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.

Political class in disarray

The administration has turned on a MSM icon, Bob Woodward, as the President desperately campaigns across the country trying to scare Americans into supporting a tax hike.  The conscientious Left is   troubled by Obama's drone policy, and the more the public understands how discombobulated our statist system has become, the more they rail against both parties.

What will it take to achieve private sector unity strong enough to limit government power and liberate our economy? When will the public finally demand our government stop abusing our troops and end the interventions in the mideast? Recently there have been reports that the US is expanding its role in Syria, and there's still bluster regarding bombing Iran. Enough is enough.

Hopefully, the American people are waking up, looking at the clown show in DC, understanding that in the 21st century it's absolute insanity to submit to incompetents who have no idea what it takes to produce, create new wealth and innovatively solve problems in a peace seeking environment. Albert Jay Nock, decades ago, called the State anti-social, and it is. Those Americans who've sought inspiration in an interventionist government run by technocrats are lost. The State machine seeks power, and it will continue to seek power until the people place limits on government power and diligently insist the limits are not violated.

We can deal with most social problems in the private realm among ourselves, innovatively and with far more compassion, rationality and human dignity. It's time to throw off the shackles of the State and realize that the Power of the Few is no longer viable. We've evolved beyond statism. We can't recover as a nation until we free ourselves and take responsibility for individuality as it relates to other individuals in our communities, states, nation and our place in the world. The collective leads to destruction, but free individuals with protected rights will cooperate and achieve and produce and prosper and grow culturally from diverse influences. We've lost sight of what real diversity is and means. The political class cannot be allowed to engineer, plan, manipulate and destroy America.

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.

Morning Joe 9/7/2011 -- the tension is mounting

On Morning Joe today there was the usual Rick Perry bashing and the, recently, customary analysis of how Obama needs to Go Big or Go Home. The tension is building for media sleight of hand regarding Obama. I predict that after Thursday Obama will have his groove back as the new Comeback Kid, channelling FDR and kicking ass. Hoffa set the stage with a left hook, and now Obama will deliver the knockout punch-- the Tea Party will be yesterday's puny obstructionists and Republicans will fall one by one as Obama delivers Hope and Change at last. Well, maybe not that dramatic, but you get the drift -- it's on, and 2012 is in gear. Media will do their best to portray Obama as a transformative figure bringing America back to her former greatness, but this time with a kinder, more humble heart and a collective will to sacrifice for the common good.

It's not an accident that much of this will coincide with 9/11. The media can't help itself, it's politically absorbed. The Morning Joe show today could have had cut-out cardborad representations and recordings of its guests and nothing much would've been different -- it's the same old tired conservation leading up to the transition of Obama into a new President, and the fall of the Republican Party. The problem is that the public doesn't pay much attention to Morning Joe and Tina Brown or Tom Brokaw or Joe Scarborough or Mike Barnicle or Rick Stengel. There are two worlds -- the political realm and the private realm, and the two are drifting further apart. In the political world, the players are looking for marketing gimmicks to create a believable illusion, while in the private realm people are looking for real solutions and a way out from under the oppressive thumb of government.

A new language of liberty

For decades language has become stripped of poetry, bland, careful and uninspiring. You don't have to go back too far to see the difference -- just listen to MLK, then listen to BHO. When I read some of the quotes from the past, the language impresses me as much as the wit and profundity it expresses.

Language can drive ideas deeper to a place of full comprehension, whereas careful, uninspiring language barely reaches us. Many people turn off to language that's filled with platitudes, rationalizations, manipulation, cliches or abstractions with little relation to reality. The private realm in America has lost the art of communication, and it appears it's constantly in a defensive mode with little moral content to offer, hardly any vision, and nothing inspiring. It's good to beat the drum about spending and limiting government power, but spending and power are symptoms of public apathy on one hand and on the other hand, the desire of many to get something for nothing -- our greatest problem is the gradual loss of liberty and individuality.

How the cold and depressing reality of statism ever became the poetry of our age, I'll never know, but statists have gained the moral advantage and relegated the private sector to the role of mules, beasts of burden, or wayward children to be kept in line by a firm hand and list of rules. First, the private realm needs voices to present the themes of liberty, free market prosperity, charity, enlightened individualism, innovation and technological progress guided by reason and an ambition for human flourishing and diverse opportunies for all. All these are connected within the realm of classical liberalism. When is the last time you heard some business person summoned like a common thief before the high lords of congress defend the private sector rather than grovel and plead for lenience?

Lord Acton wrote:

“Liberty is not the means to a higher political end. It is the highest political end.”

Liberty was never meant to be a stepping stone to the Benevolent Government spoken of so eloquently by those who promote an expansion of the State. Liberty is the end, the goal. As we enter the 21st century a new language of liberty is needed as a clarifier, to re-vitalize classical liberal principles after years of reduction and collective dependence on a new religion -- the religion of the State. A stale mixture of psycho-babble and technocrat-speak has reduced individuals to sacrificial pawns.

Murray Rothbard wrote:

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."

So, it's not only liberty which suffers from lack of inspiration, but individualism as well. Enlightened individualism refutes the atomistic, self-centered depiction by the communitarian left -- charity and the realization that free markets demand as much cooperation as competition transforms individuality into the necessary, sovereign parts of a healthy society, the tension between the individual search for meaning, freedom and morality and the cooperative effort between individuals, in freedom, to innovatively form this society through the interplay of ideas. 

Group-think hasn't produced much except a balkanized society fighting for the divine favor of the God-State. What's really at stake is not which political direction gains power, but how we can limit political power and recapture our common direction in progress inspired by the best in us all.