Another important distinction

The distinction between anti-government and limited government, or even being critical of the present government whether you want to limit it or not, needs to be made over and over to counteract the repetitious characterizations in the media and poltical class of all protests against government as "anti-government".

I've watched a lot of news reporting lately just to see how the current controversy over "heated rhetoric" is played out, and it's amazing how often politicians, reporters, news show hosts and the media in general are characterizing those critical of our present government as "anti-government".

"Anti-government" gives the impression that the Tea Partiers and those calling for a limited government are wild-eyed anarchists, and when you mix this with "heated rhetoric" and "violence" you present a false impression of sedition -- it compounds the problem when politicians call for better protection of public servants as if they are under seige from a violent, anarchic, anti-government fringe movement which has been spewing hate speech. This in itself is irresponsible rhetoric creating a more fear-producing environment. This false image being created of the Tea Party is another sign of a dying media and a desperate government, making the TP case why government and the media that defends the status quo should be criticized.

Julian Sanchez -- A stubborn misunderstanding

I take issue with Julian Sanchez's recent blog post regarding a carefully constructed strawman -- constructed mainly by members of the political class, and uncritically accepted by too many people who apparently have unexamined biases. First of all, there isn't a common conservative, just as the "common man" doesn't provide much useful information except the broadest of similarities. We can speak of conservative ideas because they've been recorded and it's fairly easy to poll and determine how many people hold enough certain ideas to call them conservative, but it's much more difficult and perhaps impossible to determine how they came to accept these ideas.

It's also impossible to claim that a large group of people hold conservative ideas and ignore conflicting ideas. It's possible that this group holds ideas they've weighed against other ideas and have chosen the ideas they find more acceptable. Regarding a certain group of conservatives, Sanchez claims -

"Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted."  

Is it not possible that these conservatives reject what they believe is untrue and wrong-headed? Is there really any question that the MSM is mainly liberal-minded? Sanchez then states that these people believe anyone who disagrees with the conservative position is obviously "liberal". But there's no way for Sanchez to know if these conservatives think disagreement comes from liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, libertarians, atheists, etc. Don't we all have disagreements throughout the spectrum of ideas?

Sanchez goes on to write:

This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile. Think of the complete panic China’s rulers feel about any breaks in their Internet firewall: The more successfully external sources of information have been excluded to date, the more unpredictable the effects of a breach become. Internal criticism is then especially problematic, because it threatens the hermetic seal. It’s not just that any particular criticism might have to be taken seriously coming from a fellow conservative. Rather, it’s that anything that breaks down the tacit equivalence between “critic of conservatives and “wicked liberal smear artist” undermines the effectiveness of the entire information filter.  If disagreement is not in itself evidence of malign intent or moral degeneracy, people start feeling an obligation to engage it sincerely—maybe even when it comes from the New York Times. And there is nothing more potentially fatal to the momentum of an insurgency fueled by anger than a conversation. A more intellectually secure conservatism would welcome this, because it wouldn’t need to define itself primarily in terms of its rejection of an alien enemy.

I will call the group to which Sanchez refers the IICs -- Intellectually Insecure Conservatives -- not because I believe his analysis, that they are intellectually insecure, but because it's simpler to distinguish them from others whom I assume Sanchez believes came about their ideas in a more intelletually open way. According to Sanchez, the IICs have hermeticaly sealed their conservativism to prevent the intrusion of external or internal criticism. In other words, the IICs no longer listen to moderates or others who criticize the IICs' version of conservatism. I'm not sure how Sanchez reaches this conclusion. Again, is it not possible that the IICs have studied all criticisms and found them wanting? Perhaps some the IICs don't have a full understanding of opposing views, but then I find some progressives and moderates who don't have a full understanding of libertarianism -- they dismiss libertarian ideas out-of-hand based on some cartoon version they heard somewhere in their hermetically sealed universe.

Sanchez's ideas regarding the IICs' charges of moderates "selling out" to gain respectablity rather than be associated with what the IICs fear is their lower cultural status are, I believe, misguided. Read his words below, carefully.

No, the insinuation is always that they’re angling for respectability, because even “one of us” might be tempted by the cultural power of the enemy elites, might ultimately value their approval more than that of the conservative base. It’s a much deeper sort of purported betrayal, because it’s a choice that would implicitly validate the status claims of the despised elite. You’re supposed to feel as though you’ve been snubbed socially—discarded for “better” company—which evokes both more indignant rejection of the quisling and  further resentment of the liberal snobs who are visiting this indignity on you.  In a way it’s quite elegant, and you can see why it’s become as popular as it has.  But it’s fundamentally a symptom of insecurity—and a self-defeating one, because it corrodes the kind of serious discussion and reexamination of conservative principles and policies that might help produce a more self-assured movement.

This is amazingly misguided. To start with, Sanchez takes way too much liberty with his psychological diagnosis of "insecurity". This is a specious way to spin the IICs displeasure with the moderates and the faux-elites, and who knows if it's true for any given individuals -- but to assign this diagnosis of insecurity to a large group of people is amazingly misguided -- enough so that it makes me want to do a psychological work-up (this is my old line of work) on Sanchez, but I like him -- what I know from his writing and interactions with commenters --  so I won't take such liberty.

Let's see if there might not be an alternative analysis of the IICs' conservative position and displeasure with the internal criticism. All the people I know who might possibly fall within this group of IICs listen to MSNBC, read lefty blogs, take in all the moderates'  trashing of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Coulter, Levin, Hannity, Fox News and whatever other IIC-media outlets there are out there in IIC-land. I don't how many people I've talked to, or heard on radio talk shows or tv shows, who are basically common conservatives, who have said they don't agree with everything said by Limbaugh, Beck, etc., but they believe that most of the mainstream media have unfairly attacked them and have not fully addressed their ideas. This seems like a pretty reasonable assessment.

It's a mistake to believe the IICs are malleable mushheads who hang on every Limbaugh/Beck word and see any opposition to their ideas as the enemy. To use Sanchez's words, it's "quite elegant" to spin it this way, and it's comfortable to dimiss the ICCs as close-minded, insecure zealots, but then doesn't this reduction speak to another form of insecurity? I mean, aren't the moderates just as resistant to criticism from the IICs -- are the moderates insecure in ther beliefs? Should I spin this to frame the moderates as some soul-empty Ayn Rand characters tremblng inside as they come up against, strong-willed, intelligent men and women secure in their form of conservatism? It would just as amazingly misguided -- quite elegant, but misguided.

The fact is that American citizens have disagreemnts regarding the future of America. Yes, it's true that many of IICs have not likely read the list of books I've seen lately on different blogs, although some may have, but many of them are intelligent and are now turning their intelligence to politics -- many of them see through the facade of the faux-elite, and they aren't impressed. This is not to say there aren't many intelligent people writing and talking about politics wo could be considered elite in the field, Julian Sanchez being one of them, and their wisdom should be taken into account, but it's a huge mistake to take the caricature of the IICs as the real thing. And, I believe it's a mistake to think they are intellectually insecure -- some maybe, just as with the moderates or liberals, but as a group, they are equal to the task of political battles, and no more closed minded than moderates or liberals pushing their ideas.

Let's discuss these ideas and move past the psycholgical analyses and one-sided charges of close-mindedness.

The Failing State -- 9

The illusion of intelligent, benevolent technocrats nudgng and shoving the nation to social justice, harmony and worldwide cooperation and respect among our global neighbors is laughable. The public sphere in America has outgrown its government, and now we're forced into the unnecessary position of getting the State out of the way so we can move on to the future. All this could've been avoided if the people had not become complacent, and progressives had not taken advantage of the complacency, then the crisis created by government intervention and incompetence. 

The positive result of our present battle with an over-reaching government should be that lessons are learned -- free people must be diligent, and government must be limited. The American people should also learn to not lazily accept values from the State just because they're emotionally appealing -- everyone must think for themselves. Tiny Tim tragedy stories are emotionally inspirational, but they don't replace reason and solid principles and diligent protection of liberty. It's not that societal problems shouldn't be considered and addressed, it's a matter of some solutions being better than others. State solutions to societal problems are sub-optimal, and when State solutions are the only solutions, then they are downright dangerous.

The political class is insulated from the private sphere, and this has caused a deterioration in understanding. The political class is out of touch and views the public as intellectually inferior when it comes to the "Big Picture" issues -- common people are viewed as not having the capability to know what's best for them in the context of society as a whole, so the political class believes it's their duty to guide the nation, and coerce the nation when necessary. The private sphere, however, more and more, sees government as public servants who are not listening and who are taking on too much power.

Education, as poor as it is in public schools, has, nonetheless, increased knowledge through the years, mainly because people are educating themseles outside the State-run education system. People are becoming better informed, and their jobs are becoming more difficult and technically challenging. People are becoming more sophisticated and capable of thinking for themselves. Social interacton is much more involved than in the past so that there aren't very many pockets of isolated ignorance anymore. With an  informed, intelligent private sphere, and with a political class that is becoming insulated and intellectually dim, the people are beginning to feel they're managed by incompetents who have little understanding of day to day life, and they definitely don't trust the political class to run the economy. The political class has not shown a firm grasp of economics, to say the least. The political class doesn't understand how businesses work, therefore their regulations don't make sense to people who are actually producing products and providing services.

I worked in the healthcare industry for 15 years, and I still maintain contact with healthcare providers through my wife who has worked in the field for 26 years. The people doing the work understand that government interference only complicates matters, and that these regulations are coming from people far removed from practical applications and nuanced understanding of how things work.

Whether most people have a philosophical understanding of these issues or not, they have a practical understanding, and they know incompetence when they see it.

The Failing State -- 8

Progressive journalists, politicians, pundits, and moderates like David Frum, David Brooks and Bruce Bartlett, dump practically all opposition to progressivism into a big Tea Party basket, and refer to them as "tea baggers" when they are feeling clever. In reality, the opposition to the progressive agenda and government incompetence is much larger than the Tea Party, and it represents a growing independent dissatisfaction with centralized power in Washington D.C.

Many Democrats would like the unrest and dissatisfaction to be framed as right-wing fanaticism, an expression of common white people who are racist, ignorant and fearful of cultural change. Many Republicans would like to frame the unrest and dissatisfaction as a backlash to Democrat control of congress and the executive branch, but, for the most part, future voters who will put the Republicans back in power.

Both parties are largely missing what's happening. The battle that's forming is between the private sphere and the political class. Public unrest is not made up solely of white southerners who hate Obama, it's a diverse opposition to a statist government - an opposition which includes professionals, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, and individuals from various races.

The political class overestimates its own power of influence, although it's been significant, and underestimates the independence and intelligence of the private sphere. Progressives/liberals, especially, but also statist conservatives, took the wrong message from public complacency during good economic times. The American people allowed government a great deal of leeway in setting social policies and regulating business, because for a while their actions had no extreme, widespread national effect -- but as government becomes bolder and more ambitious, people are paying attention. Politicians thought they could use techniques used by power-mongers throughout history to control the narrative and move groups like chess pieces, but the techniques are backfiring now that government actions are having widespread negative impact and the techniques are being revealed.

Many people are waking up to the fact that government has virtual control of the media, unions and education, and has attempted to marginalize the private influence of religion, business and the common voice. The State's been active in gaining loyalty from the American people and shaping their values, but it hasn't worked on the majority of the population, just enough active voters to maintain the power shift from the private sphere to the political class, as the majority were complacent.

Now that the nation's paying attention, they don't like what they see. The public now attempts to shift power back to the private sphere. America is not a country to be manipulated by totalitarian tactics, and although, as I've said, "totalitarian" is a harsh, serious word, we have entered a serious juncture in our nation and it has to do with direction. Of course government is not using the violent and extreme totalitarian tactics used by Stalin and Mao, but they are using old, illiberal ideas of power and control that are remnants of those regimes - American-style, but still through psychological means, through education, through media, through marginalization of their enemies, through semantics, through deceit, through regulatory control, through institutionalization of values, through pomp and circumstance, through alliances of special interests and through misuse of power in order to intimidate.

Passing the healthcare reform bill has now become the most important progressive goal, and the progressives are pulling out all the stops. The public's watching, and, if it happens, the public will react. I have no idea what the outcome will be. The American people might eventually roll over and accept this power-grab, but it doesn't seem likely.

The failing political class

As American citizens have less faith in our present government, the political class is floundering, attempting to regain legitimacy. A recent Rasmussens poll shows only 21% of those who vote believe the government has the consent of the people.

I'm not an anarchist -- I'm a minarchist, and the reason I believe in a minimal government which is limited to police, military and courts is because governments grow in power when they aren't strictly limited, and they create so many unintended consequences it becomes almost impossible to unravel the mess.

Europe's statism is beginning to have catastrophic effects. The causes are so far removed from the effects that it's difficult to follow the present effects, like Greece's implosion, all the way back to the original causes -- cause and effect are too far removed in time to create an immediate recognition of the problem, but by understanding the growth of government power, it becomes easier to understand the problem.

If you read the historical account of the collapse of the Roman Empire, you recognize the beginning of statism's ultimate outcome, and you recognize Europe's crisis, and you recognize America's dilemma. We don't have to follow this statist route to ruin. We still have time to limit government, empower the private sector and turn our country around.

The politial class denies the problem wth statism and blames greedy capitalists. Sadly, "capitalists" are a part of the problem, if you call cowardly rent-seekers taking advantage of government protection "capitalists". Most business people are free-marketers and don't seek out advantage or lobby for special favors, but enough powerful crooks do participate in this activity -- because they can. With a properly limited government, it would be impossible for crooks to gain government protection. The political class doesn't look at it this way -- this is why the political class can't be trusted -- they are protecting their power and control and will never voluntarily do what's necessary to limit government power.

The people will have to demand that the government be limited. The political class is destroying the country, so the people will have to oppose their power-grabs and break-up the status quo. The silly games being played by the political class are an attempt to manage the situation and maintain power and control. Political gamesmanship is an ugly business, and it's quickly becoming a useless business, especially when the needs of the nation call for less politics and more empowerment of the private realm. This is no time for games.

Speaking of games, the Heathcare Summit being held today is a prime example of our political class problem. Watch and listen closely, then imagine how it could be different if we had principled grown-ups involved, chosen carefully by the people, restricted by the Constitution, committed to free market principles.