Obscurantism

A big part of our communication problem in the national conversation regarding our most pressing economic and political problems is obscurantism.

Obscurantism is a ten dollar word described by Dictionary.com as:

ob·scu·rant·ism

deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.

2.

     

It's the second definition which is most important to this post, but the first can used to describe a concerted effort to avoid certain uncomfortable knowledge, therefore motivating obscurity and lack of clarity.

Obscurantism is mostly present among liberals who in spirit or completely in policy support the goals of progressivism, and moderates who are willing to compromise with progressivism, creating a much slower statist direction, but a statist direction nonetheless. It's intellectual fashion today to describe the current Tea Party right as simplistic, naive, uninformed, as a closed system of thought which operates in an echo chamber, shutting out the nuances of educated analysis which examines our problems from many different angles. The nuanced approach concludes that because of the complexity involved in our current political and economic problems, there are no easy solutions, therefore the Tea Party remedies of limiting government power, cutting spending and lowering taxes are insufficient -- evidence of this, they say, is the ironic Tea Party resistance to Medicare reform.

From this point, the conversation drills down to specifics, tit-for-tat accusations, Repubs did this/Dems did that, economic theory, technocratic guidance, social engineering strategy, partial recognition of partial benefits of partial free market principles, examples of prior statist achievements in research and social reform, the sociological complications of poverty, environmental contingencies, foreign policy implications, pragmatic gradualism, theories of social justice, cost/benefit analysis, monetary policy related to the modern interdependence of international finance, moral responsibility and human rights in a global community, technological disruption and educational needs, demographic transformation and immigration management, commercialization and cultural decay, infrastructure maintenance and global competition -- on and on until the simple issue of statism vs anti-statism is obscured to the point of absurdity.

On one hand, a case can be made that a simple call for reduced spending, a more limited governmet and a freer market is hopelessly naive as we're faced with the complexity of modern society's difficult challenges, and that the impracticality of implementation renders the Tea Party-type movement either irrelevant or hypocritical since their new representatives will have to accept complexity and continue in a statist direction. All the specifics which create the aura of compexity obscure the choice that is facing us and simply justifies the status quo or a more firm resolve to stick with the present direction, making adjustments to answer the debt problem, such as tax tweaking, infrastructure stimulation to create jobs, entitlement reform, military spending reduction, etc., but leaving the present system in place. Unless there is a clear delineation between a mixed economy and a free market, and between statism and a limited government, there can be no good understanding of our choices and pssible solutions. 

Many statists believe that if only we can spur job growth, the Tea Party silliness will dissipate and the economy will return to normal. Every pundit you hear states, oh so pumped with realism, "Jobs, jobs, jobs!", as they answer the question of what's needed to end public unrest and dissatisfaction. So, the moderates(this includes Big Government Repubs, neocons, or anyone who thinks compromise and the two parties working together are the answers to making government work effectively) and liberals have concluded that complexity necessitates a statist direction, that statism is relative and there are varyng levels of statism, and, therefore, we must simply find the right statist answers to the balance we so desperately need to go forward and progress, and that job creation is the answer to getting the public back on track with government planning and problem resolution -- of course, all the concerns listed above still remain, but the multi-level statists believe that society working with government can find solutions as we head into the 21st century.

I venture to say that most people still believe the above narrative to one degree or another, but the narrative is beginning to fall apart under close scrutiny, as people are attempting in the Information Age to get past the obscurantism in order to achieve some measure of clarity. I think it has become somewhat clear that our representatives are the greatest obscurantists, as they double-talk, blame-shift, spin, lie and manipulate the public -- the midterm message is encouraging if the public really is beginning to demand integrity -- we'll see if the representatives are held accountable.

Even if we concede to the part of the narrative framing Tea Party-types as simplistic, naive and uninformed, it's equally simplistic and naive to dismiss the movement and think that lower unemployment will silence them and make the problem go away. Plus, obscurantism has no effect on reality, and the reality is we are facing potential collapse and some tough choices -- and while the choices aren't simple and easy, they're becoming clearer every day. The choice is between the direction of statism or whether we head in the direction of allowing the private sector to deal with the complexities. There's no magic in a limited government and a free market -- complexity will still be a reality. To be honest, though, the State hasn't handled complexity very well -- and we'll see this clearer when all the changes of the healthcare plan come into effect. I think we should stop with the sweeping legislation until we decide on direction and fully understand how we'll be affected by the major changes already made.

Doctors Shrugged

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/10/new-poll-indicates-40-of-physicians-will-retire-or-find-other-work-under-obamacare/

If this is true, healthcare is in big trouble. But this is what happens when you push people too far or place too may obstacles in the way of their pursuit of happiness. The same phenomenon is happening with companies finding greener pastures overseas. We can't afford a British-style brain-drain.

More on conservatives or whatever

When most people think about conservatives they think about Big Government conservatives or religious right conservatives. I believe the word conservative is misleading in today's changing society. Many people are beginning to pay attention to political matters, don't like what government is doing and have become active in making changes. When polled, many of these people identify themselves as conservatives, but only because our political language hasn't changed to describe the new wave of political activists. I see these people who want less State control and government intervention as independents who were basically apolitical until they were shocked out of apathy by a long lasting recession and the prospect of serious healthcare changes which appeared to be pushed on them.

These new political activists don't fit the traditional conservative mold, at least the ones I've had direct contact with. I suspect most are fairly liberal socially, and they are fiscally common sense conservative, against extravagant spending and waste, appalled by corruption, just what you'd expect from the average person. Among these people, levels of education vary, but I doubt many have received a comprehensive education on political philosophy, even if they've received a comprehensive education relating to their line of work. I think if most of us who don't live and work in government in Washington D.C. think about the people we know, we would say they are not well informed about politics -- it's just not a subject most people desire to master. In America it seems like people hrough the years developed the idea that all the political syuff is being taken care of by others, and that our form of government will prevent any drastic changes which could threaten our way of life. This is the way it should be in an ideal America, but great thinkers warned early in our history that apathy would be our downfall.

So, many Americans are waking up and they don't yet have a political identity -- when they're polled, and they have problems with an overbearing government, they know enough about the superficial distinctions between conservatives and liberals to say they're "conservative" because they believe that's the group pushing for a more limited government and common sense spending. Yet, although the learning curve is steep, I'm witnessing people getting their grounding, and they want to stop the power-grabs. What shall they be called? I don't know, but I'm glad they're waking up.

Surprise, surprise, Congress reacts to recommendations from deficit commission

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/10/commission-offers-controversial-solutions-axe-deficit-members-balk?test=latestnews

The fact that so many people are reacting to the commissions' suggestion of raising the retirement age for Social Security is indicative of the mindset created by SS. You can retire whenever you choose to retire, but many people have become dependent of SS and will have to wait. If we had left retirement and healthcare to individuals and a free market, plans would have been purhased long ago to meet retirement needs, and many people could retire at 50 or 55.

I noticed the commission doesn't address Obamacare, and I haven't heard anything about cutting out all corporate welfare. It might be in the recommendations, but I haven't heard it mentioned.

I have one suggestion to fix the deficit problem -- stop statism!

De-throning president-kings

The expansion of executive power over the last few decades might be coming to an end. The incredible potential on the left under Obama was even greater than the opportunity which Clinton flubbed through his lust. Bush expanded executive power through a crisis, but it was soon reigned in by the media.

Obama came on strong and it appeared for a period of time that he was going to pull an Augustus on America, whereby he played the role of humble servant, deferring to congress, yet behind the scenes and through his czars take on unprecedented power. For a moment it appeared that industry would be turned upside down through the EPA with their carbon trick, but about that time the American people put a stop to the power grab -- not, however, before the structure was built through healthcare and finance on which to eventually build enough regulation to accomplish the progressive mission.

Now that the midterm elections have sent a strong message and the president is presently looking weak, the trend to expand executive power is possibly thwarted for good, at least for a long time to come. It will not be any time soon that a charismatic president charges into office bent on changing the tides and healing the world. I imagine our next president will be a workhorse executive expected to downsize and curb government power, simply giving the nation reports of the progress made. America appears intent on taking power back and cranking up the private sector, and I don't think this public pressure is going to dissipate when unemployment falls to 5%. Good for the American people. It remains to be seen, though, whether the structure of healthcare and finance can be demolished.

State power players have come up against an opposing force they didn't expect, the American people roused from a long nap. All they can possibly do at this point to continue the progressive agenda is declare an emergency -- it had better be one hell of an emergency.