Libertarian influence

It's hard to tell how much influence libertarian ideas have had on the populace. Media might not reflect the change in attitudes regarding politicians, interventionist government and the concept of State, because media is lagging behind, still enmeshed in State power. One aspect of the libertarian political philosophy which I and others have emphasized for some time now is that politicians are not special, and just because someone makes enough promises, has a winning personality and gets elected to office doesn't mean that there's anything particularly special about the person which makes them an expert on economics, foreign affairs, finances, manufacturing, energy, etc.

Libertarians simply don't find any great value in government officials, per se  -- they are ordinary people like the rest of us, and many are not very competent. I'm sure there are very intelligent people working all throughout government, but government itself doesn't acquire any great powers that make it okay for officials to violate rights when there are laws preventing people outside of government from violating the rights of others. There's no special, mystical power that government possesses which allows it to establish a War on Drugs then interfere with a person's private choices as long as the person's choices don't violate the rights of others. Government possesses no special power which allows it to confiscate private property as it sees fit, just like I have no special power to confiscate my neighbor's property.

The American people have given government extra-Constitutional powers beyond what it should possess, and government has taken on powers that it shouldn't have that no one has taken back. There's evidence from polls regarding what the public thinks of government and Congress that Americans have had enough and are ready to push back. As the Information Age matures and people are receiving information 24/7, those who were awed by political figures before are beginning to understand that the officials are not special. In fact, many who make it through the political process possess character flaws which make them unfit for public service. We tend to forget that the government is our government, and the officials are public servants, and that we pay their salaries to do a job for us. We give government permission to use force, but only under special conditions -- we haven't changed the Constitution to allow government to coerce us in any way it chooses. If libertarianism has played a part in this awakening and change of attitude toward the role of government in our lives, then I'm happy, but there's a long way to go.

Morning Joe 4/26/2011 -- Debt ceiling

The Morning Joe crew is in London covering the Royal Wedding while also carrying on about popular topics like austerity programs. Royal Weddings and austerity typify the conflicted modern mindset regarding subjects like the debt ceiling controversy in the US. They also talked about the debt ceiling, and Katty Kay, a guest, said that she believes it would be devastating for the Republicans to block the effort to raise the debt ceiling, because then there would be economic pain. Joe talked about the politics and believes it would be a winner for the Republicans because the public wants the government to stop borrowing money.

The conversation, basically, revolved around how the debt ceiling debate affects the politics and which party would be most negatively affected. Let's keep that in mind for a minute as I mention another part of the program in which Willie Geist asked Martin Bashir why Americans should be interested in the Royal Wedding, and Bashir gave some inane answer regarding Americans being aspirational, that Americans aspire to wealth and pomp and circumstance regarding celebrities. This is partly true -- there is a large faction of Americans who make a big deal over celebrities, but it appears to be a hobby more than anything deeply aspirational. I think many people get a kick out of the perverse spectacle of celebrity, like Snooky, Lady Gaga and Martin Sheen, but I truly doubt the majority of Americans aspire to be Snooky, Gaga, Sheen or the Royal Couple.

The obsession the political class has with individual politicians and politics in general is becoming an out-of-touch obsession, just like the obsession with celebrity is mistaken as envy, awe and aspiration. The average person in the Information Age is quickly becoming disgusted with the pomp and circumstance of politics and the deceit and manipulation of politicians. This also goes back to Katty Kay's argument that Republicans will suffer if they make the mistake of forcing government to cut back. What Kay is saying is that it's more important for politicians to manipulate the economy so that it remains inflated in order to avoid the pain of reality. Americans are coming to the realization that manipulating politicians and the Fed have built a House of Cards, and now as politicians deceitfully wiggle and lie their way out of facing reality, they reveal themselves as small and self-serving -- but the real problem is that the politicians are being identified as the obstacles to stability and growth.

The sparkle has disappeared from the mystique of powerful State players, and the public begins to see them as flawed men and women in a flawed system which will collapse if the games continue. In the world of the internet, there is no place to hide, and the magic of the media to transform these flawed men and women into majestic super-beings is old hat -- people can now create their own videos on YouTube so the secret is out -- media's magic tricks have been revealed, and no one really trusts the media. As for the Royal Wedding -- uhhhhhhh, no thanks.

A lack of role models

Even in a time of political correctness in which busy-bodies are continuously nudging people to act in certain ways the nannies deem moral, there are few role models for young people to learn from when it comes to integrity. It appears that even the do-gooders have their niches, with environmentalists who demand certain behaviors and actions out of loving concern for the earth, but then care very little for humans inhabiting the earth, or union leaders who righteously preach justice unless it applies to those with a lot of wealth, then justice is not so important, or the civil rights leaders fighting courageously against racism yet make slurs against others because of the color of their skin.

 The biggest disappointment regarding Barack Obama's historic election as the first black president is that he's missing an opportunity to teach impressionable young people of all colors about the value of integrity. Obama has sold his principles for power, if he ever had any, as he says whatever is necessary to play the political game like a common politician. Some will say -- "Well, what's wrong with Obama being a politician and playing the game -- why are you placing a higher standard of behavior in office on him just because he's black?" I'm not saying he has to behave differently than a white presdient, just that an opportunity has been lost, and it's disppointing.

The problem with a dearth of role models is widespread, and even in sports it's difficult to find a star with integrity -- maybe Albert Pujols and a few others, but most are arrogant and self-absorbed, just like popular entertainers who preach for causes then live like deviants and rascals. In the business world it's hard to find great men and women with integrity who will fight against special privileges of money and demand fair competition even if it hurts their position in the market -- oh, they will promote free markets, but then the backroom deals with politicians take precedence in their real business plans.

The wealthy and advantaged in society have no duty to be role models -- this is not what I'm saying. There is nothing more phony than someone trying to be a role model because they think their station in life demands it. Being a role model comes about without hype and posturing or false sense of duty -- it's a matter of honest men and women living a life of integrity and then others knowing -- it's not something one promotes in a marketing or re-election campaign.

I suppose the causes are mainly cultural, which begs the question -- what type of culture has America been developing? One that rewards manipulation, arrogance and double-dealing if you get you what you want? I'm sure there are many causes, with moral relativity being one, but it does appear that those in positions of influence are setting bad examples, but in ways of which the influential actors appear to be largely unaware anything's wrong. It's become acceptable to lie and cheat if you can point to a greater good the lying and cheating help to accomplish. It's mostly all rationalization for the lack of courage or will to maintain integrity, just like the political idea that principles are obstacles to compromise and progress. Yes, sometimes combining different ideas is necessary to find a solution, but in politics the compromises are commonly made out of ad hoc expediency because no one has any principles left to fight for. Principles are too much like a philosophy for the modern thinker, and we all know that a structured set of ideas/principles used to guide your actions is closeminded -- what about the nuances? How can we be sure what's right? No, it's best to not get too uptight about behavior as long as your intentions are good, or you can least make your intentions appear to be good.

The average person is not much better as witnessed by the current public dissatisfaction with government spending and over-reach, yet the majority of people polled say they don't want entitlements touched or reduced. As long as people can rationalize their behavior, they appear to be fine with contradictions and duplicity. Maybe this is all part of the decline that other nations have experienced -- the majority of people have it relatively good compared to others who are starving in the desert, or under the rule of a ruthless dictator who commands their behavior, so they become lazy physically, mentally and spiritually -- they take freedom and comfort for granted. I do believe we're becoming a lazy nation, and I believe it's going to put us all in serious bind down the road. It would be much better to choose integrity now, rather than have us forced to consider its value in a crisis.

How useful are polls?

Not very useful, I'd say. I'm sure the methods are scientific, but I imagine most people are like me, they won't participate in polls. I have to wonder about the people who do answer poll questions. Not that there is anything wrong with answering poll questions, but are people being honest? Do they really understand the issues? Are questions asked in ways that promote certain responses. So many variables can affect poll results that I find them not very useful. In recent years election poll results have been poor predictors of actual outcomes.

However, polling has become a political tool for both parties, with each party marketing the results they find useful even when polling of the same questions by various pollsters produce quite different results. This cherry picking of poll results calls the legitimacy of polling into question, especially when the pollsters put forth conflicting results -- one has to be wrong. Perhaps both are wrong, and it's practically impossible to know what hundreds of millions of people are thinking about a given issue. If politicians talk to their constituents, they will get a better idea of what they should representing.

People don't like to be ignored

The Democrats and many moderate Reublicans are making a mistake ignoring what has now grown into a large opposition movement pushing for limited government and reduced government spending.

The mistake is placing this opposition under the Tea Party label and reducing it to angry, old white males from the south and the heartland. A recent Gallup poll has shown the opposition movement is representative of the American people. I have made this point repeatedly on this blog.

In spite of the evidence, the Democrats and moderate Republicans continue with their attacks and smears. People actively involved in protest want to be heard and recognized -- ignoring them is only stirring the pot.

They will not go away -- this movement is deep and wide enough to remain a force in politics for quite a long time, when measured in political time. The critcisms range from lack of organization, to ignorance of the issues to lack of an alternative plan. Actually, lack of organization is a feature not a bug -- they have shown quite a good grasp on the issues -- their plan is to limit government and reduce spending.

So, any politician who pays attention to their concerns and sells a plan to change the power-grabs and wild spending will get their votes. It's not that complicated, and organization has nothing to do with internally motivated individuals in a voting booth. I have a feeling that if a politician shows honesty and common sense, that politician has a good shot at getting their votes -- however, this will require a new-style politician, for sure.