The American Rebirth Movement -- Getting the groove back

We'll call it ARM so I can save on the typing. As the news poured in today and I was going from link to link, it all became clear to me -- why not just stop the madness, loosen up and make it happen? The news is filled with huge problems and a couple of small answers here and there, but no answers of any significance.

I kept thinking of that pile of useless paper called a heathcare reform bill, and it occured to me -- this is not going to work. Not just the reform bill, but all of it. Government has reached the point of maximum incompetence, but don't get me wrong -- I'm not simply repeating the old government-is-bad narrative -- no I'm not that simple-minded like those redneck racist yahoos who are calling for the guvmint to git da hell outta thar bizness. Hell, I've read books, slick, I ain't yer average hick.

What I envisioned was nuthin' less than the rebirthin' of Amurica. And don't say you don't nothin' bout birthin' no nation, cuz I know you do. Okay, enuff with da dialect.

Well, maybe you don't know anything about rebirth, because you never studied the first birth in depth, but this is a new day, anyway, and, as they say -- "It's better than doing nothing!" Oh, this is much better than doing nothing.

The country is at a point where we all know that something must be done, so we'll start at a point of agreement. It would be good if President Obama went along with ARM, but it's not necessary. He is a good salesman, and those skills will be needed, and this is where  presidents and congress-peeps can play a major role and redeem themselves in the slaunched-eyes of the public.

Since we've perversely placed the state at the center of America's attention when it comes to big issues of change, politicians will need to be leaders of the ARM. If not Obama, then the next president, or the next, depending on how bad our financial house is disordered, should speak frankly with the American people -- the upcoming Economic Summit would be a good opportunity. The message should transcend the ordinary emptiness of political speech, and should be aimed straight at society in general as a large group of individuals who have the power to transform the country and overcome our financial and social problems.  

I believe there's a growing desire in the country to be empowered to create change. The powerlessness many people feel is frustrating -- people want to be able to do something. Despite the loss in wealth due to the recession, there is still a lot of wealth in America, but beyond wealth there's a great deal of untapped creative energy. If challenged, the people of this country could create a new America. Cynics will say the American people are ignorant and self-centered, but the cynics would be the first group of small minds to be left on the porch in a regenerative movement. The tension the nation feels between where we are and where we could be  creates frustration, cynicism and pessimism, self-deating responses which keep us trapped in a looping downward spiral, but the creative tension can inspire a regenerative energy which breaks the country free of the negative loop into an optimistic future of innovation and creative solutions.

Using the bully pulpit, the president and members of the political class can embrace the private sector as the key to generative energy. An out-of-the-box possibility is a nation challenged to use its resources to, first, resolve the healthcare problem. An admission from the government players that any government solution will be inadequate to the needs of a large, diverse, free country, and that private solutions are the first choice, would remove the healthcare problem from the poliitical realm of partisan wrangling and special interest warfare to the private realm where resources are available to develope voluntary solutions which won't be subject to the corrupting influence of politics.

Now, in the Information Age, is the perfect time to begin the private resolution of problems such as healthcare which have become entangled in government programs which are quickly bleeding money and energy to little good effect. An environment of transparency, urgency and optimistic problem-solving should be created in America -- a new way of thinking and acting should be born. At no time in our history has it ever been this important to join public and private sources to move forward. The old game of government trying to get as much from the rich as they can get and the rich trying to hide as much as they can from the government poachers should end.

Look at all the wealth in the sports industry, in Hollywood, in the music industry, among billionaires like Gates, Buffett, Soros, Pickens, Turner, and all the millionaires across the country. If these people were brought into the game and asked to be vital players, the amount of resources and connections and positive energy is staggering. If businesspeople and the rich in general could trust government as an honest partner and they felt like their efforts to solve societal problems would truly be good for everyone concerned, there's no limits to the creative ideas and efforts which could change the direction of the nation. Just imagine what it would do for the psyche of the nation to truly feel like we are all in this together, and that as individuals we can make a difference and work together toward something excellent.

With a concerted effort of the public and private realms, the economy would turn around -- and as we grow in prospertiy and our standard of living rises, a constant focus placed on building a healthy, educated, safe and optimistic society will benefit us all.

I will extend this idea in a couple more posts to present particulars which I think are possible and desirable for the rebirth of America.

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.

Soft socialization

The mass-murdering, totalitarian socialization in Russia and Germany, led by Lenin/Stalin and Hitler bears little resemblance to modern European socialization and what's happening in America. Our socialization is based neither on Marxist class struggle nor race domination, but the principles of socialization are basically the same, motivated by cloudy ideas of social justice and equality, led by elite technocrats, not a tyrannical individual with a private goon squad or professional revolutionaries. Although Obama does have his czars, their left-leaning/progressive ideas replace lethal weapons, torture and annihilation. Bush had his neo-con gang helping to implement State policy over the spontaneous order of a free market, but their violence was pointed at terrorists, not the American people and political enemies.

In the two preceding posts, here and here, I wrote about European and American socialization and quoted Hitler, but our socialization is soft and modernized as we're gently led to depend on the social engineering technocrats and the compassionate wisdom of the State leaders. Modern adherents of socialization recognized they could not survive a totalitarian approach, and the deadly results are no longer acceptable to the advanced modern mind which avoids domestic violence when possible, so capitalism has been used to finance a much softer approach. There hasn't, however, been any total acceptance of capitalism as an economic system which morally answers the human need for liberty, choice, prosperity and flourishing -- in fact capitalism has been blamed for most of the modern ills, yet accepted as a necessary evil which allows the innate selfishness of humans to produce wealth needed to distribute to those in need. In other words, capitalism has been used to create a world which doesn't need capitalism, but this has yet to be accomplished, although very smart people are hard at work trying to find a modern approach to central planning which will accomplish something close to a managed economy which is free of all capitalist weaknesses which enrich the few at the expense of the many.

First, businesses are socialized to act in service of the State's central plan, so that the right cars are built, and banks have the right relationship to borrowers, and healthcare is free of profit-motive, and energy is in service to the State's environmental plans. If the State can partner with the larger corporations to achieve national policy, then capitalism is transformed to an active component of the State and there are no conflicts of interest -- the central plan is not thwarted by businesspeople motivated by competition working at cross purposes for higher profits rather than the betterment of society. Once businesses are on board, with certain gaurantees of protection for cooperating, then social plans for justice and equality are easier to implement -- the jungle is tamed and the weak are protected from the strong. Socializing losses is a way to get major industries on board -- they don't have to worry about competition and they build a public image of working for the greater good.

If those in the middle class can be convinced they are victims of the excesses of capitalism then the State creates a power-base to complete the socialization process. This becomes difficult when the economy is strong and many couples have combined incomes in six digits, but during recessions, economic stagnation and high unemployment, it's an easier sell. Seeing as how an over-regulated economy is more likely to stagnate, government efforts which hurt the economy can actually help their cause to socialize the economy. It's no mistake that down economies are incessantly blamed on prior over-heating by greedy capitalists who went too far and created a bubble. The State then places itself in the position of cleaning up the economy by instituting even more regulations to prevent bubbles and "irrational exuberance" in the future, further stagnating the economy and making their stimulus, bailouts and regulatory activity more indispensable.

Although I stated at the beginning that socialization in the U.S. is different from Marxist class struggle, our present socialization does depend, in part, on class warfare, but no one is proposing a proletariat revolution, because it's well known today that producers are the sine qua non of wealth creation. The problem is simply how to bring the producers into the service of the State. Once the public becomes accustomed to social engineering, it's a steady process of implementing the central plan -- yet as I wrote in a preceding post, in America there's still the remnants of classical liberalism which promotes limited government and a free market, so the process of socialization will be quick during crises and slow during boom times, although either can work to the benefit of the State, as our society slowly begins to forget the attributes of capitalism.

In boom times the case is made by politicians that a generous nation needs to take care of its own, yet there is little encouragement to increase charity, but, rather, there's a push to enlarge the welfare state. In a financial crisis, the State simply says it has no choice but to enlarge the welfare state. The challenge for those who still adhere to the principles of classical liberalism, or to conservative libertarianism, or just plain libertarianism, as classical liberalism is now called, is to take back the mantle of compassion by promoting the benefits and moral superiority of private assistance through charitable organizations -- and the promotion of innovative private insurance arrangements to deal with social security and unemployment.

Welfare/social security was the thin wedge which gave the State the moral advantage in promoting socialization in America, although the U. S. has always been proficient at helping organizations -- we simply lost our nerve in the 30s and the Progressives pushed their agenda with force in a horrible Depression. Had government policies not made the Depression in the 30s much worse than necessary, the private sector would have likely continued its innovative path to dealing with many of society's problems. We have to return to this earlier understanding of the private realm, capitalism, private assistance and the free market before socialization has enveloped the entire nation.

Progressive claims of stimulus working are bogus

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385233867030644.html

This article shows that the stimulus had little or now effect on consumer spending, and vindicates Freidman's position that short-term increase in income does not stimulate the economy in any meaningful way.

This is reasonable since people know that if they spend it all, there will not any more coming in later. People trust consistent income, and consistent income comes from stable jobs -- stable jobs come from allowing the capitalist system to work, which means getting government out of the way.

The progressive policies are failing as they praise their efforts to create and save jobs. Plus, unemployment has risen in 42 of the 50 states. How come we allow government to lie, accept it as business as usual, when we teach our kids to tell the truth? I'm preparing a post addressing this and our screwed up ideas of "democracy".

Libertarian Preparation Part 7: Pursuing Wealth

Almost all of us pursue wealth. There are some people in society who have a different value system, and wealth means very little to them, but for most of us wealth represents security and acquisition of the means to do and experience things we enjoy -- to pursue happiness.

Free, capitalist countries have shown to be more prosperous than countries under some form of socialism, but great wealth has also shown to create class envy and warfare. It appears that many people haven't mastered the concept that wealth is created through productive activity, that there isn't a limited amount of money sitting somewhere that shrinks when someone becomes wealthy. If I start a business and make a million dollars, that doesn't take money away from anyone, it justs adds to the total amount of wealth, just as if I lose that million it doesn't take money away from others, unless there are people dependent on me making money and not losing it, such as an employee or supplier, but even then it doesn't directly take money from their amount, it just means they won't be creating their wealth off money I had been supplying for a productive activity on which they were dependent (and I was dependent on them, too). If I went out of business, the employee would not get any more paychecks from me, and the suppliers would not have my business.

We should be joyous when people create wealth, because it adds to the total amount of wealth. If I create a million dollars of wealth from a productive business, then I will spending it at stores, buying things, putting it in a savings account so that others can borrow it, investing in another business through stocks so the business can survive or grow, perhaps expanding my business and hiring more people who may be out of work.

Creating wealth is a good thing that helps others. It also means I'm not directly dependent on others to take care of my wants and needs -- I don't have to ask anyone to give me money, because I'm making my own. Ayn Rand once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that one of the best ways to fight poverty is to not be poor. But speaking of poverty, a wealthy society is also a more generous society. As I mentioned in another post, we've barely tapped into our charity potential, and charity is hampered by high taxes and the idea that government will take care of the poverty problem. As many libertarians, and other free, objective thinkers, have claimed, pertaining to inequality of wealth, is that the major cause for wealth inequality has been government intervention/regulation in the economy which favors some economic endeavors over others, thereby rewarding some buisness enterprises and punishing others, interfering with competition and blocking smaller players from rising through hard-work, better ideas and quality.

The idea that great wealth in a society causes consumerism and a materialistic society which slowly erodes culture and spiritual pursuits is also an unproven propostion that is contradicted in reality. America's great wealth, historically, has allowed more people to pursue spirituality and culture -- art, music, religion and spiritual diversity abound in this country. It's difficult to be spiritual and cultured in dire poverty. A mature society can separate business and soul-pursuit, or combine both with no damage to the spirit. Even in business for many people there's a deeper understanding of the spontaneous order that arises -- a type of beauty in the actions at play which aren't planned in a central government committee, but rather the results of millions and millions of free choices. 

We still have a problem with poverty in America, but pursuing and creating wealth is not the cause. A large part of the answer lies in an enlightened national mindset regarding wealth, and a separation of government and economy which allows the economy to grow and create more opportunities for people to create wealth.