Morning Joe 4/2/2013 -- Pragmatic politics

I'm currently writing a piece about Progressivism and how both political parties take pragmatic steps to "run" the country and foreign policy according to their ideas of good governance. Democrats are more in tune with global, progressive, UN goals of human rights and social justice, while Republicans are more concerned with the maintenance of power and stability at home and abroad. Contrary to the media's portrayal of Republicans as anti-government, the GOP establishment is very concerned with government power sufficient to "run" the country and foreign policy -- Republicans just want the nation to be more conservative than liberal regarding culture. Edmund Burke believed that wise, benevolent leaders are needed in government to guide the people toward law, order, stability, decency, civility, etc. The Republican establishment would never dismantle the welfare state -- they will only try to get it to work better, but even there, the desire for efficiency has been more rhetorical than anything. Republicans might even say they don't want to dismantle the welfare state, just make sure that unhealthy dependence doesn't develope, but, again, it's rhetoric. Under Republican leadership, the welfare state has grown, and waste, fraud and abuse haven't been eliminated.

MSNBC first advertised Morning Joe as their offering of commentary from the Right. Actually, there are far more Leftists on the program than Rightists, but Joe Scarborough is the token Republican, and he's supposed to present the Republican/Right/Conservative side of all issues. Scarborough represents the Centrist part of the GOP, although he presents himself as a "small" government conservative. Scarborough is pragmatic, like most politicians from both parties. Pragmatism is what has kept both parties together in our two-party, statist system of government. As an example, Scarborough has made it a point on Morning Joe to highlight his rejection of the expanded war in Afghanistan, and to listen to Scarborough at times, you'd think he is a Murray Rothbard fan, a non-interventionist cut from the mold of our Founders, a traditional conservative. However, this morning, Scarborough called for intervention in Syria. The pragmatic solution is for the US to be part of a multi-national intervention.

Al Sharpton was on the show, and he agreed with Scarborough, making a point of criticizing the Iraq War because Bush acted alone. If the US intervenes in the affairs of other nation in concert with two or three other nations, then this is acceptable. Never mind that the same unintended consequences will come about, or that the same principles will be violated, or the fact that we don't know which side to support, or if both sides are equally bad choices, if we can intervene behind the respectability of UN agreement, then this solves the problem. The US went through a long, deadly civil war, and no one intervened. Syria will have to deal with its own problems. And even if intervention is the only resolution, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Russia and other countries closer to the turmoil are more knowledgable regarding the problems and will make better decisions. In other words, it's none of our business. We can't continue in the role of Global Police, we just can't, and shouldn't. Until we announce that America will no longer play the role of Global Police, other nations will sit back waiting for us to intervene. The game has to change.

How the Left is geared toward collectivism

Most young modern liberals deny that the direction of the Democratic Party is influenced by socialism because they think of socialism in terms of old-fashioned ideas that are now replaced by an enlightened pragmatism, but they carry on the structural construction, as they are told must happen, that allows modern socialism to advance. Socialist intellectuals understand the slow progress and they've never thought socialism would come about overnight. Young idealists on the Left weren't properly educated, and they never learned where to look to understand the heritage of their ideas. There's nothing new under the sun, not even in a tent in a park near Wall Street.

Some on the Left call themselves progressive but mainly because it's hard to be against progress. Howard Stern recently interviewed NY liberals/progressives/Obama-supporters on the sidewalks, and while Stern did it for the entertainment value, he chose his interviewees at random. The answers they gave to Stern's questions suggest that America has no shortage of useful idiots on the Left. It's a shame our educational system didn't teach the raw knowledge of the socialist movement/influence in America so that its modern adherents could at least make a semi-reasonable argument, or, at least know they are adherents.

Intellectuals who've studied the development of socialism over the last two centuries understand that in history's time this is a twinkle. The structure on which to hang socialist principles had to be built, and now it's almost complete. The Left wants power for four more years, and while the large majority simply want a strong, interventionist government to help them fight against the perceived disadvantages they've been taught they face, the knowledgeable few understand that four more years will complete the structure and destroy any remnants of free market principles or attempts to limit power.

The knowledgeable Left, the modern American socialists, understand that collectivism has finally reached the point of overwhelming individualism and establishing the society that so many have dreamed of for so long. The subjects of gender, race, culture and environment are at last primary, with the structure in place for regulatory finish work. Those who are campaigning for Obama and Democrats in Congress, who have no understanding of the consequences, believe that their group, whichever it may be, will be favored, that government will now have the power to accomplish what Obama failed to accomplish against recalcitrant Republicans. These useful idiots have no idea how disappointed they'll be when power is consolidated, and they are left behind as the State machine impersonally rolls over them on its way to sucking the required resources from the economy to pay for the socialist power-structure. The US standard of living will have to drop for the majority, and the phase will begin in which half the nation lives on handouts as the other half grinds away wondering how all this happened. But the worried non-individual will move as the leaders of the group tell it  to move, holding out one more carrot, one more chance for the miracle to happen, hope and change.

Interventionism

The current Catholic controversy regarding certain interventions emanating from Obamacare highlights the problem with statism. For an interventionist government to succeed, it can't back down every time a faction of the public is angry at an intervention. At some point, interventionist government has to stand against the pushback. In most cases of government intervention the interventions are subtle and implemented over a period of time, so that not enough people are affected to cause widespread pushback.

Then it comes to something like control of healthcare which statists have wanted for a long, long time in America. There were bound to be groups who think the interventions into healthcare are too much, but so far there have been exceptions made to help ease the anger. Now, Obamacare has run up against the Catholic Church. I'm not going to get into the details of the controversy. My point is that we're just beginning to see the end stage of statism as the system consolidates control. There will be bigger interventions and bigger battles. The American people are going to fully realize what statism leads to. Americans have been assured up until now that America is different and although government has to intervene and coerce to ensure fairness and justice, our leaders will never misuse power.

When power is not limited, those who are not in power lose freedom, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but they always lose freedom. It's the nature of the State to grow in power unless limited by a constitution and the diligence of the people. The State, at some point in its development, becomes anti-social and exists for the sake of power. Those who seize power and benefit from power don't want to give it up, so they find ways to make power permanent. The fastest way is to make people dependent on an intervening government, so that the people can't survive without the government. The interventionist government gains complete control, then it protects all arms of the State.

The question is whether we've gone too far, become too much like sheep to fight back. It will continue until we say no and mean it.

At least this article on Paul offers reasons to oppose him

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-paul-and-the-nazi-century/

But, promoting a non-interventionist doctrine doesn't equal isolationism and pacifism. Paul was in the military. The author wonders what would have happened during WWII if Paul had been President and claims that Germany would have controlled much of the world. If we go back to WWI, and if we had not interfered, especially in the post-war arrangements which, in concert with interference from Britain and France, pressured Germany for years into an impossible situation, there might not have been a WWII. The central banks manipulated so much that's it's hard to untangle, but without the interventions, things could have been a lot different (read Lords of Finance). Beyond guessing about things we'll never know, let's look at what non-interventionism means. It means we defend our country from attack, but we don't intervene in the affairs of other countries. If a President Paul found himself with a dilemma regarding a country which was committing mass murder, and no other country would help, I'm sure Paul would make the right decision, since he promotes life with a passion, but the key is that Paul will not easily committ American troops. Our Founders wanted us to be careful with war, and we should be careful with war.

America should committ her troops only after exhausting every other means of resolution and then only if our national security is at stake. Regarding help for a nation in which mass murder is taking place,  even then we could recommend innovative NGO military solutions where defense units not tied to a government are available for these rare castrastrophes. The point is to think of ways to avoid war, not to invent excuses to go to war.

The warfare State

Yes, America should strive for the best defense system in the world. Yes, if we are attacked, or if an attack plan is uncovered, we should react swiftly with an appropriate, forceful and clear response. Yes, we have a great and intelligent military. But, what we don't need is a nation frightened into an unquestioning acceptance of the military/industrial complex and continuous war.

The 20th century model of Super-Power World Police is out-dated, and it's not something America should embrace in the 21st century. Global changes among many nations who were dependents in the 20th century make it important for America to adjust to these changes. The world is changing and America has to change with it, and it would be good if the change is intelligent and rational.

Isolationism is out of the question in our interconnected world, but a doctrine of non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism and protectionism. America can embrace free trade, cultural exchange, technological cooperation and an ongoing analysis of division of labor which reveals our manufacturing strengths and weaknesses without trying to forcefully shape the world in our image. The US can create a strong and highly effective defense system at home without spreading our military across the globe. If a real and dangerous situation arises which threatens world peace, we can make decisions based on what's required to address the situations as they arise, but we have to place limits on our military involvement in foreign affairs.

Those who benefit from a powerful military will always finds need for military intervention -- we can't be led blindly by generals, contractors and hawkish politicians, because they'll always push for more rather than less military action. This is one role of a President which is vital to our health as a nation, so it's important who's put in command of our military, This should go without saying, but with the lack of discussion regarding foreign affairs among the Republican candidates for President, this might indicate we have a problem. Have Americans shifted military concerns to the Pentagon with no need for oversight? How many people know what we're doing in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc? How many people consider the real need for military bases in Europe and Asia? How many people know where their tax dollars are going in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do Americans care about our warfare State?

It's very dangerous to put all our trust in the military/industrial complex and turn a blind eye to it -- this is one area in which we can't afford apathy. When electing representatives and a President in 2012, it's never been more important to choose wisely with national defense concerns in mind. We can't afford to become sheep frightened by each report of terrorist plots, plans and posturing. It's vital that we have rational, clear-headed represenatives in DC who will oversee our giant miltary machine and use it wisely, and who will fund it appropriately. The 21st century demands a much more intelligent approach, because history shows us what unchained interventionism can cause-- and for those who don't know the history, perhaps some reading is in order.