's relationship with "crazies" during his campaign, but the crazies are still there pushing Obama to forget about the Center this time and bring down the rich and powerful once and or all. The "crazies" on the Right are promising to block the Republican Party from picking a McCain or a Dole, and the "crazies" on the Right are organized. The "crazies" on the Left are organizing, despite Obama telling them to quit complaining and whining, that he's a believer but they have to be patient, just follow him as he marches on. It appears we're approaching an election season in which the Center/status quo strategy isn't working. Obama realizes now that his feint to the Center isn't working. The Republican establishment realizes that the Center strategy isn't working, because no matter how hard they try to get Romney in the lead, they can't seem to do it. Now, Christie is refusing to jump in -- maybe he sees the writing on the wall for Centrism. The 2012 elections will be interesting.

The Morning Joe crew briefly mentioned Solyndra, but nothing on Fast and Furious, and nothing on the European financial crisis, and nothing on our looming economic crisis caused by government intervention. If only Christie would run -- if only Obama would take control and lead -- that's the Morning Joe mantra lately. The Center cannot hold. 

More centrist nonsense -- Joe Scarborough and Michael Bloomberg

Anyone who makes a big deal of being a political centrist can't be trusted with important issues. On MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning, they showed a clip of Michael Bloomberg and Joe Scarborough talking to Harvard students, moderated by John Meacham. I almost threw my coffee cup at the monitor.

What Scarborough and Bloomberg were attempting to teach the college students is one of the most dangerous political lessons than can be taught in our present political environment. First, they used Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants Obama to fail as an example of unpatriotic partisanship. Both Bloomberg and Scarborough stated that a president should be backed and that no one should hope the president fails. Scarborough said he has many disagreements with the president, but he doesn't hope the president fails. Then, Scarborough hopes the president succeeds.

What does it mean for the president to succeed? If the president passes his agenda and does the things he wants to do to fundamentally transform America, then he succeeds. Obama has said that his preference for healthcare is single payer and that the present reform is the first step to get there -- these are Obama's plans. Obama wants cap and trade and card check. Obama wants to accomplish an agenda which will give the government much more control over Wall Street, healthcare and energy producition and use, just to name a few major goals for change.

Limbaugh said, over and over, explaining his point many times, that he wants Obama's progressive agenda to fail. Scarborough and Bloomberg know that this is what Limbaugh meant, and it's the only way the president can fail -- to not accomplish the policy objectives he sets out to accomplish. If we fail in other areas which are outside the president's control, then these failures are a national failure, or a failure of congress, or of the courts, or of the private sector. But anyone who disagrees with Obama's political agenda should hope he fails to get them passed, otherwise, our ideas mean nothing, and any ideas of a current president are fine -- we should hope he/she succeeds. They can't say it's mean they hope the president succeeds in some general way, because success entails the particulars of his political agenda.

Teaching students that their policial ideas should be subjugated to the prevailing political party out of patriotic duty to support a president is the most harmful lesson anyone can teach. This statist/nationalistic combination is dangerous. Young people don't have to be taught to question authority, they do it naturally but trying to inculcate these lesons in the young is abhorable -- it is possible to indoctrinate people over a period of time. This is the route to a mediocre, intellectually-stunted nation filled with "proper" citizens of the State. These ideas are remnants of a monarchy where subjects honor the wishes of a King.

Bloomberg and Scarborough are Republicans, statist Republicans who claim centrism as a way to maintain a political status quo which shares State power. As our nation begins to wake up to the creative power of the private realm, hopefully freed from the grasp of an interventionist government which teaches obedience to and undeserved respect for State power, the main lesson going forth is that values are important. True liberal values, classical liberal values, are the lifeblood of all great, free and creative societies, and the absence of classical liberal values is what has caused the decline and fall of great societies, the Greeks, The Romans, the British, and Americans, if we continue to destroy these values and replace them with the statist values of obedience and unthinking loyalty to authority. Scarborough and Bloomberg can scream this is not what they meant, but it's what they were saying. We need clear ideas and direction, not platitudes and general, smiley-face bipartisanship.

(BTW, when asked if he'd consider running for president, Scarborough is open to the idea -- I report, you decide)