Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive

As I've written about several times, our labels are losing their meanings -- mainly because political groups fight for dominance through the avenues of our interventionist/statist system of government. When everyone is fighting for political power, labels beceom meaningless. Sometimes, it gets so confusing I have to drill down to whether the issue at hand is one of coercion or non-coercion. In debate, it's always difficult to stay within the strict boundaries of conservative, libertarian, progressive or whatever label is applicable. For instance, we can argue for limited government from all three positions, conservative, libertarian and progressive. Perhaps the most pertinent distinction we can make between political philosophies is whether we're working from a coercive or non-coercive principle. And, even then, even from the libertarian viewpoint, sometimes government coercion is justified.

From a conservative standpoint, if conserve means what Dictionary.com defines as "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of", then I want to conserve the Constitution. I want to conserve the principles of limited government, economic liberty, anti-statism, non-interventionism. I want to conserve these principles to the extent of rejecting government's regulation of marriage, drug use, pornography and moral behavior in general. It's not that I'm an immoral libertine -- it only means I believe that morality has to be freely chosen if it's to have any meaning, and unless a person's behavior violates the rights of others, then government has no business controlling the behavior. There are many philisophical conundrums involved in the libertarian stance, such as pornography and drug use where children are concerned, and these can be worked out while maintaining the integrity of the principle, but this is the idea in broad strokes. Discussing these conundrums leads us to a richer understanding, not dead ends that force us to turn back to an all-powerful State for forced solutions. So, it's not so simple in the political realm when a Conservative promotes "small government" or when the Progressive argues for a "smart" government -- we must consider what limits to place on government power, regardless how big or small or smart the government might be.

So, I can be conservative when wanting to conserve Constitutional rights, yet libertarian when it comes to believing that moral/social issues be dealt with in the free market of ideas. The Progressive might  say that as a people we should help those who can't help themselves, and I agree, thus making me simpatico with a Progressive position. I also agree with Progressives that we should protect our environment. I'm not afraid to make such a normative argument. It's really a no brainer that in a successful, wealthy nation, there's no reason for a poor child to go without a good education, or an old person to go without food, or for a handicapped person to suffer in neglect, or for big corporations to freely pollute our air and water, so on and so forth.

Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive positions collide when it comes to how to go about fighting for or against progressive change. Do we embrace an all-powerful State to do our bidding, forcing others to act as we would have them act, or do we, as free people, work in the private realm to create the change we seek? Again, if, say, a corporate action violates our basic rights, then that's easy if it's a clear violation-- it's why we have rule-of-law, to protect our rights, so, yes, our government has the duty to protect our rights from the violating corporation. If, however, poverty and hunger are the issues, as a libertarian, I believe it will be much more beneficial to the poor and hungry if solutions are found in the private realm, rather than blaming the rich and demanding redistribution of wealth through government actions. It's much better from my perspective to cooperate with wealthy corporations in the private realm, voluntarily, to find innovative, dynamic solutions. An all-powerful State can't be trusted with unlimited power -- power mongers use the welfare State to perpetuate power and control, and government programs eventually erode from lack of competition, devolving into dehumanizing dependence. Am I right? I'm willing to argue this case with grownups in a free society.

A Conservative would likely say that helping others should reach toward the goals of independence, self-responsibility and self-respect. Even the Conservative can want a Progressive society, although she might not call it Progressive, yet disagree with the means of Modern Liberals/Progressives. Many churches today are involved in dealing with social issues such as poverty and hunger. To me this is Progressive, although it could be seen as conserving the traditional role of Churches as they attend to the poor and needy. Conservative hunters join conservation efforts to protect the environment. When we restore meaning to the labels, and we look at rational solutions in the private realm, it lessens the political impact of partisan battling for control over our statist/interventionist government system. It doesn't eradicate labels or beliefs, just transforms them into cooperating forces/sets of ideas searching for the betterment of society in freedom.

It's mainly the politicization of America that keeps us neatly divided between, or trapped within, Conservative, Libertarian or Liberal/Progressive. These labels and concepts have meaning, and I'm not joining the No-Labels crowd. I'm saying that from my perspective what's important is the difference between coercion and non-coercion, statism and anti-statism, force and voluntarism, interventionism and non-interventionism. Once we've settled that limits must be placed on government power, and we've broken the cronyistic protection of corporate power, then the rest is a matter of free, diverse people persuading each other in a free market of ideas. Conceiveably, once the battle over statist power has ended, labels will have to be re-assessed, because the the labels under discussion are primarily related to politics. This is the ideal, of course, and cynics will say that people can't work out their own issues without  control and regulation and, somtimes, brutal enforcement, from the power elite. Surely this isn't true. Surely we're capable of living freely without Big Brother telling us how it should be done.

If I had my way -- if the original principles of limited government had prevailed over the Hamiltonians -- Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives wouldn't fight in the public/political realm for power and control, because, basically, the only decisions to make would be which government will best protect our border, police our streets and settle disputes in courts of law. The private sector would be the arena in which we work out issues regarding the means of conservation, the responsibilities of liberty and the costs and benefits of progress.

Obama supporters are ludicrous

For months now I've heard Obama supporters/defenders talk about how hyperbolic the claims are from the Right regarding Obama the Leftwing radical. For instance, I hear Obama supporters, in response to gun control issues, make the case that Obama has done nothing to threaten the second amendment. Obama supporters, when the issue of taxes arises, claim Obama has cut taxes, and that if he raises taxes it will be only a small amount equivalent to the Clinton years. When the question of liberal anti-military, dovishness comes up, Obama supporters foam at the mouth proclaiming the toughness shown by Obama, the Great Warrior Chief, as he shot bin Laden in the eye and has killed one terrorist after another with precision drones. When critics on the Right attack Obama's welfare expansion, Obama supporters talk about state services which have been cut and how America's welfare state is meager compared to Sweden and Denmark. When the religious Right complains about Obama's anti-Christian attitude, Obama supporters assure us that he is a true Christian who believes in a personal God who can affect our lives. You would think that the Left has adopted conservative principles and is making the case that Obama is the true conservative in the race for President. When proponents for oil drilling castigate Obama for creating obstacles to oil drilling, Obama's minions show how oil drilling is increasing as they beam with pride. Obama supporters support these claims of his conservative prowess with gusto.

This is either a transformation that no one expected -- Obama goes from Progressive/Social Democrat to Super Conservative -- or it's a ploy to deflect criticism regarding Obama's Leftist views. The first option is incredible, so let's look at the second option: are Obama supporters conceding that conservative principles are superior? Why would Obama's supporters paint him as a conservative unless they think that the principles of social democracy are rejected by Americans? The funny thing is that at times Obama pulls off the mask and shows the public exactly who he is and what he supports, but then when he's criticized for proposing the principles of social democracy, the operatives and pundits, and Obama himself, quickly deny the Leftist views and go back to presenting conservative accomplishments. It's ludicrous. What do the honest Leftists think about this? I don't hear any loud, influential voices calling out Obama and his supporters. Why would the true Left support Obama if he thinks he has to play Super Conservative? Is the Left completely cynical politically? Obama has chosen to publically reject a full embrace of social democracy because he doesn't think he will be re-elected if he's honest, so we will have to put up with this ludicrous charade a little while longer. Is it really fooling anyone? Really?

Romney and Paul

It's a hard case to make but I think America is in need of a combination of Romney and Ron Paul. Romney's Big Government past doesn't bother me in 2012 -- most Republicans could never have accomplished what Romney did in Massachusetts with a radically liberal state government. Romney made it possible for Scott Brown to win, although the jury is out on Brown. I think I understand Mitt Romney more than Santorum and Gingrich. Santorum and Gingrich are political animals through and through. Ron Paul has been in congress a long time, but he did have a life before congress, and he's resisted the political games in DC.

I don't understand Romney's background, because I grew up in poverty. I understand Romney on a more basic level. I think Romney truly wanted to work his way out from under his father and become his own man. I also don't understand Romney from a religious perspective, because I'm not a Christian -- I adhere to no religious dogma. My spirituality is secular, human, disconnected from a particular conception of God. Romney has never proposed libertarian ideas, explicitly, although he's now proposing classical liberal ideas. I relate to Romney as someone who understands the private sector, business and the underlying potential among the public if government gets out of the economy.

I think that for political reasons in the primary Romney has to position himself as strong on national defense, but I believe Romney is more interested in maintaining a strong military no other nation will challenge rather than a military to be used as the global police force. I believe Ron Paul has had an influence on Romney, and will continue to move Romney toward full acceptance of classical liberal values and principles. If Republicans could free themselves from the out-dated conservative label, they'd see that classical liberalism decribes what Republicans should be fighting for, defending and using as opposition to statism. There's a confusion of labels in the political realm right now.

I don't know how Romney and Paul can work together, but I believe they'll be pushed toward one another as Gingrich and Santorum use a phony-conservative act in an attempt to fool the Tea Party groups. It's okay by me, though, if Romney calls himself a "severe" conservative for political purposes and to avoid confusion -- Paul calls himself a conservative -- but it needs to be tied, like he tied it today, to economic growth and a concerted effort to remove government from the economy.

Conservative reaction

The attempt on the Left to co-opt libertarianism is a conservative reaction to economic freedom. The same thing happened with the advent of modern liberalism -- it was a statist reaction to classical liberalism, or libertarianism, if you prefer. Now modern liberals are faced with the emptiness of their political views and rationalizations for central economic control and welfare state -- all they have left is fighting for power for the sake of power, and this is as hollow as it gets. The economy is precariously wavering on a precipice, propped up by the Fed as the stock market bubble grows, and the welfare state has met its day of reckoning as states struggle to avoid bankruptcy -- entitlements slog forward eating everything in their path as Baby Boomers retire and cross their fingers. It does no good to blame it all on Bush, because Bush turned out to be a statist, and that's the problem. The Right needs to purify itself of all forms of statism, and libertarianism has no place on either side if statism is practiced by both.

Modern liberals have no good reasons to support statism, but they do, and it makes one wonder if it's only about fear of a free market. There are so many special interest groups now dependent on statism that they are becoming the only supporters of the Democrat Party and they call themselves "liberal" or "progressive". Aside from the historical anamoly of Barack Obama, Democrats have barely hung in there. If the Republicans had not made a mess of governing and turned their backs on classical liberal principles, Democrats would be hurting. Why Republicans haven't learned to trust free market principles, I'll never know, but they have the right answers if only they will apply them and quit worrying about the nation's soul -- the nation's soul will be fine if economic freedom allows the market to offer opportunities for growth and advancement. Taking economic freedom out of the equation destroys libertariansim and all vestiges of classical liberalism, and it makes the Republican Party useless.

While the Democrats have fought for their ideas and failed and now fight to maintain power, Republicans lost their nerve because a poll shows that a majority wants Medicare, or someone on the Left accuses them of wanting the poor to die, or something similar. If Republicans will articulate their ideas and show the courage of their convictions, the nation will support a dismantling of statism. But statism has to be replaced with something -- now it needs to be explained. Republicans have to show that they are the progressive party, that progress is attained  through economic freedom -- control of the few over the many is conservative, in that it preserves a political arrangement which reigned from the beginning of time, practically -- it's why we had a war with Britain. All the terms we use have to be re-assessed so that our political language is meaningful. There's so much smoke and mirror hocus pocus in Washington no one knows what anyone believes. If Republicans can't do it, then a new party should arise -- maybe call it the True Progress Party. The platform will state -- we hereby empower the American people, and we will protect their basic rights, that's all.

John Boehner versus the Tea Party

America's beginning brought forth bold ideas, but the ideas were ahead of their time. While many were inspired by the ideas of freedom from Monarchy, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, property rights and the freedom to dissent, those in power were still chained to old ideas of aristocracy and elite guidance. America has come as close as any country to the true principles of limited government and a free market, but certain clauses in the Constitution, such as the general welfare  and interstate commerce clauses, assured that a Merchant State would survive the liberty revolution. We've struggled between the old, conservative claim to elite domination and a new world of liberty and self-governance since the beginning, and now a another battle arises. The Progressives of today are just as conservative as those in the beginning who couldn't make the leap into real economic freedom, and just as conservative as the Progressives in the early 20th century who used world war and depression as an excuse for statist management and control -- it's a conservative reaction to economic dynamism, even though the social developments made by government are deemed progressive. Real progress would have been to allow the private sector to develop social solutions to social problems, but perhaps the people weren't ready for the responsibility.

Despite all the superficial and contradictory aspects of the Tea Party, some of it nationalistic with no greater meaning for liberty, and some of it contradictory when calls for spending cuts fall short of cutting government programs which are universal and popular, the Tea Party at least made an issue of how government has over-reached and over-spent and over-regulated for decades now.

John Boehner has maintained a cautious leadership in the House of Representatives -- he realizes how important the Tea Party faction is to Republicans' chances of victory in coming elections. But Boehner also feels the pressure from decades of statism and a two-party sharing of the status quo. What makes it difficult for Boehner is that our economy has been stagnant, unemployment is still high, the debt is incredibly high and inflation looms on the horizon which could stamp out any small steps of recovery we might have taken. Cutting government spending at this point will entail pain, just like individuals who get in a credit card trap have to stop the addiction to borrowing and face the pain of financial adjustment.

Democrats are using media protection to leverage the situation by insisting that we need government investment in the economy in order to get through the down economy, then worry about spending -- this is just a rationalization to avoid the reality of our financial problems, maintain spending on key Democrat constituents and frame the Republicans as opportunists who want to cut programs for the disabled, powerless and special interest groups who need government assistance. Most people who avoid blind partisanship and think critically realize the main problem is that we can no longer avoid the debt issue, and that economic growth is necessary to minimize the pain, so the question remains whether government "investment" will jump start the economy, or whether economic freedom and less government intervention will jump start the economy. Contrary to Democrat claims, we can't tax our way out of this stagnation and back to recovery.

Boehner is faced with a dilemma -- does he believe what he has said about the need to get government out of the way? Or, like some of our Founders who were members of the elite, does he believe that government has to carefully guide us through this down turn. Does he beleive that extreme cuts weaken government and anger those dependent on assistance? The difference between the present argument and such arguments in the past is that society has advanced and we're not the same people with the same capabilities as those in the past -- we are capable of much, much more.

Whether it happens in 2012 or later, it will eventually become obvious that we've reached the realization that government is no longer able to manage the economy effectively, and that we have a choice -- we can either limit government power and allow the private sector to do what it's capable of doing, or we can exist in dependence and decline as other nations take the lead in production and innovation -- or the whole world declines in a statist global economy managed by international power elites. We're capable of self-governance and regulation with government providing protection of rights and safety from attack and invasion by unfriendly forces. Whether we will take on the responsibility is up to us, and this eventual show-down between Boehner and the Tea Party will give us some indication of the where we're at as a nation. I say "inevitable" because I don't believe Boehner is a leader who will stand up to the status quo at this point in time -- I hope I'm wrong.