Power is neither Left nor Right

Following up on my previous post, the politicization of America has affected all areas of our lives, from science to education to media to entertainment to inner city communities to sports -- all areas of our lives. A politically correct environmental position has curbed energy production at a time when the country needs the energy and the jobs. Government education is top-heavy with bureacracy and unions and politically crippled from making the necessary changes to become effective. Media no longer presents objective reporting, but rather biased, selective reporting in support of a political party. In entertainment, political messages are sprinkled about and perfectly good tv shows are ruined when they heavy-handedly promote political messages. Black families continue to be torn apart by the welfare system as black teenage unemployment is at 45%, yet politicians plan more government assistance to gain a larger voting bloc, and no one addresses the fundamental problems of dependence and lack of education. Even sports hasn't escaped the political realm as sports stars are paraded before congress to address this concern or that.

The private sector gradually became surrounded and corraled by the political realm. Why have Americans submitted to the over-reaching interference of a Nanny State? One thing that has happened as a result of the politicization of America is that we're sharply divided between Right and Left. Some ambitious intellectuals even build neat theories to describe the influences which make us "liberal" or "conservative". I'll try my hand at it, although I don't technically count as an intellectual because I don't have anything published and I promote a free market and individual rights. Just kidding -- it's really because I don't have the right jacket.

History shows us that one of mankind's biggest problems is the struggle between domination and liberty. Alexander Rustow wrote a history decades ago after WWII concerning this universal power struggle, Freedom and Domination, going back as far as science and recorded history could take us at that time to show how an elite few have dominated the many in different places and times, or try to dominate, throughout. Both Left and Right have, at different times in different places, justified this elite domination by basically saying humans are incapable of self-government. Burke believed the wise, beneficent few are required to guide and protect a civil society. Hegel believed that people could be "free", but only under an absolute ruler who took care of the big picture. Leftists of all stripes believe that the compassionate, intelligent authority of the technocrats must ensure social justice.

So, in America, we've been mostly divided politically into Right and Left with stereotypical leaders -- the Right is concerned with healthy economic growth, law and order, protected borders, morality according to Christian values and self reliance in the world of work and industry, while the Left is concerned about social justice/redistribution themes, international cooperation, multi-cultural openness, civil liberties and environmental protection against unfettered capitalism. Recently, though, concerns of the Right and Left have overlapped, and we find Democrats supporting a war and continued violations of civil liberties, while some Republicans are calling for military restraint and an end to authoritarian practices by the government.

The problem is power. Despite the denials of many on the Right and Left, mainly the Left and a faction of Big Government Republicans, government is gaining more and more power, and the power is in connection with other States bringing us closer to World Government by a few powerful States. The talk of a World Currency is heating up, and we see more international cooperation among the US and other nations. The popular idea is that nations working togther can more effectively solve global problems, and that isolationism and too much nationalistic concern about sovereignty and uniqeness in the 21st century is archaic and self-destructive.

Among the higher realms of world power, Left and Right is practically eradicated, so, as powerful States cooperate in World Governance, regardless of whether the heads of these States are considered Right or Left, their actions are not necessarily Right or Left -- they are pragmatic and aimed at control and collective governance. Soon, we'll see the Left rebelling -- we're already seeing some rebellion on the Left regarding Libya and globalist agreements which hurt the environment. The Black Panther leader excoriated Obama the other day for being too "white". The Left still defend the Obama administration, although they've grumbled about many of his actions which contradict what they thought he stood for, Libya being just the last example.

We also saw many on the Right turn on Bush because of his Big Government actions. This is a trend that will continue as global power strengthens. Running the world is complex, so the power elite cannot be constrained by "conservative" or "liberal" ideology -- they'll have to do what works, what's necessary for collective order, security and economic growth. Their actions will be fair to some and unfair to others at different times in different situations. Individual rights, already a fading principle, will become meaningless -- group rights will become meaningless under the right conditions at the right time when decisions have to be made for the collective, global good, just as national rights will be violated for the collective good. This is the nature of power as it expands.

In America, most of us basically want the same things once we've gone beyond individual, basic needs -- we want peace, fairness, freedom,eradication of poverty and preventable suffering, a clean and healthy environment. We only differ in the methods we support to attempt to make these things a reality. I maintain that we can work together in the private sector to advance these objectives, and that government is an impediment -- that government should only protect individual rights. Otherwise, depending on the State to take care of all social problems and manage economic direction will only lead to an expansion of power and the eventual loss of freedom and rights. Supporting limited government and a free market is more than just wanting government off our backs and having taxes lowered -- these principles are the foundation of freedom and equal opportunity and rights. I don't think we realize how far we've advanced and how capable we are of self-governance, and how incompetent the power elite really are on a global scale -- on all scales of power and control, actually.

2.0, authenticity, pragmatism and other stuff

I will attempt to take pragmatism at its value and look at the political realm going into 2011. As a starting point, Meet the Press this morning had a fair representation of the competing political  ideas vying to be heard, from David Brooks to E.J. Dionne and Pat Toomey to a Yale Law Professor, Stephen Carter, plus Katty Kay from BBC. The mostly unspoken themes running throughout the political discussions, which started off David Gregory interviewing Lindsay Graham, were believeability, principles and pragmatism -- no one came out and said political dishonesty is a major problem, although Brooks brought up the fact that very few people trust government to do the right thing, around 19%, in comparison to some years ago when around 80% expected government to do the right thing.

Of course there was the obligatory description of the Tea Party movement as an expression of formless anger, even though Stephen Carter stated that the "experts" are usually wrong about such reactions related to the public's dissatisfaction with Washington DC (I was more impressed with Mr. Carter than any of the others).

What wasn't discussed but kept running through my mind is the current Information Age. Katty Kay did bring up Twitter and Facebook and how these social changes are affecting the political scene as more and more people connect and discuss current events, but what's pertinent about the change is that people are becoming less gullible, and they are demanding authenticity, consistency and honesty.

It's becoming more difficult to manufacture images, market an idea or individual, and fool the public. It's the difference between a good movie and a bad movie. In a good movie, the director, producer, writers and actors can make the unbelieveable believeable if consistency is maintained through the film -- the actors, the plot, the content all have to mesh to create believeable images. When politics borrowed image-making from Hollywood, they were successful as long as the media was restricted to a few media sources who helped create and maintain the images, but with the advent of the Information Age and the last few years of a rising alternative media and more public involvement in politics, Washington DC has put out one bad movie after another -- plus, we're creating better movie critics. 

Let's look at the movie called Pragmatism which has been given great reviews from the likes of David Brooks and, to a certain extent, Graham, Dionne, Kay and all present on Meet the Press with perhaps the exception of Toomey who is more a principles guy. 

Here is what Merriam Webster has on pragmatism:

an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

Let's take this at face value. Over and over we see pragmatists in the political realm call for pragmatic solutions and an end to the ideologically rigid insistence on principles. Pragmatists say it's more important to do what works rather than what conceptually accords with a predetermined philosophy. I can't argue with this, except to say that principles usually become principles because they've been tested in the real world and have proven that they work. But let's say that what pragmatists really mean is that too many people have developed an ideology based on a set of principles and try to apply these principles when the facts of the problems to be resolved are different than the prior problems which the principles resolved, that not all the principles work in all circumstances in a complex, changing reality which requires creative solutions at times. If this pragmatic approach is authentic, then there's no problem -- we discover new ways of solving complex problems -- but are the pragmatists being honest, or are they trying to break down one ideology to apply solutions which fit their ideology or to leave government operations loose enough to apply "solutions" which serve the establishment of power and control? 

The argment for the stimulus was that we needed to take pragmatic actions to deal with an economic crisis -- those who opposed the stimulus on principles, say Austrian economists vs Keynesian economists, were called ideologues too caught up in their principles to see the need for pragmatic actions that work in such a reality as we now face. Because of transparency we see that the stimulus had major problems -- it didn't prevent unemployment from rising to almost 10% -- it favored unions and Democrat cronies -- it was filled with pork -- it put bandaids on state financial problems --and, mainly, it didn't stimulate the economy. Die-hard proponents of the stimulus say that it prevented a catastrophe and that the economy would be much worse off without it. Most reasonable economists (from my perspective, of course), even some on the left who would have preferred the stimulus go toward infrastructure, have said the stimulus was mostly wasteful. The pertinent question is was the stimulus an authentic, pragmatic solution? I think not.

Republicans rebelled, and they tried to create the image of a conservative, even partly libertarian, alternative -- cut spending -- free up the market -- get government under control and limit its power. Have the Republicans been authenic, consistent, honest? I say no. Even though a large part of the new media is friendly to the Right, still, the hypocrisy of Republicans is constantly exposed. There's no united Republican opposition to waste and out-of-control spending in the military -- there's no hard questioning regarding the effectiveness and wisdom of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- there's no concerted effort to end corporate welfare -- there are no serious efforts to totally reform entitlements like SS and Medicare. A limited government and a free market are apparently far too radical for Republicans, and Trent Lott even said that the new Tea Party candidates who won elections should be co-opted by the Republican establishment. This is a bad movie, so far.

And what about the No Labels, Moderate crowd calling for pragmatic solutions reached by compromise and working together to get things done in government? David Brooks on Meet the Press called for "balance" -- moderates love that word. But what would authentic balance look like today? Regardless of the new "moderate" point on the line stretching from right to left, anyone who goes back in time and traces the changes up to the present will see that government intervention in the economy has shifted left, away from a free market, and brought the moderate position left. In order to achieve an authentic, moderate position of balance, we would need to move much closer to a free market than the moderates are proposing -- the moderates are not calling for a strong shift to a free market, just a moderation of the trend toward the left, a slower, more reasonable movement to the left. In light of all the unintended consequences of government intervention going back to the New Deal, one has to wonder why the moderates think the pragmatic way to solving our problems is to make it easier for government to get things done.

E.J. Dionne said the far left is disappointed in Obama, and Mr. Carter said that Obama is not lookng at the reality of the Afghanistan War. Even the far left, who are unafraid of principles, are seeing that the political realm, the Democrat Party, is not authentic and consistent. The left was promised much more than they received from Obama and company. I believe that Obama believes in what he promised and is soulfully connected to the left, but he has to be dishonest to deal with all the political pressures. The movie made by the Obama production company might be the last one that even partially succeeds -- the promotion of he movie was successful because people wanted to believe it was an award winner -- but, alas, it's just another bad movie.

In the Information Age, the political realm and our system of government are in a serious quandary -- the system is predicated on image-making, but it's no longer putting out good movies -- the media is not participating fully in the image creation, and there's too much transparency behind the scenes, and there are too many people looking for believeability, and the results aren't holding up. Plus people are tired of image-making -- they want to separate Washington DC and Hollywood.

So, this brings us to the people -- have they been authentic? Has the left been realistic in its demands on government -- are they really operating from a position of compassion and social change or are they simply demanding that government solve all their problems and support them in ways we can't afford? Is the Right really serious when they demand their representatives cut spending and limit government power? Again, what about military spending, the wars, the national security State, SS, Medicare, unemployment benefits, farm subsidies, the war on drugs and all the other government spending and interventions they've historically supported just as the left have supported their interventions and spending? I realize that defense is a legitimate part of government responsibility, but no one can legitimately deny that there's incredible waste in the defense budget and that the military/industrial complex has grown way out of proportion to what we need for safety -- and after ten years in Afghanistan, can anyone really justify risking our soldiers' lives any longer with no solution in sight?

If we really want to be pragmatic, let's not use that word as an excuse to do what our side wants to do to expand the power of the State, let's be pragmatic with principles in mind to remind us what's really likely to work and what's not.

Toxic political environment

We're living in a toxic political environment, and both right and left share the blame. The right shares the blame for not articulating a clear alternative to statism, reacting to the left's diversionary tactics, and failing to focus on limited government, individual rights and a free market. Some have focused, but the rest seem to believe this whole conflict between statism and limited government is about political power, getting the Republican Party elected, or establishing control over the party by one faction or another.

The left shares the blame for using despicable tactics to maintain power. The left is using the cheapest, most cowardly tactic of all -- accusing their opponents of racism. I won't go into a tit for tat on the race issue, but in the 21st century, this tactic doesn't work, and anyone using it ought to be ashamed of themselves -- they have no credibility.

Anyone on the right using race as a scare tactic is just as despicable. There's no need to discuss race at all when debatng the conflict between statism and limited government. The right should not highlight the race of an opponent, and the left should not cry racism when the right is criticizing someone on the left who happens to be a member of a minority group, especially when the criticism has nothing to do with race but with political beliefs and unscrupulous actions -- such as the ACORN issue, and Van Jones' involvement in radical causes -- neither of these have anything to do with race and everything to do with ideas and actions.

I'm at a point where I'm moving away from both parties and the poltical jackals in between until one shows some sanity and integrity or a new, viable party emerges. What we need is a private sector revival, not a political war. Citizens of all races should be standing against government overreach and statist policies which are destroying the economy and bogging us down in two wars -- not to mention violating privacy rights and threatening to infiltrate the internet, even more than they have already.

Forget about all the political class buffoons who self-style themselves as "elite" - They're a joke. Hardly any of these clowns know anything about production and creating new wealth, living in peace or existing in diversity -- they want to divide the nation and weaken the people in order to maintain power. Washington DC has grown into a monstrosity which needs to be cut down to size, and all the parasites living off of it with their useless games and snarky superiorty need to support themselves with honest work -- we need to quit feeding the monster.

WaPo screwed up a good idea

The Washington Post needs readers, so they have decided to give perspectives from the right, but they've gone about it all wrong. They don't need someone who favors the Democrats more than the Republicans to represent the right -- that's ridiculous -- and it backfired on them with the Weigel hiring.

WaPo also doesn't need a partisan Republican as a fake move of diversity. What WaPo needs is someone who understands the right and the history of the right, and who understands the difference in ideology -- someone like Frank Chodorov who represented the old right. If WaPo could find a journalist of Chodorov's intelligence and insight, it would be a big boost -- the kind of boost they're seeking. 

The conflicts between the old right and the left at the turn of the 20th century are pertinent today -- moreso than the current Frum-like, or Brooks-like perspectives from a moderate viewpoint. It would be a good move if a major news outlet provided such rich content, but it's doubtful they have that much courage -- and that's why they will fail.

Cutting through the political fog -- part 2

At some point, our nation has to face political fatigue. 24/7 politics is in our face. It's becoming a reality that the modern liberal acceptance of statism is the common view and that it transcends politics -- it's the mainstream view of American society, they say. This places the right as an opposition movement obsessed with liberalism, out to demonize the mainstream view as some kind of radical conspiracy to overtake the country. The liberals, to their way of thinking, see their views as normal, so the opposition appears weird and out-of-touch, trying to pull America back to some ancient time of racism, white dominance, capitalist plunder and general ignorance of the world. Liberals don't necessarily thnk we've achieved the good society, but the direction is settled.

So, the left is already expressing fatique -- they don't want to hear the wild accusations of "socialism" from the right. The left feels as if mainstream society is under attack, and all they want to do is to allow the State to make steady progress, to keep Wall Street under wraps, to protect the environment, to promote more equality for women and minorities, to improve on the safety net, to ensure everyone has healthcare and to move toward appreciation of higher goods with more leisure time to enjoy these goods. 

Liberals are pretty much convinced that private industries create enough wealth to support an interventionist, powerful, benevolent State which has the obligation to assure a decent life for its citizens, free from the oppression of an unregulated market. In the liberal mind the direction we should take is settled. They don't see this direction as "statist" or "socialist", because they think these terms are antiquated and derogatory, made so by the right. We are beyond labels and ideology -- the old battle between communism and liberal democracy is passe. This is why modern liberal society sees the opposition from the right as reactionary, too-political, too obsessed with "progressives" and too regressive.

The right has been placed, or placed themselves, in a conservative position, upholding traditions that liberals see as backwards and no longer relevant. Liberals believe that while the government isn't perfect, with the right people in charge, we can move toward the creation of the good society, that we can achieve some measure of equality without sacrificing too much freedom. The freedom of private industries and wealthy individuals is not the same as freedom for the general population, because the wealthy have used privilege and unfair advantages to amass wealth on the backs of the working people, women, minorities and the poor. Liberals are generally willing to have government work with private industries to accomplish common goals, such as green initiatives and alternative energy sources, but they expect government to manage the market so that corporations aren't free to amass wealth without paying their fair share -- plus, industries have to be prevented from destroying the environment, or creating inequality in hiring practices or paying low wages to maximize profits.

In other words, private industry in America, according to the liberal mindset, should be regulated by government in order to achieve the goals of the State. Industry is necessary to create the wealth needed by the State to create the good, liberal, democratic society, but private industries can also be evil and can't be given too much freedom, because then they would dominate society and create wealth disparity.

What I'm wondering is how many on the right accept most of these liberal ideas, and how many don't -- and among those who don't, how many can defend their oppositon? Clearing away the political fog.