The final push for complete State control

We've survived violations to our rights in the past. J. Edgar Hoover pushed power past the Constitution, as did FDR and many Presidents and powerful political actors before and after them. America has been able to survive our statist encroachments. Statism was actually built into Constitutional loopholes that Hamilton insisted upon to create a Merchant State, and, since the beginning, we've had a mixture of free market, most prevalent in the 18th century, Merchant State, State Capitalism and Socialism. Our economy has been called a mixed economy since the 20th century statist encroachments began in earnest.

As a nation our leaders have never addressed interventionist advancements directly, as in announcing that government will start developing a command and control economy and intervening at will in the affairs of other countries, but they have succeeded in doing so due to a general trust of government for decades, which was inspired by Americans' committment to the USA. Once government started showing cracks, after the Big Depression, then Nixon, and then Carter, so forth and so on, Americans made a calculation as they started losing freedom and government intervened more and more. In International Relations' discussions there are three Cs when a One World Order is contemplated. The experts talk about committment, calculation and coercion when considering the ways in which such a global order can come about.

Of course, it's preferable to have committment from the people who will be subjects of the ruling order. If there's not full committment, and there would not likely be such ever, then calculation is used by the subjects to determine what they receive in return when they give up their autonomy to the those who wish to rule. If there's determination among the power elite, and if there's no widespread committment and the people don't believe they're receiving sufficient benefits to give up the freedoms the rulers are requiring they surrender, then coercion is used -- coercion is, of course, the weakest of the three, because rulers are constantly attempting to maintain control and order.

The same is basically true at the level of a single nation such as America. Once Americans began acknowledging their freedoms were being violated in various ways, they made calculations to determine if it's worth the loss of some freedoms if we get superior military protection in return or cleaner air or safer products or a stronger safety net, social security and the like, etc. It appears that Americans have made the calculation that they're willing to sacrifice freedom for security, stability, safety, equality, fairness and all the other promises made by a powerful State to justify expansion of power in a command and control economy managed by an interventionist government, plus justification of foreign military interventions in the name of national security, protection from terrorism, etc.

Freedom movements have popped up periodically, such as the Old Right, made up of freedom proponents like Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov and others. They've proposed limited government a more responsbile private sector that provides solutions to social problems and a non-interventionist policy when it comes to foreign affairs -- no entanglement in the affairs of foreign countries. Although much of it was misguided, the 60s' protests were reactions to expansion and abuse of State power. The Reagan Revolution was ostensibly a freedom reaction against an interventionist government that was steadily expanding State power, although the DC establishment won out in the end, and the march of statism continued practically unabated except for the remaining resistance among the public to giant, sudden power-grabs by government -- small and steady power-grabs have been accepted as part of the calculation of received benefits as freedoms erode. Now, privacy violations are common. The military/industrial complex is not audited and does pretty much what it wants to do, as Presidents run the military like a Prince's private army, and regulations pour forth from a central plan developed in DC and dumped on the rest of the country. Government spends $110 billion on food programs alone, so the last election lets us know that at least the majority of those who voted are still okay with their calculations.

There was a nascent freedom movement that broke out clumsily and confused around 2009, lacking a strong philosophical foundation to give it consistency and clarity -- there's hope that the movement can mature and evolve into a thoughtful opposition force to statism, which has answers to why statism is destructive, and how the private sector can do many things that people think only government can handle. If this movement does grow, we'll see if Americans choose limited government and a free market in the 21st century or whether we'll settle for the shaky promises of government to take care of our most pressing problems. There's much evidence that even though many Americans have calculated that government interventions are worth the loss in freedom, government is unable to deliver on many of it's promises, especially the saftey net promises (study the problems with SS, Medicare, Medicaid). Then we'll see if government opts for the weakness of the Cs, coercion. This is the historical turn of events in countries which evolve toward statist control, even if in the beginning the controllers are benevolent and compassionate -- unlimited power changes everything, and not in a good way.  

Rules for the Right

The Left has their rules of engagement from Saul Alinsky, the hero to Leftists like Chris Matthews, who recently went from a thrill up his leg regarding Obama's election to a spur in his ass over Obama's lackluster performance in the debate against Romney. As many have said and written, Romney was real, engaged, energized, intelligent and straightforward, while Obama was overwhelmed. The Left is now telling us how it's all Obama's strategy, that he has lured Romney into his trap. Surely Alinsky's rules are at work here and the brilliance of the moves are beyond the understanding of the average witness.

I don't how Romney will play this out, although I'm pretty certain how Obama will play it out. Anyone who will take advantage of bogus employment numbers to build himself up, like Obama has done, assuming Americans are too dumb to know that the unemployment situation is only getting worse, is someone who has no concern for the unemployed but only for propaganda designed to maintain power, so, Obama will say or do anything to win. Let's dispense with the games.

The Right has an opportunity to inspire the nation in the election, and they can accomplish this through honesty -- clear-eyed, full-throated honesty. The main concern in America is the economy, but all things affect the economy, just like the bogus war in Afghanistan is misdirecting billions of dollars from our economy to heroin dealers and crony defense contractors. The Right has to look at Afghanistan and call a spade a spade. If we listen to John McCain and Rudy Guiliani and all the other hawks, we'll be in Afghanistan for decades with no purpose or end plan. This waste of money and human lives is a central economic issue, because the more we become bogged down in the mideast the more we'll sink in debt. We need to bring our troops home, spend what's necessary to develope the best defense in the world, but not a penny more. It's likely we already possess what it takes to defend our country from any possible threat, so we could start redirecting money back to the private sector and the economy right away.

Rules for the Right should consist of three, main, simple rules -- tell the truth, fight for freedom and resist State power. Everything done politically on the Right should be done honestly, with liberty as the goal, in the service of the private sector while diligently keeping government under our control. As long as free people can make choices in a free market, and as long as government is limited and doesn't intervene in the economy at home and in the affairs of other nations abroad, we'll thrive as a nation, and everyone will have more opportunities to prosper.

Independence Day: Return to Ideals

Independence Day brings to mind the distance Americans have travelled from the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not one to romanticize the Founding of America. Upon the creation of the United States of America and the Constitution, years after declaring independence and defeating the British, history shows us that problems of statism existed from the beginning, and liberty was something not all enjoyed to the same degree, and some, such as the slaves, didn't enjoy at all.

Hamilton's Federalist government protected a relatively few wealthy power-brokers with a national bank to help finance the corrupt arrangements. But, even though in practice the American Experiment fell far short of the ideals, the Republican-Democratic forces that eventually ended Federalist control came closer to the ideals of liberty spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, and, for awhile, America was a bright light in the world, struggling with flaws, but overcoming and succeeding in ways unknown before. Now we are drifting toward a European social democracy and the light is dimming. America took a sharp turn away from the orginal American ideals when Wilsonian progressivism/statism led America away from the principles which made her great, then after a short reaction against statism, FDR changed America in ways that are illiberal with little understanding from average Americans today how rights are being violated.

On one cable news show some pundit said Independence Day is a day to remember the soldiers who've fought to protect our liberties, but the ideal envisioned by Jefferson and other Founders was a nation of farmers and traders who existed and traded in peace. This is what I would like to honor -- not our military (which I respect for what they do in times of national threats from abroad), and not our government (which, if limited and focused on the protection of rights, is necessary for the nation to survive and thrive), but, rather, on the American people and the ideals put forward in the Declaration of Independence regarding liberty for all and the preciousness of our inalienable rights -- the ideal that resists majority rule, so that unpopular minorities aren't enslaved and abused. Independence from rulers who seek to control and plan our lives. This is what I honor and hope survives.

The Desperate Left

It's not that the Right doesn't have a lot to fix. The political involvement of the Religious Right back in the 70s, and the militaristic rise of neo-cons in the 80s and 90s, really hurt the Rightwing in the eyes of ordinary, non-political Americans who couldn't understand the need to politicize social issues, and they certainly grew tired of the war-mongering, World Policing, and empty moralizing.

Although ordinary, non-political Americans aren't libertarians (many aren't sure what the label means)they have a libertarian streak that's characteristic of most Americans. So, although the Right still has its problems, the Left is a frigging hot mess, and ordinary, nonpolitical Americans are looking at Obama and the Democratic Party, the Left's support of Occupiers, and the Left's support of the Arab Spring which many predicted would fall to radical Islamists, and Americans are asking just what the hell is going on. They don't like Obamacare, and they are stunned at the amount of debt amassed over the last 4 years. I'm not talking about Tea Partiers reacting to the Left, but American citizens in general.

What's really getting to these Americans is high unemployment with no relief in sight -- they watch Obama do things like block the Keystone pipeline and help block Boeing's expansion in South Carolina. Americans are asking what the hell is going on in DC? George Bush blew it, and now Obama's doubling down, but he's blaming Bush. What the hell is going on in DC?

The Left doesn't know how to fix this reaction against the Democratic Party. Obama's pandering to every special interest group possible, but his election situation is awful at this stage -- tied with Romney? Plus, there's Fast and Furious, the kill list, the charges of giving away vital foreign policy secrets to make Obama look good. It hasn't been good for Obama and the Democrats.

The Left is blaming Obama for not going big, for not giving the finger to the Right and charging forward with a social democracy agenda beyond Obamacare and Dodd-Frank -- they want real socialist change, but Obama is playing the pragmatist, telling the Left to hold on until after the elections. Obama is losing some on the Left and many in the middle. The Left is in disarray, when only 3 and half years ago they were on top of the world. The problem is that the Left has used political means over economic means for decades now, and it's failing miserably. The 21st century is screaming for liberty, private sector empowerment, especially economic liberty, although liberty can't be sectioned off without killing liberty, per se -- but the Left is entrenched in the political realm hoping to use democracy and majority rule to dominate America. Americans aren't having this -- they are rebelling. That's a good thing. Wake up liberals, don't follow the progressives over the political cliff.

More on transcending the political

As liberalism and Marxism competed against one another for hearts and minds during the 20th century, they both had something in common -- a disdain for the political route. Original liberalism relied more on economic means than political means and believed government shouldn't intervene in the economy. Marxists believed that economic forces and the harmonious result of class struggle would eventually kill off the State, making it unnecessary when no classes need be suppressed anymore.

The reaction to classical liberalism and Marxism was, what was called in Europe, social democracy, the third way which embraced political means as a way of managing the economy and preventing the unjust consequences of unfettered capitalism. I suppose in America this political force has been called Progressivism or Modern Liberalism, but calling this political force liberal is no longer justifiable. Modern Liberals in America must distinguish themselves from social democracy by supporting real limits on government power and supporting economic means over political means, or else they don't deserve to be called or considered liberal.

Social democrats didn't necessarily want to transition from capitalism to socialism, when it became evident that socialism proper couldn't generate real wealth, and they saw no ineviitability in the transition, thus, their split from Marxism was based on a third way in which capitalism could be used to create wealth, but government would control and distribute the wealth for the greater good through political means. This is how social democrats became allied with nationalist socialists and fascists during WWII -- they joined in reaction to the anti-statist tendencies of both liberalism and orthodox Marxism.

This reactionary movement manifested itself in the US in the Democratic Party, and the two party system, shared with statist Republicans on the Right, has worked much like the social democratic and fascist system in Europe in the 20th century in opposition to liberalism/modernization and Marxism.

The battle has been a timeless battle seen throughout history when the forces of liberty are attacked and subjugated by the forces of domination. The forces of domination have many justifications for control and management -- the social democratic justification was to do what's best for the collective, and not simply what's best for individuals. We can see where this force of domination has led us -- to great State power, over-regulation, violations of the Constitution, a mountain of debt, high unemployment, failed education system, an out of control Fed, a crony-infested military/industrial complex, a protected power eilte, mideast entanglements in which men and women on both sides are dying and suffering needlessly, small businesses squashed by government-favored Big Corporations, an impotent congress and an imperial presidency. 

I say it's time for another round, a permanent condition, of anti-statist liberalism -- real liberalism. Liberals of America wake up and be counted or admit that social democracy is a more appropriate label than liberalism.