Government has created its own failure

I'm sure politicians of both parties thought at one point that catering to special interests was a good way to build a power base, but they lacked the vision to see what they were creating.

Now, each gang of entitlement-junkies will fight over every piece of major legislation proposed, demanding their special interest be represented and protected, making it impossible for congress to pass anything as written.

This has, ironically, become a good thing, since legislation is now about expanding the power of the state rather than reducing the power of the state. The Democrats are beginning to understand what they've created as they're pulled in ten different directions by rabid gangs demanding their part of the healthcare heist.

It's not the structure of the Senate and House rules -- it not filibuster -- it's not partisan wrangling -- it's the reality of a balkanized nation of conflicting interests. Now congress has to prioritize and decide which interests are more important, but the gangs have all been well-fed and muscled up so that might be a tough process.

The House of Representatives sends a message to America

Pelosi's healthcare reform bill passed in the House 220-215. It's funny how you never hear about Obamacare since the bills coming from the Democrats became more unpopular. I guess Obama ordered his name be removed from this effort. I don't blame him, because this passage is a slap to the face of the nation.

In essence, the Democrats are saying they have little concern for the majority's opinion that this bill is not good for the country. The representatives (a term used loosely) have sent the message that congress will decide what the country needs and they will do what they want to do with whatever legislation they want to do it with. The Democrats, however, are not showing any perverse virtue here, they are showing cowardice. The Democrats are more concerned with avoiding the wrath of the progressives than they are concerned with avoiding the wrath of the American people who mostly oppose progressivism.

Plus, they know that this is a power grab of huge significance. The Republicans didn't fight this with intelligent vigor -- they opted for photo-op sessions and soundbites. There was no concerted intellectual resistance from the Republicans, no persistent, clear and philosophical delineation. Maybe a handful of Republicans were persistant, but overall, they failed to formulate a solid opposition. Just not voting for it and saying "socialism" every once in awhile is not a resistance movement. The Tea Party movement was the only real resistance and many among them rejected the Republican Party as weak and corrupt.

The American people will now have to act as the wall between the Senate and the next step. It would be good if a clear voice could arise from the Republican Party which articulates the philosophical resistance to statism -- that would be nice, but I'm not sure if any of them know how to articulate America's founding philosophy, and I'm not sure that any of them will stick their heads above the crowd and risk their political careers on principles.

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.

The diversity of independents

It's a big mistake to look at events like Tuesday's's elections and see only a conservative faction at work, a group of automatons led by Dick Armey and Sarah Palin who all think alike and act in unison.

There are probably some broad divisions which can be made, like those who favor an interventionist government because of whatever benefit they're getting from government, and then those who don't really get any extra benefits (other than the normal government services that apply to everyone) from government who prefer that the state not interfere in our lives.

These divisions have existed for quite some time, and not all those who prefer less government intervention have been politically active -- they've simply cursed a little at times when the subject comes up, but mostly they go about their business and think very little about government - however, now that the progressives have power and they are intervening in major ways, and now that the Information Age is wide open, people are realizing just how nannyish and dangerous big government has become.

Yes, there is the radio talk-show group, although they are not monolithic, and, yes, there is a conservative base which has relatively similar ideas about politics, and, yes, there are white racists who blame minorities, although they are a fringe element, and the race element is manifested in different ways, not all a simple hatred of people of color, but rather a sense of reverse discrimination, plus there are independent people of color, and, yes, there are libertarians who, of course, want a limited government, but libertarians are varied and some lean left, and, yes, there are some who are rich businesspeople, but they don't think and act alike -- on and on. So, the independent movement is not so easy to buttonhole.

The independent movement, if you can really call it a movement at this stage, is beginning to coalesce around a few ideas -- out of control spending, too much government power, high taxation in many areas and fear of taxes going higher all over the country, unemployment, bailouts of big corporations and corruption.

I certainly wouldn't look at the increase in independents as just a conservative movement related to the Republican Party. There are political figures who would like to co-opt independents for their own purposes, but independents are too diverse to define as a political group, and it's best to see independents as representative of the private realm, not necessarily seeking power, but, rather, seeking to limit power by insisting on change in Washington D.C.

Many independents thought they were getting change with a new type of president in Barack Obama, but increased government power isn't what they had in mind. It speaks to the political naivette of many people that they thought Obama would clean up Washington and bring in a new style of responsible governance -- but people are quickly getting a lesson on politics and a refresher course on the Constitution. Many people don't like what America is becoming -- they had been asleep, and now they are waking up.

Those isolated in political intrigue in Washington D.C. don't understand the independent movement and see conspiracies behind every placard -- they are convinced that evil capitalist forces are at work putting forth an army of conservative soldiers to destroy Obama. The conservative movement makes up only a portion of the independents and they are not brain-dead foot-soldiers, just, for the most part, ordinary conservative Americans concerned about government over-reach, but it's a mistake to see this as a classical conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat battle for political control. An apolitical movement is forming which transcends the old political divisions, and this movement makes up what used to be called the Silent Majority -- it's a diverse group with very few political demands, and very few special interests. This awakening has more to do with the private realm being left alone, a desire for a vibrant economy and the limitation of government power. Government is held responsible for unemployment and people are sick of big corporations being favored at the expense of small businesses and jobs.

It's also not traditional class warfare -- it's a war between the people and the government. Although the economy is the biggest concern, it's quickly becoming a moral issue of liberty vs domination.

Libertarians -- no place in the two parties

It's a shame that neither party welcomes the libertarians -- both could use libertarian influence. The hardcore social conservatives reject libertarians because of civil liberty issues (which are basically individual rights), and moderates reject the "radical" limited government issues -- and, well, there's no way the liberals/progressives will welcome libertarians in the Democrat Party.

Libertarian ideas have been accepted by the independent movement, in part, according to what I've heard from opponents of progressivism calling themselves independents, which has turned away from both parties, and this might be where libertarian influence has the best chance of being realized and reestablished. Libertarian ideas could give the independent growth some clarity, especially when it comes to limiting government power and allowing the free market to function.

Communication is the largest problem -- there's still no clear libertarian message due to the public's confused ideas regarding libertarianism. The confusion is the fault of libertarians and the opponents of libertarianism. Not many in the public are sure what libertarianism means.

It's time to develope a definition for public consumption to fit into the political narrative of the 21st century. In the next four posts, I'll give my recommendations. There's a libertarian story which begins before the American Revolution but became popular after the establishment of U.S.A.. It's a story of liberty and individual rights, and one that needs to be told now more than ever. While it's true that humans have made great strides in the establishment of liberty, as happens from time to time, liberty is threatened and individual rights are subsumed under a new domination claiming the greater good. Liberty and individual rights are for the greater good.

Update on Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 01:49PM by Mike Farmer

I'm postponing the four posts due to a time crunch.