In search of an acceptable Centrist Republican candidate

The David Frums, Joe Scarboroughs and David Brookses of the Republican Party would love to see Jon Huntsman overtake Romney, but they will take Romney if they have to. They would've preferred a Mitch Daniels or someone like him, smart and centrist, but who also presents an appearance of good old conservative values, like the values put forth by great conservatives such as William F. Buckley. The Centrist, Big Government, status quo, statist Republican establishment is horrified at the prospects of Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul or Gingrich getting the nomination for the 2012 election. They could live with Gingrich if not for his "baggage".

What do these Republican establishment types hope to gain by nominating a Centrist? I understand that Cain and Perry have shown serious weaknesses, but the GOP establishment was against this type of Republican from the start, and they had their eyes set on a Mitch Daniels type from the start. It speaks to the split in the Republican Party between the old guard that has played ball with Democrats forever and New Republicans who seek fundamental, systemic change regarding limits to government power. The GOP establishment will hardly even acknowledge Ron Paul. So, why are they pushing this no-labels Centrism?

The pragmatic reasons they give are electability, experience, intelligence, moderation, and the ability to compromise and get things done to break the gridlock caused by the Tea Party ideologues. The Center says that independents want a centrist, someone intelligent and experienced who can debate with Obama in a sensible manner. They want someone who can work with both parties to create policies that will keep us on track, not dismantle government at a time when government is needed most -- smart, sensible government, though, sort of like Obama promised, but didn't deliver. The GOP establishment believes a Centrist Republican can make the common sense changes Obama failed to make  because his base on the Left and the far Right wackos prevented him from achieving the changes -- they are disappointed that Obama is not the leader they thought he was.

The GOP Centrists were okay with Obama in the beginning, because, although he's a Democrat, they thought he'd be a bipartisan president and would welcome the smart Centrists in the GOP to help share in power and rebuild the smart government that was almost created in the 90s, before Bush came along. The Centrists, although Bush turned out to be a Big Government Republican, couldn't wait to get Bush out, because Bush had created the wrong image according to the GOP establishment. The Centrist simply want to be a part of the smart government structure, even under a Democrat president, and Obama was seen as their huckleberry. Brooks was ecstatic over the creases in Obama's pants.

When the Tea Party formed, Centrists were confused at first, then livid that the GOP was being hijacked by yokels. Some political opportunists in the Center tried to co-opt the Tea Party for useful purposes, but when they realized the Tea Party had power and was not going to be co-opted by the GOP establishment, they all turned on the Tea Party. Now, any Republican candidate who is favored by the Tea Party is opposed by the establishment. What an embarrassment! So, since Obama failed, the only way for the Centrists to reclaim their niche in the power structure is to find the right Centrist candidate who is like the original Obama, only a stronger leader -- sort of like a mix between Obama and Reagan. The Center thinks Huntsman can be that candidate. And the libertarian strain was simply too much for the Center to bear.

You will notice that nowhere in this analysis is anyone thinking about what's best for America, our economy and our relationship with world. That's because I believe the Center is empty of substance and principles and merely concerned about their place in the power structure, helping to manage their idea of a smart government. To what ends will they manage, and what should the role of government be in the American people's lives? Well, the Center is not so much concerned with economics and individual rights and the pursuit of happiness -- they're concerned with political strategy, compromise and a powerful State in which they have a seat at the table, or at least a lucrative gig that's important enough to get attention. The Centrists are looking for positions in Statism, Inc, the political enterpise in which they survive and hopefully thrive. The political class is monstrous now as the State has expanded power, and reaches into every area of our lives. These people in DC live in a totally different world and have no idea what's best for America and the American people.

Of course, I'm generalizing, but this is the general problem with status quo centrism. Even someone who really believes in moderation and compromise often places the process over the results. I make my living negotiating and compromisng, but I won't stay in business if I don't get results which are beneficial to the parties involved. In the political realm process is too often placed above results, and the fact of getting a deal is more important that the results of the compromise. Washington has operated now for decades with a two party system which has compromised time and again with subpar results for the people they represent. Our debt problem and economic problems reveal the failure of representatives to achieve beneficial results. There's no virtue in a bunch of Centrists in government getting things done, if what they get done destroys the country -- long term it's not even good for them. What we've seen over and over is compromise which strengthens the statist system and weakens the private sector. The economic realm in America has been damaged by the political realm, which is more interested in protecting State power than they are with results which allow the private sector to prosper with equality of opportunity and equal protection under the law. In DC, power-mongers make deals to protect their power, and the economy be damned.

There's nothing wrong with pragmatic actions which generate good results for all, but the results from government are good for a few and damaging to many. Deification of the process of compromise and centrist deal-making over good results for the American people is leading us to collapse, yet Centrists continue to excoriate those who wish to make systemic changes. We've come to expect the Democrat Party to view government solutions as the means to a better tomorrow, but Republicans have claimed  opposition to statism, yet the GOP establishment is as dedicated to statism as the Democrats. State central management of the economy has failed -- there's no other way to put it -- it has failed. If Centrists were concerned about the health of American, they'd insist that we change direction to market principles at home which have proved in the past to create growth and new wealth, and they would insist on a doctrine of non-intervention in foreign affairs, so that America is not used and abused by countries which don't like us.

Republicans are useless as a political party if they don't represent opposition to statism. If all the Republican Party has become is a periodic statist replacement when Democrats over-reach, we'll go to our collapse a little slower, but we'll go to our collapse nonetheless. Sometimes, the middle way is no way at all, except as a way to maintain a rotting status quo, and always you should take the path which creates the best results -- and, always, you should stand on principles, when whatever short-term gain you get is not worth the long term price. The long term price of our political centrism is way too high.

Gradualism vs revolutionary change

I'm not a gradualist. If I could snap my fingers and end statism, I would snap my fingers. The problem with conservatives and the Republican Party is that they have compromised and acted as if all they can do is slow the growth of statism, while even actively supportng some forms of statism. How can this be seen as intellectually honest or to have integrity -- how is it supposed to inspire intellectual interest in  conservative ideas?

Aside from the question whether it's even possible to limit government, or whether the State will always violate limitations, if the conservatives believe in limited government why haven't they called for radical changes while in power and diligently fought to limit the State and establish a free market, rather than defend themselves against charges of radicalism by supporting most of the welfare state and claiming they only want to make gradual, small changes to achieve a somewhat higher level of efficiency?

The left has been clear about what it wants and the current gang in power has made radical changes. Conservatives can never compete against this type of dedication to a cause if they aren't dedicated to anything but gradualism and tweaking the status quo. We'll see, if the conservatives take back the house, if they have changed and they mean what they say about repealing healthcare and fighting to limit government.

If the conservatives fail to follow through, I'll agree with the market anarchists that limited government is impossible, so we need to privatize all of it -- defense, courts, protection, all of it. I've, so far, agreed with libertarians like Robert Nozick and Tibor Machan that if we didn't have a minimal government for the purposes of police, courts and military, the evolution of private agencies would end up at minarchism, but I'm not as convinced as I once was. I'm beginning to believe the only arrangemet of society which speaks to the nature of humans and allows freedom and flourishing is private and voluntary.

More about moderates -- Part 5

Since the subject is moderates, and it seems like the one thing moderates hate most is extremes, one wonders why the reaction to the progressives is not forceful and clear. But even talking about extemes, one must not fall into the trap of simplistic thinking, making "extreme' out to be evil in all cases. I guess one reason the progressives, Obama and co. plus the progressives in congress, aren't deemed as extreme as Limbaugh or Beck, or the townhall protesters, is that progressives are dressing up their extremism is PC clothing. The moderates can fault them for unwise policies, but still admire their compassion. This is the way smart, compassionate people look at things -- you can admire the qualities of your opponent while still having policy differences.

I don't have any problem with respect and courteous disagreement, but the moderates don't extend that same niceness to Limbaugh and Beck, and it's not because the Limbaugh and Beck are meaner than the progressives. To be consistent, the moderates would have to acknowledge the meanness and pettiness of the progressives. The progressives are presently maligning decent people who disagree with their agenda. The protesters have been called a mob, neanderthals, un-american, and it's been suggested more than once that many of them are ignorant and racist.

It's difficult for me to respect some of the moderate bloggers when they are inconsistent in their indignation and ethical outrage. Some have justified their one-way outrage at the conservative base by saying they expect more from their own kind, and just because someone else is misbehaving, this doesn't give you the right to misbehave. Well, this is a good parental response to children, and it implies that the progressives are acting out just as much as the conservative base, but when pushed to explictly denounce the progressive behavior, these moderates avoid a front on attack. Also, it's sort of like preaching tolerance and understanding in general, but failing to practice tolerance and understanding in your family, so pardon me if i don't buy that rationalization.

 For some reason it's important to these moderates, like Frum and Brooks, to appear respectful toward the Democrats -- probably because they have lectured the base so much about extreme opposition and stubborn resistance -- but you can see the ethical bind in which they've tied themselves. The base is left with the dirty work of fighting, while the moderates can look peaceful and reasonable. They are asking the conservative base to be respectful and cooperative while not making the same demand of the progressives. Would this not make the conservative base something closely resembling doormats? Or is that all conservatives should rise above the fray and act with class, be understanding and tolerant in the face of vicious attacks? 

If this is the case, then the moderates should rise above it all and be respectful to everyone, including the conservative base -- they should lead their less principled brothers and sisters by example, rather than call them dumb hicks, clowns and carnival barkers. The moderates certainly show no respect toward Limbaugh and Beck.

But, getting back to extremes and equating the extremes of resistance with the extremes of the progressive agenda -- it confuses me to consider how the moderates can't acknowledge that the extreme agenda of statism is far worse than the extremes of free market principles, individual rights and limited government. How do you compromise with progressives who are anti-capitalist? In order to compromise, the moderate must admit that a free market, individual rights and limited government are not essentials. If this is their stand, then fine, it can be debated. So, what would a compromise regarding a free market look like?

In a free market, failing banks fail, so in order to compromise, the moderate has to decide that exceptions can be made in tough economic times, or if the bank is too big, but how are the decisions made? What if it is impossible to bailout all the banks and some have to be allowed to fail. What if the decision is between 4 banks of equal size and importance -- two can be bailed out, but two have to fail. Who decides the winners and losers, and is it fair to the losers. We all know which banks will be bailed out -- the ones with the most political clout. Then, what about the  successful banks which could have taken business from the failing banks as a reward for winning in competition -- it isn't fair to them -- they are punished for succeeding and being efficient. Why can't a medium size bank win in competition and become a big bank -- why the importance of saving the big bank? because it would create panic? And a bailout doesn't say something about the weakness of the bank -- I'd rather know a strong medium size bank was taking over, a bank more efficient and safe. You can see the problems inherent in interfering in the free market and you understand why free market principles are important. So how do you compromise on this principle if you believe allowing competition to take its course is the best route in the long run? If a free market adherent compromises on free market prinicples, the progressives win and we move further into statism.

 

So, what about individual rights -- how do you compromise on individual rights? There is no such thing as equal, individual rights if you sacrifice the rights of some for the good of others -- then there are only group rights. The moderate might compromise by saying that anyone making over $250,000 doesn't have the same rights as those making below this amount, but what gives them the power to make this compromise? What happens when the ambition to make over $250,000 is quelled and production drops? What happens when producers begin moving their businesses overseas, or begin hiding their wealth, or just cash out and quit producing? Once the door is open for some to take from others, backed by the barrell of a gun, then it continues as situations deteriorate -- and as there is less to take, everyone begins to suffer until the quality of living is reduced for a whole nation. The bottom line is that it is immoral to violate the rights of anyone. So we begin to see why individual rights are important -- so we don't allow the majority to oppress the minority -- so that everyone has equal rights. How do you compromise on individual rights?

 

How do you compromise on limited government? If you believe government should be limited, then there has to a limit that government can not pass. In order for the moderate to compromise on this principle then they have to admit that the limit is flexible according to the situation. But how are these decisions made, and once the limits are pushed back, what prevents the limits from being pushed back further, once flexibility has priority?

If government is not strictly limited and is susceptible to differing interpretaions of what the limits are, then there is a gradual increase in the power of the state, until the state has removed, or manipulated around, most limits. So we see how limits are important. How do you compromise on limited government?

 

Within constitutional limits placed on government, abiding by the principle of individual rights, without violating the principles of free markets, there is plenty of room for compromise, but when the basic principles that keep America strong and free are compromised, it's not so much a win-win compromise as it is capitulation to statism. So, when we talk of extremes, an extreme approach to the protection of basic prinicples is not equal in nature to the extreme movement to violate these principles. So, moderate when moderation can reach needed agreement to move society forward, but moderation has no value regarding the protection of basic principles, which when violated moves society backwards toward authoritarianism and decay.

Compromise -- as long as the direction is left

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bal-md.marbella30aug30,0,6220459.story

We're likely to hear, in the coming weeks and months after Kennedy's death, about the virtue of compromise, a longing for the days when senators could battle like soldiers, yet reach an agreement, go have a few drinks and harrass waitresses. Well, maybe we won't hear about the waitresses, and if we do it will be as "female waitpersons".

I'm sure a certain many in the political class miss the days when the public wasn't so involved in politics, the divide wasn't so deep, and things could get done behind closed doors or at corner tables of the favorite DC bars, but times are different and the public is involved.

Plus, the compromises have led us left. I haven't heard of any famous Kennedy compromises which went in the direction of limiting the power of the state -- perhaps there were some, but I'm not familiar with them. All the compromises I'm familiar with merely kept the progressives from getting everything they wanted, or it was a joining of a Republican effort to increase the power of the state -- but the progressives have been satisfied with incrementalism, until now.

Now, they want major changes, a bunch of them, and the public has become involved in resisting these changes, and aren't willing to give them 85% of what they want -- so this is called fanaticism, ideological stubbornness.

Let's see how willing the Democrat's are to compomise by asking for tort reform, the ability to sell insurance across state lines, and tax breaks for individuals who purchase their own policies -- let's wrap this in to certain elements of the Democrat plans -- with perhaps a relaxation of licensing laws so that doctors aren't favored by regulations. Let's have a vodka and tonic and work this out, and this time leave the female waitpersons alone.

Lonely libertarian conviction

Many thinkers, many of them self-proclaimed libertarians, or sort of libertarian, love the center, the synthesis, the hyphenated union of basically conflicting views. No one can blame individuals who love to think for attempting to wrap their minds around divisions in order to transcend conflicts and create more harmonic interaction in society. If this could be accomplished and if it brought about peaceful co-existence and unified effort while maintaining liberty, then one could call it a great accomplishment. Unfortunately few geniuses are produced to accomplish these great feats of thought, and few people understand them when they do. If this was the only motivation for centerism then most of these attempts wouldn't seem so devoid of content.

However, there's an unseemly compromise in many of these intellectual endeavors where centerism wants to have its cake and eat it too out of fear that committment to principles might be unpopular and no one will offer any cake at all. An integrated and principled libertarian stance is a lonely stance when libertarian thinkers find themselves rejected by both poles of power. Maybe that's why a lot of libertarians lean one way or the other -- for company and recognition. It's lonely in the political sphere being a libertarian.

Most thinkers want intellectual companionship, recognition for their ideas and validation. A relatively small group of like-minded thinkers can become dissatisfied with their limited and incestuous exposure, so it's tempting to find ways to relate to the group closest in spirit, even if the letter differs. Liberalism appears to be kin to libertarianism, so couldn't a truce be reached if a few compromises are made in good faith? Perhaps -- but only superficially, given liberalism's insistence on true statist control of the economy and strict regulation of commerce -- on positive rights, soaking the rich, so on and so forth. The areas of agreement on personal, private liberties are thin and not consistent on the left due to the fact liberals would, and do, violate personal freedoms of those who disagree with their social moralism.

Figuratively speaking, and adding to Ayn Rand's thought on the subject of spiritualism, conservatives uphold the God of Christianity, liberals uphold the God of the State and libertarians are the atheists upholding the principles of freedom from tyranny under both Gods (This is a generalization and doesn't speak to the diversity in each group, but serves as a broad outline which is fairly obvious). The differences are too great for an alliance. If a libertarian values social harmony with the left more than conviction to principles, then no one should judge harshly a decision to compromise, but compromises tend to start the slippery slope and a person may as well embrace liberal ideology and be done with it.

A big part of the nations's problem has been laziness when it comes to the principles which made America a special experiment in freedom. It's a shame for intellectual energy to get lost in the  wasteland of politcal liberalism, with its emphasis on a politically-correct emotionalism which seems more socially-centered than integrity-centered. By "integrity" I don't mean to imply a moral judgement -- I'm referring more to a consistent, non-contradictory, political philosophy -- maintaining intellectual integrity free of social pressures to compromise for the sake of validation and inclusion in the popular trend of thought. Underneath liberalism is an aversion to the basic tenets of libertarianism. At this time I fail to see any common ground, only a great chasm which can't be bridged by a one-sided search for similarities. I have many liberal friends who have been seducted by the emotional appeal to justice as fairness, but they've failed to grasp the danger of the left's agenda -- an agenda which can be denied only at the risk of delusion and willfull ignorance. At heart, Rawls is a true statist.

This is not to say the opposite is attractive -- conservatism is lost, ill-suited to modernity and irrelevant -- but why the false choice between one or the other? Libertarianism, pure and simple, is a viable choice. Yes, it's a lonely choice at this point, but integrity is far more important that social acceptance. It becomes harder and harder to find thinkers who maintain intellectual integrity -- the flaws of consistency on the right and left make intellectual defenses of either impossible, yet I've noticed a drift to the left in many blogs that had before upheld consistent libertarian views.

It would be one thing if the movement to the left was backed by valid reasons for such an alliance, but political liberalism has nothing to offer libertarianism, and political liberalism has no use for straight libertarianism. To think such an alliance would transform liberalism to a combiniation of the classic economic approach and a modern social goods approach more in line with libertarian thought is not realistic --  the economic approach would be intuitivly rejected by liberalsim as newly wrapped conservatism/capitalism and liberalism can't see outside their heavy-handed state approach to social goods to consider private solutions where applicable. An alliance would work only if libertarians compromised on their basic principles and became odd liberals who make conversations a little more lively at cocktail parties.

It will require more than portmanteaux like "liberaltarian" and hyphen combos like "left-libertarian" to establish a true alliance that doesn't subordinate libertarianism to a meaningless, powerless position in a Rawlsian consensus which strips out all the differientiating core principles.