More on the conservative/libertarian link, or division

In 1964, Murray Rothbard wrote The Transformation of the American Right. It's well worth reading if you want to understand the split between libertarianism and conservatism in the late 50s and through the 60s -- and up to the present, regarding several concerns.

Rothbard would be even more appalled by the transforming right is he were still alive, but there appears to be a nascent awakening among conservatives leading them back to their libertarian beginning. Just as the New Deal under FDR created a right wing reaction based on libertarian ideas of limited government, individual rights and peace, the progressive movement in the 21st century has awakened the classical liberal principles which inspired the right in the 30s and 40s, although it remains to be seen how widespread and deep this awakening becomes, and whether it's hi-jacked by religion police and war-mongers.

The classical right position was a unification of conservatives and libertarians, and the intellectuals during that time were clear in their rejection of state power, and thus, military power misused on the international stage. Just as anti-communism caused the right to veer from the internal threat of the state, today anti-terrorism may be the cause of misdirection. Make no mistake, America must have a strong defense and thwart terrorist attacks, but it's a mistake to focus on terrorism to the point of obsession when the internal threat of statism is still a greater concern.

If we don't have liberty, and if individual rights mean nothing, then we have little to protect but raw power, material possessions and empty lives. I suppose at a base human level, there is still a desire for protection, even of power and possessions, but liberty is the moral possession worth protecting.

Coercion is the path to tyranny, and even though we live in a dangerous world, America can still establish the vital principle as one of non-coercion -- coercing neither morals nor democracy (or any other way of governing forced on another country). The path of free choice is the path of virtue, as long as the choices don't violate the rights of others.

The progressives have attempted to marginalize the right for decades, but the right has marginalized itself by violating it's basic principles, and many libertarians followed suit, tempted by statist solutions to societal problems better left to the private realm. It may even be time to question the terms left and right, since they have become so weighted with misunderstanding. As I have written many times, the ultimate choice is between statism and classical liberal principles -- statist vs anti-statist -- over-reaching government vs the private realm.

For conservatives and libertarians to have a lasting union, it will require that conservatives embrace liberty in all its ramifications, even those areas of social behavior the conservatives find offensive. Also, as a nation, we all need to embrace non-intervention in foreign affairs -- the future is peace and free trade, or there will be no future.

Carrots didn't work, so get out the sticks

The difference between liberals and progressives, according to David Sirota, is the difference between "using taxpayer money to help better society" and a "focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules".  

Sirota goes on:

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Sirota is tired of carrots, he wants to beat capitalists with a big stick.

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

In other words, industry must pay. Industry must be controlled by the state so it's fair to all people according to the statists in control. Read the whole article and you realize where the progressives stand in relation to modern liberals. Sirota suggests that liberals have influenced Obama to take a more carrot-like approach, but it's obvious that Obama has visions of a more progressive push -- he has stated that not all the progressive agenda can be done at once -- it will take incremental steps. Sirota, and prgressives like him, are impatient -- they believe the liberal pansy approach of bribing industry with carrots, in other words, applying corporate welware, is too beneficial to the rent-seeking, scumbag, "capitalists", and that now is the time to make them do what government wants them to do. I agree with Sirota regarding the corporate welfare -- end it -- but after that, Sirota and I are worlds apart.

But how far apart are the liberals and progressives? How far apart are the moderates and liberals?

It's been my contention for quite some time that companies seeking government favor are dancing with the devil and that it's only a matter of time before government turns on the companies and renders them lackeys for the state. Despite Obama's posture as a liberal, even a moderate in the eyes of some starstruck supporters who are having difficulty accepting reality, he's a progressive. But Obama is not the problem -- every president will do what is politically expedient to maintain power. Our problem in America goes way beyond Obama -- our problem is creeping progressivism -- the new age socialism.

It's unclear at this point whether liberals will resist the progressive goals of outright control over the free market, and instead maintain their carrott/corporate welfare approach. In many ways Obama has been acting as both liberal and progressive -- but with his administration's favoritism toward Goldman Sachs, that might just be plain old cronyism granted to his financial gurus -- there was really no liberal goal of social change involved with bailing out Goldman Sachs. The stimulus could be said to be a liberal scheme to help middle class workers, and in the process offer carrots to some businesses in exchange for cooperation.

We'll have to see what regulations are in the cap and trade legislation, but it appears to be a progressive plan to get the camel's nose in the tent, just like the bailout of GM. With regulations being planned for energy, environmental concerns, the automakers and the financial industry, we begin to see the progressives' plan unfold. Sticks are handed out to regulators and czars. The free market will be beat into shape.

It remains to be seen if the moderates are content trying to manage the growth of statism or whether they will attempt to resist it by joining the conservative/libertarian effort. Liberals are in a precarious position, and in many ways, I include the moderates among the liberals, because the difference between the two is negligible. Most moderates have been okay with liberal use of tax payer money to influence companies to work toward the greater good -- they just don't want to go too far in debt.  

Progressives aren't concerned with debt, nor are they concerned with the free market -- progressives are interested in controling production and economic activity. If moderates/liberals continue to appease progressives, we're in for economic ruin and a great loss of liberty, yet, politically, the moderates/liberals can't find a way to join forces with the conservatives/libertarians. The political divisions are favoring the progressives, as the moderates/liberals vacillate between the poles of conservativism/libertarianism and progressivism.

The limited government conservatives and the libertarians don't agree on social concerns, but they are united in resistance to statism. The moderates and liberals don't agree on all social or fiscal issues, but they are united against the limited government conservatives and libertarians. The questions for the moderates and liberals is -- Will they fight progressivism? Will they uphold classical liberal principles? Will they allow capitalism to be destroyed? Will their disdain for the conservative base override their reason, principles and common sense, pushing them into the progressive movement, brandishing sticks to beat down a free nation? 

David Sirota ends with:

The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

More on Moderates

I've said some unpleasant things about moderates, especially moderate politicians and pundits. This doesn't mean I have anything against the concept of moderation, nor do I think all moderate human beings are squishes. Many people moderate their drinking, shopping, emotional responses, sexual conduct, their time spent working, their gambling in places like Vegas, their food consumption, etc., and this is admirable -- however, I'm not convinced the virtue is transferable, necessarily, to politics.

The problem I have with the Thomas Dewey-like moderates is that they are okay with government intervention as long as it's paid for. The term "moderate", in politics, is troublesome -- some moderate Republicans even refer to their political designation as "progressive" Republican. Is this a Teddy Roosevelt progressivism? I also wonder what is the difference between moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, and if "progressive" is thrown into the mix, the lines are blurred to the point of being senseless.

I often hear pundits say that moderate Democrats are separating themselves from liberals on a given issue -- if the moderate Democrats are not liberal then this also begs the question -- what makes them different from the moderate Republicans? Does it all boil down to how much debt is acceptable? In other words, is statism acceptable to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives with the only difference being how much statism and debt each group is willing to accept? I suppose, if this is true, that at some point a line is drawn separating the moderate Republicans from the Democrats, therfore distinguishing which party the moderates fall within. We know that the liberals and progressives fall within the Democrat Party, but the line is blurred with moderates from each party.

But even this is not clear, because Republican moderates also claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so which really defines them, if they accept that a certain amount of statism is acceptable? Don't moderate Democrats claim the same thing -- that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Is it really just a matter of degree? This doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to justify different party designations, because even within the Democrat Party there are disagreements among moderates over how much government intervention is acceptable, so Republican moderates, like Arlen Specter used to be, could fit right in, just as Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others could blend right in. It appears the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republican moderates are all in the same political group with marginal disagreements over how much statism is acceptable. The particular local issues are not that important when looking at the difference between parties -- here, I'm more concerned with political philosophy in a broader sense, as between statist and anti-statist.

As a libertarian-leaning thinker, I can understand fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but where I separate from the moderates, and the liberals and progressives, is their willingness to use government intervention in the economy and for the greater good of society, especially after the performance of the state since the turn of the 20th century. Moderates aren't working for a limited government and private realm solutions to social problems, and they appear to see the Constitution as fluid according to the needs of the time. So, who is left to defend the classical liberal principles on which America was founded, or have we moved past our beginning into a more global political philosophy, or anti-philosophy, of socialization and internationalism?

Most libertarians still uphold the classical liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, charity, and self-determination, and the conservative movement is presently re-embracing these principles, although many in the base have always embraced these principles, they've just been too willing to use statsism to achieve socially conservative ends, and the conservative choice of Bush in 2000 showed a statist weakness in the Republican Party.

The moderates might be right when they say that if the Republican Party is to re-gain power it will require moderate support, but what good is the Republican Party in power if it advances statism? The Democrats are doing a better job of advancing statism, if that is the goal -- the Democrats just need to get spending under control, and the moderates in the Democrat Party are working on that -- the Republican moderates can join them and give them more fiscally conservative firepower. The question is who is going to fight against statism? Are the libertarians and conservatives enough? Will the libertarians and conservatives split over social issues? Is the independent movement a new, anti-statist, political formation?  

Next, as a follow-up, I'll write about the concerns I have surrounding the liberal/progressive definitions. The current babble regarding political designations is simply too confusing.

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.

The Statist Narrative

It's time to reevaluate the statist narrative. Upton Sinclair was one of the first creators of the statist narrative. Sinclair's novel, The Jungle, exposed unsanitary meat packing conditions in Chicago in the very early 20th century, inspired by a socialist concern for workers and a hatred of capitalism. Socialism was being promoted by many European immigrants along this time, and Teddy Roosevelt, the charismatic progressive, was happy to use the state to begin solving societal problems. Even Roosevelt's progressive fixes weren't enough for the likes of Sinclair who wanted capitalism to pay dearly and socialism to take its place. The idea was spreading that the state is necessary to protect the powerless, the unprivileged and disadvantaged -- the corresponding idea was that workers and poor should be empowered to fight the wealthy capitalists.

It wasn't much later that the Russian Revolution took place, adding to the narrative of the rise of the workers and demise of capitalism. WWI created an elevation of the idea of state all across the world -- states became more fully formed, differentiated and powerful. 20th century in America brought about the rise of the state and a powerful interventionist government, leaving the idea of a limited government far behind as an antiquated idea insufficient for modern times.

The statist narrative tells us that capitalism fails to deal with society's most pressing problems like poverty, education, infrastructure, equality, justice, health and safety, so a strong and active government is vital to provide services and redistribute wealth from those able to amass wealth to those in need. In America it wasn't the simple Marxist idea of moving from capitalism to socialism to communism, it was more or less an idea of fairness, spurred by compassion -- except during the Great Depression, when FDR decided that the state had to save the nation, then it appeared that the state was also vital in financial crises to stimulate the economy and spur growth. But, in our good times, the statist idea is that the government must take from those who have in order to assist those who don't have, and this is how a wealthy nation should take care of it own.

Many of our novels and Hollywood movies have repeatedly told this story of evil, rich capitalists oppressing, in one way or another, those who aren't rich. This story is part of the American mind. Because of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and many, many progressive politicians who've used this narrative to gain political power, the American mind was impressed with the state's role in enforcing justice, protecting the powerless and providing a safety net so that people aren't lost in the Hobbesian jungle of capitalism. The underdogs in society are given a helping hand by the beneficent state to fight against greed and capitalist corruption.

The statist narrative which rests on the reality of the state safety net has hidden the many problems which come about as the result of a powerful state. History has revealed the horrors of powerful nation-states, in Russia, Germany, China, and others, but we've always felt secure in the knowledge that our Constitution will protect us from these misuses of power, and for the most part we've avoided the horrible results of too much state power.

We never went the route into full socialism, but we created a mixed economy that people, for the most part, have learned to live with (and, of which, many have taken advantage to gain their own special interest power) -- part state intervention, part capitalism. The questions for the present, and going forward into the future, relate to whether we've gone too far in the direction of state intervention? What would America have been like if we had relied more on private solutions to social problems? Can America now rely on private solutions as the state becomes more and more overburdened and we lose more and more of our freedoms? Was there another narrative, a capitalist/free market/libertarian/private sector narrative, which didn't get as much attention through the years, that now needs to be revised and told in the light of the 21st century?

I think so. I'll be writing about this for the next week or so.