A political opportunity which is paradoxically apolitical

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/05/what-the-gop-doesnt-get-about-blogs.html

Politicians, strategists, handlers, consultants, operatives -- phooey. If a political party wants to move the world online they have to understand the nature of the beautiful beast, and they have to understand individuals. Old-style marketing and campaigning are plastic -- the GOP is plastic -- ditto for the Democrat Party.

There's a political-realm-world of young people and independents, male and female, all different races, out there dying for honesty, transparency and connection, but Republicans have no language to reach them -- Republicans have no insight into the changing American. The voting automatons are gone, they malfunctioned, got a new heart, a new mind, and they're dancing as a blur in the corners the party's eyes.

But this is not simpy a call for a superficial image change for the Republican Party, with 4 stiff, white boys doing conservative hip-hop on Youtube, it's about a deep transformational change, and the Democrats could just as well make the change, with each party competiing to provide something much different to the public than power-mongering. The Democrats, however, believe they have youth and minorities sewn up and it's only a matter of messaging to win over independents -- also, progressive religous organizations are dediated to Democrats, but this is a small representation of spirituality in America, although a very vocal representation. I suppose that much depends on how religious minorities, which haven't been radicalized, respond to the statist changes in government. 

I believe, and I've written about it several times, there's a great frustrated yearning among the American people that's spiritual in nature, and it's becoming more alienated from politics and government practice-as-usual. Although many on the right still have a strong connection with religion, this connection, as it relates to organized religion, has been broken and there's more individualistic spiritual expression among the public at large. This drift from organized religion and break with political expression has left a void, and the State continues to strengthen the separation of Church and State. There's also a concomitant public distrust of politics and government -- people are losing faith that government can do effectively what it tres to do regarding the creation of a better society. In some ways, people have drfted from both Church and State, where as once Church/State was a major guiding force in people's lives.

So I propose this leaves a spiritual void where humanitarian action is left frustrated and people disillusioned. The old connections with Church and State have broken, but aspirations remain. Charles Taylor wrote in A Secular Age:

Now if we don't accept the view that the human aspiration to religion will flag, and I do not, then where will the access lie to practice of and deeper engagement with religion? The answer is the various forms of spiritual practice to which each is drawn in his/her own spiritual life. These may involve meditation, or some charitable work, or a study group, or a pilgrimage, or some special form of prayer, or a host of such things. 

For the purposes of this post, I'd like to look at how spiritual expression might be channeled through action related to charity, liberally using "charity" to mean something more broad and diverse than just giving money to charitable causes.

I've moved a long way from Riehl's post about blogging, but that was just a spark to address something much larger -- a new national mindset, transformed mainly through the reality of the internet and broad social connections, and the consequence of yearning for something much larger than local concerns. Our modern paradox is how to use political power to transform society into a force free from too-restrictive political power.

If the Republicans or the Democrats want to proactively head off a disaster, they'd be wise to forget the international/global schemes of power-brokers and pay attention to the American people -- the same could be said for France, Germany, etc., in relation to their people. The American people are on the verge of a new vision of freedom -- in its inchoate form it's scattered, undefined, directionless, but it's forming. For many, the spiritual deadends of Church and State have created a search for something more authentic and interactive, something which requires action and thought on the part of the individual. As I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, it was common for young, white male adults to feel guilty about their success, as they looked around and saw the struggles of minorities and women fighting against what looked like a rigged system. In the 80s and 90s, many of these young adults were in positions of political power to make changes which advanced equality. The problem is that political power grew into something ugly, and all the successful people who still wanted to help the less fortunate grew tired of having morality imposed on them, with the attendant ill-informed regulations imposed by cynical politicians playing an entirely different game of power-mongering. Not all the guilty white men were anti-capitalist radicals ready to overthrow the evil capitalist system, but, nonetheless, they've been willing to help and take a lot of government incompetence and cynical manipulation in the name of fairness.

Regardless whether State power was necessary at some point to help the poor, unfortunate and socially oppressed, the year now is 2010 and it's a different world. Statism has not accomplished as much as promised, no where near it, and it's caused a great deal of damage to the economy and basic freedoms. Today we need a new vision of freedom. Freedom to succeed financially was empty a long as people were left behind, and it's just as empty now as poor people are herded into ghettoes, tied to government checks and burnt-out caseworkers.

It's beginning to dawn on many people that capitalism and free markets are not the problem -- they know that a vibrant free economy is necessary to achieve practically all our societal goals, and that statism has failed and has only addressed the symptoms in society while leaving fundamental problems untouched -- plus, the anti-capitalist direction is moving us closer to collpase. 

Our future is not a New World Order under the guidance of Global Masters, it's free people in free states competing and cooperating, sharing culture and ideas in order to create the better world. The majority of people are ready for this responsibility and have the capacity to achieve something much greater than what we have. America should take the lead -- one of the parties will have to wake up and recognize the underlying power pushing to rise and step forward. The internet has connected us all and broken the isolation of local control -- it will break regional control, national control and prevent global control.

The government of the future should be a government which provides the protective framework for private sector action. Right now we have 15 million people unemployed -- this is a disgrace. The new vision of freedom entails a free market, private sector safety nets, job training, creative education, smart production which cuts down on pollution, free trade, care for the disabled, non-intervention, an end to corporate welfare, innovative retirement/savings plans, and more, all based on a strictly limited government and a private sector challenged to create an ever-improving society of equal opportunity. Those who don't believe the American people can accomplish this are either out-of-touch or prefer statism for selfish reasons.

What does this have to do with the internet, blogging, the GOP, the Democrat Party and spirituality? I'll try to lay it out in the next few days as I envision it.

Separation of Religion and State, or replacing Religion with State

This is not a new concept, but it deserves more consideration. Charles Taylor, in his book, The Secular Age, wrote about religious transformation through the years, and, just in my lifetime, religion's role in society has been reduced, although every so often there seems to be a revival. It's indisputable, though, that massification and urbanization have developed without the type of religious influence common in the past.  In many small town communities, religion still plays a major role in people's lives, but as more and more people gather in large urban areas, it appears that they've drifted away from religion, and community no longer seems possible. Perhaps diversity breaks the religious bond, as people are influenced by different cultures and different lifestyles in large urban areas. Also, in large urban areas, there are many forms of entertainment and forms of excitement to capture people's attention. The small-town, southern Baptist preacher would claim that the temptation of sin in large cities is the reason for the shift to secular interests.

One has to wonder, though, how much the social aspect of church-going has influenced small town attendance -- the sense of belonging and interacting in community has centered around the churches. In the large urban areas, this sense of belonging has been more difficult to realize -- people have searched for a sense of community through different forms. Being a part of a political party which offers social purpose is one way of filling the religious void in large urban areas. The Democrat Party, which does better in large urban areas, has appealed to this need for purpose and meaning in people's lives. In a large way, the State has replaced the Church, and it's why among partisan members of the Democrat Party there's solid devotion to the liberal dogma. It's not seen as ideology by the believers -- it's strong belief in the righteousness of liberal causes. The State is seen as the vehicle to social change. Perhaps this is why many Tea Party goers from small towns have questioned both political parties, because the sense of community they get outside the State is stronger than party loyalty. 

But, just like religious belief was shaken by serious questions and secular tendencies, belief in the State is now being questioned and shaken. Is the God of the State dying? We're definitely seeing a lack of trust in government, but we're also seeing a reaction among true liberal believers which is creating a deeper division between urban liberals and small town Christians than existed before. But it's not only small town Christians who are questioning the State -- it's also independents from all over who never used the Democrat Party, or State, as a church to express their faith. The independents, who may or may not be religious in the traditional sense, are not, however, exempt from the need for meaning in their lives, so what fulfills this need for them? Perhaps family and work -- perhaps private spiritual beliefs -- or, perhaps, they're searching for meaning, too, they just haven't found it in Church or State.

I believe there's a larger void created now that Church and State have failed to provide the needed purpose and meaning for people. Maybe there's the realization that meaning and purpose are generated from within and not from church leaders or politicians. Maybe people are rejecting authority from Church, State and the trend toward global authority. Maybe people are realizing that search has to be a free search which every individual makes in free interaction with other searchers -- it can't be mandated or coerced from Church bosses, the nanny State or a conglomeration of States. Free people working together to find the best ways to live -- what a concept. How to make this happen might be our most important challenge -- collectives, either in Church or State, are nothing but groups of individuals -- it's free individuals who improve the world, not Church or State or some New World Order. The collective mindset creates conformity and dullness -- individuals searching for creative answers inspire an interesting and better world. Questioning authority is not only a duty, it's the only way to remain free -- authority is given and authority can be taken away, if it's not used to protect our rights. 

There's no natural authority we're born to obey -- each generation must re-consent to government authority, and make a free choice regarding Church authority. Authority has been voluntarily given to some to use wisely. Authority must be questioned and it must be determined if power is being abused -- if power is being abused, it must be limited. This is the responsibility all free people must accept and diligently act on. Once we blindly submit to authority, we become slaves to masters. We have to be the masters of our destiny or we're just powerless subjects twisting to the whims of authority. Each generation has to be reminded.

The difference between progressives and libertarians

Much has been made about libertarians regarding theory and practice. Over and over, the criticism is leveled that libertarians are more concerned with principles and theory than they are with reality and the way government has to work in the real world. Libertarians are considered naive, because in the complex, modern world, an active, interventionist government is a reality, and we've gone so far that to think we could go back to a simple limited government as was the case in the beginning is ludricrous. So libertarians are accused of not being serious thinkers regarding matters of State, government and society. The critics say there is no way for a limited government to handle the needs of a society as large and diverse as ours.

 

I maintain that the contrast between theory and practice lies within the ideas of the progressives, liberals and moderates -- anyone who supports statism as a necessary reality, and who believes that the right government can do good for society -- that it's a matter of finding the right level of statism, the right procedures and the right people to govern.

 

I understand that what we have allowed to be created in government has become ingrained and it will be difficult to change, but I don't agree that America can't function under a limited government. Much of the criticism regarding libertarianism is not that the ideas are wrong, but that they are impossible to implement -- even those who agree with libertarian principles often state that society doesn't want a limited government, therefore there's no use speculating on how to limit government. I don't buy this. It's probably true that a portion of American society wants an interventionist government which provides for most of our needs and guides our behavior, but not most. Plus, we haven't done a good job in America educating people on the issues, the choices and the consequences regarding government in its different possible manifestations. Not many people even know what statism means. I'm not one to assign nefarious intent to statists -- the consequences are bad, but the intentions are not necessarily bad. 

 

The problem with statists/social engineers is not their sincerity -- I'm sure most believe that their vision for the country is the correct vision. But when others disagree and don't follow that vision, the statist begins to act like a religious zealot, lookng down on the unbelievers as lost, ignorant, blind or in need of salvation -- even forced salvation. When the unbeliever fights back against force, the statist chooses any means to achieve the righteous end, and the unbeliever becomes less and less human, a threat to the righteous vision. History has shown this path over and over, so that the good-intentioned social visionaries become despots willing to force others to live according to their vision, destroying anyone who refuses to yield.

 

This is what libertarianism is against. The way of the statist can not work. It always leads to coercion and loss of freedom, so that those who are being subjugated resist. Plus, the economic and social ramifications are always destructive. Economic growth, happiness, prosperity and social cohesion come from freedom, not force. It's statism that can't work. It's statism that's unrealistic, and it's unrealistic to think that you can find a balance once the State has the power to violate rights -- it will continue until its vision is enforced. There must be limits - there must be protection of individual rights. There might be good points in the vision of a progressive, but it's in the markeplace of ideas where these ideas show be presented with persuasion, not force. The statist arrogance that only their vision is the only valid vision and therefore must enforced on the ignorant is the fundamental flaw of statism. The opposite is the libertarian vew of diverse visions, all competing, non-coercively, for acceptance. That's a big difference. It's the different between force regardless of choice and acceptance through free choice.

United People of America -- an interruption of regularly scheduled programming

Perhaps I'm delusional, but it appears we're witnessing the take-back of America and that the people of this country are waking up to what's been happening for a long, long time. It has nothing to do with Obama -- he's temporary -- just as all the others before him -- but going into the future, we might just be moving away from government domination to a purer freedom.

The evolution of society to a libertarian based cooperation and competition based on the protection of individual rights has always seemed like an unlikely utopian concept to many people, although it's the founding concept, because since the creation of states people have been dominated and trained to adjust to whoever was in power, but there is no natural basis for this -- it's simply how it developed -- maybe the will to power. Before state creation there were communities with recipocal agreements regarding the makeup of society. Perhaps conquering and domination were necessary at certain stages, but I don't know.

Looking into the future, it's perfectly reasonable to envision a society without state domination and central planning. America, at times, has come closer than most, and I don't see why it won't continue to evolve, with setbacks during some periods, toward a much freer, less regulated and planned society. Centuries and centuries from now state-formation may be looked back on as an odd development. 

The problem is that the state will not willingly give up power -- it will take failure, most likely, and the formation of a society which outgrows control and insists that changes be made. I have no way of knowing how close we are to that, but it seems not far away -- maybe not a stateless society, yet, but a much more limited government -- a change in direction. People have to wrap their minds around the possibility of a strictly limited, minimal government, and once they do, once they can see it as a reality and understand the creative power which is in us all, it can happen.

Libertarian Preparation Part 9 (and The End): The Failure of Central Planning

The Roundtable panelists on This Week briefly discussed whether Obama is over-exposed. George Will was the only panelist who thought so -- the others, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Donna Brazile and Ariana Huffington, all thought that he is not over-exposed and is the best salesperson for statism -- they didn't actually call it "statism", but let's call it like it is for the sake of intellectual honesty. As an aside, I find it interesting that many liberals and moderate conservatives are irritated with the word "statism" -- it's one of those words many people would prefer to be softened into something like "progressive" -- but that's ridiculous considering the  progressive agenda at the beginning of the 20th century, which was radically statist. It's like preferring to be called a dolt rather than a dumbass. 

But, getting back to the image-machine which has placed Obama everywhere, weighing in on local police matters, baseball games, and anything else that pops up for consideration -- is Obama over-exposed and will it lead to ennui and diminishing returns on his national lecturing proclivities? The media is so intent on presenting Obama as the national oracle, the wise President who can lead his American subjects out of the darkness of ignorance, they're glossing over the fact that he's not qualified for the task (no one is). Basically they've given good marketing to a popular president, and even though his most loyal followers are eager to be led, this is a small number of people compared to the great majority who might like him as a person and wish him well, but who have no intention of following his lead and who will likely grow very tired of the transparent effort to build him into something he isn't.

The worst thing Obama can do is believe his own press and attempt to become what the press is marketing -- he will be laughed at and become a caricature set up for serious deconstruction. The media is not going to be able to find popular characters like Obama very often, and once the shine is off his crown, I don't see anyone in politics right now who can even temporarily fool the public into thinking they are special and that government has the answers. We might have to endure the Obama dog and pony show for a while longer, but soon it will get down to the incompetence of central planning as the main concern.

Obama might be the last hoorah for statists, and this why there is such urgency to get all the grand statist plans, such as healthcare and energy, passed as soon as possible -- they know it's all smoke and mirrors, and that soon people will see past the illusion. I hate to be cynical, but I can't believe that everyone doesn't know that all these grand plans will cost our country far more than they pretend it will -- it's just that many people  no longer care as long as someone else is paying for it -- mainly evil business people, who, as we know, have an endless supply of money.

As unemployment goes up and the real consequences are felt in the economy, all those people who encouraged the president and Democrats will turn on them, but it will be too late. Obama's image will fall apart, and the statists will look for another savior, but they are unlikely to find one. The realm of politics has degenerated into a group of representatives out of touch with the majority of the country -- the Obama phenomenon will go only so far, then there is the reality of corruption, incompetence and the failure of central planning. People out of work want jobs -- jobs are created by industry expansion, by economic progress, and this will become clear at some point -- an unemployment check is a temporary solution not a long term solution. Families can't make long term plans, and won't spend, if they don't have secure jobs.

The government trend to continue punishing businesses with higher taxes and regulations might satisfy those who are protected by government favors, but the majority of people will want businesses to feel confident enough to hire and expand -- this means small businesses must be given a break, must be allowed to act freely, must be allowed to compete fairly, and this means central planning must be seen as the main obstacle to growth and job creation, and libertarian ideas as a starting point for a transformation.

This is not just about Obama overdose, it's about statist overdose and the impotence of central planning. On a deeper level it's about liberty over democracy -- first we need a limited government within which democracy works, not a majority of politically active citizens voting themselves goodies which we can't afford and shouldn't be forced to pay for, and which violates the liberty of individuals, rich, middle-class and poor. This is also not just about economics. The statists claim they are helping the unfortunates, but at bottom it's about buying political power, because none of the plans will ultimately help anyone - they will harm the whole nation. No, this is a about libertarian-inspired freedom -- about free people working together to build a future which creates equal opportunity and a chance for all people to pursue their own ideas of happiness and spiritual fulfillment.

Of couse, according to the polls, the 30% true believers will strongly disagree, and most of the remaining 70% will insist that libertarianism doesn't describe their resistance to a powerful, over-reaching state, yet, broad libertarian ideas taken to create a general distinction between freedom and more government intervention gives us a fair indication that the direction of the country could change if government becomes even more bloated and unsustainable, and if the people grow weary of economic stagnation and nannyism. The point of these series is that libertarian ideas should be kept alive and considered as an alternative in case the present course continues to its logical conclusion. The probability that the Information Age will require more flexibility and freedom than central planning allows is a good reason to imagine a different route to the future, and the moral considerations are not insignificant. It's not as if anyone is asking society to cut loose and hope for the best in a naive frenzy of anarchy. We have the history of relative freedom in America to show us what's best for human flourishing, and the history of statist schemes to show the dangers of central planning. Whatever route we take, the path of freedom is best suited for everyone concerned, and the concept of spontaneous order is not a simple justification for capitalist power -- it's a sophisticated understanding of human nature, the economy and the limitations of control and intervention in complex human interactions on a humongous scale such as American society.

The few areas of limited success which can be shown by statists as justification for central planning are not proof that had a libetarian route been maintained from the start that greater, more substantial, successes wouldn't have been the result. Taking what we know about the successes of freedom and the failures of statism, it's smart to suspect we're quickly heading toward yet another deadend of central planning -- when this happens, hopefully those who care about the future will take libertarian ideas to heart and trust our power to make things happen without the soul-shrinking interventions of an over-bearing, paternalistic state.