The New Foundation Media -- sucking up to power

We know the MSM/old media is in the tank for this new power structure which is politically correct, but the political correctness of the new gang has attracted the new media as well. High-brow conservatives and left-leaning libertarians are joining the new liberals is supporting the status quo, as many of their blogs reveal. Oh, the haughty conservatives and leftertarians will politely disagree with the Democrat rule from time to time to gain street-cred for their radical independence, but just look at Reason Magazine and you'll see the soft libertarianism which knows where their line is properly drawn and stays within it. Reason will rail at the margins over certain liberty violations but the cases they choose are becoming more and more obscure and inconsequential. The patronizing conservatives who're forming a coalition of correctness and showing a little flirtatious leg to the power structure spend much more time descibing Beck as a babbling jester and Limbaugh as the Idiot King of The Unwashed  than they do expressing outrage over the biggest power grab in our history.

The New Foundation is made up of a Rawlsian consensus, sans ideology, which soft-pedals (maybe not so soft, now) statism and applies pragmatism to mask a lack of vision, an acceptance of less-than-excellence in favor of best practices and procedures which are the blueprints for the new structure -- if you're not in this power circle, you're stranded alone in true independence or associated with the yokels and rubes. This is a political game with a social emphasis --when the new gang ostracizes it can be lonely and painful. Identity is becoming more political and group-oriented -- iconoclasts and individuals are dinosaurs quickly becoming extinct, anti-social extremists who are anathema to unification and solidarity. The new and correct socio-political group rationalizes purpose as caregivers who care for the needy, road-builders, environmental saviors, protecters of research, gaurdians against raw capitalism, cosmopolitan ambassadors of goodwill, enlightened educators and keepers of the sanctitiy of equality -- they are reluctant regulators of the nation's economy, forced into position by Wall Street thieves, grubbers and hedonists.

Even Walter Shapiro, a "second-tier" speech writer for Carter, writes -- "To my ears, the New Foundation sounds clunky, mechanistic and devoid of poetry." Alan Wolfe writes, in The Future of Liberalism, and explains why -- that new liberalism should avoid "poetry" in favor of rational policy-making. Consensus building, building a New Foundation and changing the world through a unified effort is serious business and you're either a part of the effort or you're an obstructionist. Part of the new structure which will be built on the new foundation is a wall between liberal civilization and religious zealots on the right. Hatred of the religious right is an important aspect of the bond between conservative moderates, liberals and leftertarians. This is the area where tolerance doesn't apply.

No one resists government influence by right-wing zealots more than I resist this type of statism from the right, but no more so than the secular manifestation of statist religion on the left.  The God of the State is no less scary than the imposed God of the religious right. We're being squeezed lifeless between two heavy influences of religious fervor utilizing the coercion of the state. The right has been marginalized, and the left is expanding its social club to the point of unlimited power. Those who feel left out because their principles won't allow social pressures to compromise core beliefs have no place to turn except resistance to statism. There is no political power available to people who resist political power -- there is only private sector power, the shrinking realm of freedom, where expression is being constantly limited.

How many individuals and iconoclasts are left to resist the juggernaut of power? I see them fall one by one as the new social club becomes more popular. The New Foundation is growing. All the mad poets of freedom are shunned, laughed at and dimissed as kooks and extremists. Oh, wouldn't a national blast of freedom be fun? Get out yer guitars, brothers and sisters, there's some folk singin' and protesting to be done.

The crazy old white men theory of libertarianism

I hear more and more about old white men getting cranky about the multi-cultural changes which have led to the present political environment. Even some libertarians are wringing their hands about the libertarian tendency to ignore women and minorities. The truth is that libertarians have very little to offer special interest groups other than what they have to offer everyone. I don't know of any libertarian writers who, in the preface of their books, explain how they are antagonistic toward women and minorities and are attempting to appeal to old white men. Libertarians have ideas that are meant for general consumption.

In a political environment where voters are attempting to use a statist political system to enact laws and regulations to favor a special interest, libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, are useless, except to show the dangers of a statist government. I'm not sure how to remedy this, if people are bent on gaining favors from government, except to turn The Libertarian Party into something it's not. If libertarian ideas are accepted mainly by old white men, then what does that say about women and minorities? They obviously don't accept libertarian ideas, or they don't understand libertarian ideas, or they merely prefer a more activist government.

If it's a lack of understanding, then libertarians would do well to increase their efforts to get the ideas out to the public in ways that are easily understood. Since the media thinks most libertarians are cranks, dissidents and almost terrorists, it will be difficult to get any favorable action in the press. But then I wonder where the responsibility lies with women and minorities to broaden their understanding of political ideas. The fact that most people don't accept libertarian ideas is not necessarily a fault of libertarianism. Because libertarianism is mainly about freedom from government coercion, libertarians can't attract people with political goodies -- this is a fault in the mindset of the electorate, not libertarianism.

When I became interested in politics, I read all the political philosophies -- the information is easy to access. If women and minorities are concerned about politics, it would serve them well to read widely, because the interventionist, nanny state is not their friend. Interventionist policies have hurt minorities more than they've helped. The main libertarian writers who have written many books on the various libertarian topics have been clear and thorough when they address these issues. It's not like libertarianism is a secret society which bars the entry of women and minorities -- any woman or minority alive has the freedom to write their own book using libertarian thought to disseminate their views, or to help affect change in the political realm. The fact that they don't tells me more about special interests than about libertarianism.

I grow weary of the reductionist critiques of libertarianism which are facile and cartoonish in their attempt to create caricatures and take a few reduced ideas out of context to give the appearance of utopian naivete or white-man selfishness. The literature on libertarianism is rich and comprehensive, full of some the best ideas in political thought. There are writers who've addressed poverty and the whole public goods arguments, and the problem is that most new liberals are determined to accept only government intervention as viable. If new liberals were considering privatization as an alternative, even just in areas where it is most obviously a better route, then I might think liberals have a point that we all need to talk and start coming to a consensus -- but as long as liberals insist on government coercion as the only route, conversation is limited and consensus doubtful.

The new breed of liberals can sit back and dismiss libertarianism as the cranky ideas of old white men if they want to, but they do so at their peril. Libertarian thought at its clearest has to do with reality, not feel good notions that win elections and build power bases -- and as I've said before -- reality always wins.

We don't need a new foundation

I want to spend the month of May writing about why America doesn't need a new foundation, especially one built on government management of healthcare, energy, education and the economy in general. I know it's fashionable to have a cool partner like Barack Obama in government willing to build a new foundation for the country, but, really, it's quite unnecessary, and, frankly, Mr. Obama should learn how to be a good goverment executive who abides by the Constitution rather than a Grand Architect bent on redesigning the Constitution. He's had his 100 days in the fun house of power, now he needs to be educated in earnest on checks and balances and the limitations of government. The Democrat congress needs to be reigned in, too, from their hysterical thrill at the possibility of unobstructed law making.

If people don't speak up and act, the New Foundation Progressives will begin making changes that could be very difficult to undo. We're no longer talking about government intervention and meddling, we're talking about government management and control over our lives -- the end of freedom in America -- the end of capitalism. However, I don't want to generalize and call all new liberals "progressives" because I realize many liberals, the ones who actually think about ideas, make a distinction between modern liberalism, progressives and far lefters. Hell, I'm a liberal, of the classic type -- you don't get much more liberal than I am, if the word is not twisted out of shape. The only way in which I'm conservative is in the conservation of limited government principles -- outside a limited government, I'm for dynamism, baby. But change should be guided by reason, and we shouldn't change mindlessly just because we're comfortable and bored, or because it seems like a great new political strategy to attract young voters.

I believe in change and going someplace, but I want to have a good idea where I'm headed, although surprises can be good -- so, maybe I should say I want to recognize it when I'm heading for disaster. Hopefully, most people believe in purpose and free will and don't buy into the idea that we're governed by forces outside our control -- influenced, maybe, in ways that present obstacles we can struggle to overcome, but not hopelessly controlled by genetics, a sinful nature or societal forces.

I have to hand it to some of the new liberals I've been reading, like Alan Wolfe -- they talk about purpose and morality and aren't ashamed to admit we aren't pin balls in a pin ball machine -- they didn't drift into the intellectually lost world of post-modernism -- and they resist the strict religious explantion of human behavior, although they are tolerant of people of faith. Many of the new liberals are almost classic -- almost. What prevents them from being classic, though, makes all the difference in the world. What prevents them from being classic is also odd, and difficult to understand based on their verbalized views of liberality. Someone like Wolfe can write -- "With respect to liberty, liberals want for the person what Thomas Jefferson wanted for his country: independence. Dependency for liberals cripples." -- then in the same paragraph write -- "...through societies that guarantee  sufficient economic security to individuals so they aren't dependent upon the arbitrary will of others for the basic necessities of life."

Why does the new liberal say freedom for all out of one side of their mouth, and praise independence, then out of the other side of their mouth propose taking from some against their will and giving to others who then become dependent on it. Why does the new liberal talk so beautifully about rights, but then see nothing wrong with violating the rights of some individuals because they have more wealth than others. In order to possess a position of integrity, new liberals should say that they believe in freedom which is conditional on a person's station in life, how much wealth they possess and what position they hold -- that rights can be violated if the state deems it appropriate.

This is the big difference between new liberals and classic liberals. Classic liberals fought the ancien regime's system of class structure whereby people were enslaved to a certain class and could not rise above what had been assigned to them by power -- classic liberals fought to free the individual to pursue happiness and gave everyone, equally, the right to life and liberty -- everyone! The new liberals thought they could improve on equal rights for individuals because even in freedom some had more wealth than others. So, although the new liberal says that rights are important, they're willing to violate the rights of some so that those who can't achieve the basic necessities of life are given a fair chance to pursue their happiness. Because most people don't see anything wrong with violating the rights of the wealthy, they are okay with the state taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the unfortunate in society.

This situation where it's okay to violate the rights of some has opened the door for government to redistribute wealth and create legislation which now violates freedom on a larger scale, and government is now taking money not only from the rich, but from all class levels, in an attempt to pay for its out of control spending. When the power of government is unlimited, government develops many plans to engineer society, and history shows this type of engineering is futile in a complex economy and causes unintended consequences which call for more intervention and engineering.

Why has the new liberal lost confidence in free people in the private sector to handle societal problems -- why have the new liberals embraced government as the vehicle to achieve equality? If the new liberal believes humans possess a sense of purpose and can act morally through free will, why the insistance government regulation and engineering is necessary? Most new liberals won't even consider the private sector and free choice as the answer -- they insist on government coercion -- they insist on the violation of freedom in order to save freedom -- much like Bush said he violated free enterprise principles to save free enterprise. It doesn't make sense.

New liberals have the stubborn faith that although government has done a poor job engineering society, it is still possible if done correctly. They can't see that the violation of free market prinicples, the violation of classic liberal principles, creates the path to failure, statism and loss of freedom, no matter who is presently running the government. It ought to be obvious that in a democracy where the majority can elect their gang to make rules arbitrarily, we'll always be dependent on the competence of the gang elected by the current majority. The majority can suddenly become very illiberal and their gang can institute very illiberal rules -- it's beyond my understanding why the new liberal is not afraid of this, and does not fight for a strong constitution where the rules of equality are fair and consistent -- so that everyone is free to pursue happiness without worry of coercion -- everyone.

Then, the ones in society who are incapable of pursuing happiness, or achieving the basic necessities of life, can be helped by those who freely choose to help them. I'll expound on all this thoughout the month of May in an attempt to present my perspective and solutions.

The problem with picking sides in a war with no good guys

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?_r=3

Mr. Douthat argues, tongue in cheek, that it would've been better for the country if Dick Cheney had run for president, especially as the debate would likely have included a debate on torture. Douthat makes some good points regarding Cheney's brand of small government conservatism, but I have to wonder if this is really true. Two things which conflict can't be true -- one, that Cheney was running the show behind the scenes -- two, Cheney couldn't stop the run away spending and growth of government. It could be that Cheney didn't have as much power as suggested, and that he really is a "small" government type, but what does "small" government type mean -- I suspect Cheney likes a powerful government, but simply doesn't like to waste money. I suspect Cheney is as much a statist for conservative causes as Obama is a statist for liberal causes, so if they had run against each other, our choices would've been more clearly defined, certainly, -- statist control through conservative tradition or statist control through progressive change -- and this would've been mostly distinctions without a difference.

“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.

This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.

(from Douthat's article above)

Cheney does seem to represent the conservative force in the Republican Party which is attempting to regroup, but, again, why was he not able to stop the run away spending and damage caused to free market principles under Bush? If by some miracle, Cheney had run against Obama and had won, would things be a lot different? Would Cheney have reversed the direction taken by Bush to bailout banks and auto manufacturers? It's hard for me to believe that Cheney had all this power in the Bush administration and yet Bush was acting like a budding socialist. When it comes to corporate protection, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the parties. Would Cheney have used Keynesian measures to stimulate the economy or would have he fought for more tax breaks.

It's hard to imagine Cheney would be pushing for nationalized healthcare, cap and trade and more money thrown at education, although Bush, under the backroom control of Cheney, expanded government's role in healthcare and did his part trying to fix public education. First we're told that Cheney was running the show, but then we're asked to believe his influence was restricted to taxes and wars -- where was Cheney's influence on social spending and bailouts?

Would the first 100 days of a Cheney presidency be much different than the Obama presidency regarding what's been done? It's obvious that Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner all have the same ideas about protecting companies too big to fail. It's not clear that a Cheney presidency would have taken a different direction -- no one thought Bush would've destroyed the free market to save the free market, whatever that means.

And, as for torture, both parties had a part in designing interrogation techniques. I guess my point is that the partisan games still being played look more ridiculous as times goes by and as the parties meld into one powerful, relentless, statist machine -- "real" conservatism vs new liberalism? I don't think so. From a libertarian viewpoint it looks like statist continuity with either choice.

The MSM puts libertarians in an awkward position

Because most of the news coverage from the MSM is slanted toward modern liberal ideology and favors Democrats, it puts any intellectually honest person, and libertarians in particular, in the position of appearing to defend conservatives and the Republican Party. Libertarians have been associated with conservatives by the MSM, so any time a libertarian calls the press on it's biased coverage, it appears to justify the association. If there are modern liberals who want to maintain integrity and intellectual honesty, they'll have to start telling the truth about media coverage of political news.

Actually, new liberals who still uphold liberal principles which are associated with classic liberalism, even if they've drifted to government involvement a little too much, have a great opportunity to bolster their cause by bucking the MSM and calling them on their skewed coverage. Objectivity is called for and will go a long way to strengthen a new liberal movement that resists the radical left influence which has ruined liberalism. Also, principled liberals should also acknowledge the weaknesses of the state and the strengths of privatization in many areas -- education being one of these areas. The denial of state incompetence in certain endeavors when it's obvious is a flaw in modern liberalism.

I'm not saying that liberals need to become full-fledged libertarians, if they truly believe that some state intervention is necessary, although I think they ought to, but to stubbornly deny the flaws in some areas of state control out of partisan blindness doesn't help their cause. I would have much more respect for new liberalism if adherents exhibited more integrity and objectivity -- then an honest debate could take place and ideas could be truly assessed on merit. But as long as new liberals allow the MSM to use bias and distortion to give the left an advantage, integrity will suffer and divisions will deepen.