Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive

As I've written about several times, our labels are losing their meanings -- mainly because political groups fight for dominance through the avenues of our interventionist/statist system of government. When everyone is fighting for political power, labels beceom meaningless. Sometimes, it gets so confusing I have to drill down to whether the issue at hand is one of coercion or non-coercion. In debate, it's always difficult to stay within the strict boundaries of conservative, libertarian, progressive or whatever label is applicable. For instance, we can argue for limited government from all three positions, conservative, libertarian and progressive. Perhaps the most pertinent distinction we can make between political philosophies is whether we're working from a coercive or non-coercive principle. And, even then, even from the libertarian viewpoint, sometimes government coercion is justified.

From a conservative standpoint, if conserve means what Dictionary.com defines as "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of", then I want to conserve the Constitution. I want to conserve the principles of limited government, economic liberty, anti-statism, non-interventionism. I want to conserve these principles to the extent of rejecting government's regulation of marriage, drug use, pornography and moral behavior in general. It's not that I'm an immoral libertine -- it only means I believe that morality has to be freely chosen if it's to have any meaning, and unless a person's behavior violates the rights of others, then government has no business controlling the behavior. There are many philisophical conundrums involved in the libertarian stance, such as pornography and drug use where children are concerned, and these can be worked out while maintaining the integrity of the principle, but this is the idea in broad strokes. Discussing these conundrums leads us to a richer understanding, not dead ends that force us to turn back to an all-powerful State for forced solutions. So, it's not so simple in the political realm when a Conservative promotes "small government" or when the Progressive argues for a "smart" government -- we must consider what limits to place on government power, regardless how big or small or smart the government might be.

So, I can be conservative when wanting to conserve Constitutional rights, yet libertarian when it comes to believing that moral/social issues be dealt with in the free market of ideas. The Progressive might  say that as a people we should help those who can't help themselves, and I agree, thus making me simpatico with a Progressive position. I also agree with Progressives that we should protect our environment. I'm not afraid to make such a normative argument. It's really a no brainer that in a successful, wealthy nation, there's no reason for a poor child to go without a good education, or an old person to go without food, or for a handicapped person to suffer in neglect, or for big corporations to freely pollute our air and water, so on and so forth.

Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive positions collide when it comes to how to go about fighting for or against progressive change. Do we embrace an all-powerful State to do our bidding, forcing others to act as we would have them act, or do we, as free people, work in the private realm to create the change we seek? Again, if, say, a corporate action violates our basic rights, then that's easy if it's a clear violation-- it's why we have rule-of-law, to protect our rights, so, yes, our government has the duty to protect our rights from the violating corporation. If, however, poverty and hunger are the issues, as a libertarian, I believe it will be much more beneficial to the poor and hungry if solutions are found in the private realm, rather than blaming the rich and demanding redistribution of wealth through government actions. It's much better from my perspective to cooperate with wealthy corporations in the private realm, voluntarily, to find innovative, dynamic solutions. An all-powerful State can't be trusted with unlimited power -- power mongers use the welfare State to perpetuate power and control, and government programs eventually erode from lack of competition, devolving into dehumanizing dependence. Am I right? I'm willing to argue this case with grownups in a free society.

A Conservative would likely say that helping others should reach toward the goals of independence, self-responsibility and self-respect. Even the Conservative can want a Progressive society, although she might not call it Progressive, yet disagree with the means of Modern Liberals/Progressives. Many churches today are involved in dealing with social issues such as poverty and hunger. To me this is Progressive, although it could be seen as conserving the traditional role of Churches as they attend to the poor and needy. Conservative hunters join conservation efforts to protect the environment. When we restore meaning to the labels, and we look at rational solutions in the private realm, it lessens the political impact of partisan battling for control over our statist/interventionist government system. It doesn't eradicate labels or beliefs, just transforms them into cooperating forces/sets of ideas searching for the betterment of society in freedom.

It's mainly the politicization of America that keeps us neatly divided between, or trapped within, Conservative, Libertarian or Liberal/Progressive. These labels and concepts have meaning, and I'm not joining the No-Labels crowd. I'm saying that from my perspective what's important is the difference between coercion and non-coercion, statism and anti-statism, force and voluntarism, interventionism and non-interventionism. Once we've settled that limits must be placed on government power, and we've broken the cronyistic protection of corporate power, then the rest is a matter of free, diverse people persuading each other in a free market of ideas. Conceiveably, once the battle over statist power has ended, labels will have to be re-assessed, because the the labels under discussion are primarily related to politics. This is the ideal, of course, and cynics will say that people can't work out their own issues without  control and regulation and, somtimes, brutal enforcement, from the power elite. Surely this isn't true. Surely we're capable of living freely without Big Brother telling us how it should be done.

If I had my way -- if the original principles of limited government had prevailed over the Hamiltonians -- Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives wouldn't fight in the public/political realm for power and control, because, basically, the only decisions to make would be which government will best protect our border, police our streets and settle disputes in courts of law. The private sector would be the arena in which we work out issues regarding the means of conservation, the responsibilities of liberty and the costs and benefits of progress.

Bloom was right

Alan Bloom was right when he wrote about the closing of the American mind. For the first time in my life, I'm truly concerned about the American mind. I've participated for a few years in a group blog site called The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, and at first it was a good place to debate different topics, but as happens with these political sites that try maintain balance but leans Left, a true Leftist tilt took over and intellectual discussion mostly went out the window. The site is infested with partisan Democrats who can't see outside the talking points you hear on MSNBC. The IQ of the group dropped to Maddow-level.

The internet is running over with Leftist clown-sites like this. There are sites with rightwingers who do the same thing, spout talking points. There's just not any places I know of with a big group of commenters that doesn't devolve into progressive or conservative nonsense, with both groups the types of political actors who want to control through government -- they want to enforce their views because they can't sell their views in a marketplace of ideas. It's no wonder that most people avoid politics, and this might be the bright spot -- maybe most Americans just aren't political and these bozos spewing propaganda on the internet represent the political/partisan realm and not the private/economic realm. Because our government is unlimited and because so much is at stake with government power, now, the political realm is a constant, vicious battleground, with each side fighting over power and control hoping to use interventionist government to implement their worldview or affect policy to help their group.  I suppose it's the political realm that has devolved into spin and lies and propaganda.

The problem is that these dishonest, vicious players are active while everyone else is turning their nose to the ugliness of politics. So we get politicians in DC like Obama, McConnell, Boehner, Reid and Pelosi -- and we get political sites like the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. The political realm is a disease that has infected a portion of the American mind, and our current state of affairs is a result of the growing insanity.

The decaying political realm

If this election does nothing else, it will show Americans just how corrupt and incompetent the political realm has become. There are no serious intellectuals with influence in the political class who aren't corrupted by partisan bias. I'm not looking for a Centrist weiner who's constantly going to the other hand and never taking a stand on important issues, an enlightened pragmatist as they like to see themselves -- I'm looking for real thinkers, serious thinkers, objective thinkers.

The political class is whirling in vitriol, propaganda, smear campaigns, partisan narratives designed to deceive voters and just lies, lies and more lies. President Obama is the biggest disappointment in the political realm in a long time. A biased media can only protect Obama to a certain point in the Information Age. Obama's flaws are reveal daily, even as the Old Media attempt to hide his flaws behind daily attacks on Romney. Romney's greatest strength is what everyone on the Right and Left are excoriating him for -- he lacks political slickness. In the political realm of marketing, facades, deceit, double-talk and smooth rhetoric, Romney fumbles along like someone out of his element. I hope he wins just for that reason. I really don't care about the President this year -- as we've seen with Obama, when a person takes on that much power, it corrupts them.

I care about representatives as a whole and a nation opposed to statism. I care whether we can stop the political realm madness and return the nation to rational economic activity free of government intervention. Plus, I care about a nation that says no to continued interventions in the mideast -- I care about a nation standing up and saying no more, bring the troops home and stop this insanity. The rest is political noise, and we've heard enough of that.

The sorry state of the political realm

The political realm in the US might have always been like it is now, with the difference now that we're seeing the corruption and ignorance from a front row seat. I don't remember political figures being this dishonest across the board, and I certainly don't remember so many people in media playing a political role, but maybe it was hidden. Political operatives like Robert Gibbs and Karl Rove lead the way, and the partisan divide is so strict that anyone commenting on political matters appears to read a script. Talking points take the place of reasoned debate. There is hardly any deep thought put into any analysis that's presented on cable news, and no matter what happens regarding any given incident, say a mass shooting, each side immediately has their political spin to apply to the incident. We've placed politics over economics and we're paying the price. Smart thinkers criticize the focus of some on economics and "taxes", yet the primacy of politics has brought us war and unemployment and over-crowded prisons and systemic poverty.

This is not a call, necessarily, for bipartisanship, unless it's a bipartisan effort to limit the power of government and allow a free market to exist -- no, I'm simply commenting on the sad nature of politics in America. This seems inevitable in a statsist system with so much at stake at the government feeding trough. It's a battle for political power and the benefits that come with power. If a small political elite can control the State, then they can control coercion, thus, they can control the economy/finances. America is now suffering from the consequences of State interventions and mismanagement of capital, so people must decide if we'll allow a power elite to control the economy and entangle us in foreign conflicts to bolster the crony relationships among defense contractors and government officials turned corporate deal-makers and lobbyists.

Americans have to take back the government and set limits on power. We are at a point where a free market is more than an idea to be discussed ironically in intellectual forums -- it's becoming a necessary solution to the damage done from statist interference.

Transcending the political realm

I will write for the next few days about transcending the political realm. Because Americans have become so dependent on government, many can't think clearly outside the political realm. Statism has perverted the idea of liberty, until we've divided liberty into economic liberty, civil liberties, gender liberty, etc. There is only liberty and when economic liberty is easily violated by statists out to manage the economy from a central location, people begin looking to the central managers for answers, but they begin losing freedom as a result. When the State controls the economy, it controls the people.

One way to think about transcending the political realm is to consider the example of healthcare and welfare. Most all Americans are in favor of clinics which provide healthcare services to people who can't help themselves. Say someone has been injured and can't work, and the person has no family members to help support her -- who in America would oppose a clinic which provides healthcare to this person in need? I can't think of anyone. But it does matter how this healthcare is paid for, because free care has to be paid for somehow. Years ago, Americans might look to churches or local charity organizations, but now almost all Americans assume government will provide or is providing the clinic.

When we begin transcending the political realm, we can consider all sorts of sources to deliver the needed care. In a free market where overbearing regulations don't prevent private sector solutions from emerging, a group of compassionate innovators could consider the need for free clinics and work with local industry to support the clinics, along with charity drives to keep a stream of money flowing into the company which provides the clinics. I can think of a number of imaginative ways to raise money on an on-going basis, so I know that a group of smart people with the goal of developing free clinics can think of many ways to raise and maintain the needed capital to keep free clinics going.

We have to start thinking beyond political solutions. But we can't until we limit government power.