Tag: conservative

Uncategorized

Waging Words

economiccommander2 Comments

I seldom respond to internet criticism, both because it can smack of pettiness and ultimately feel ineffectual. The chances of turning some other soul’s mind in a congenial direction remain low, while overall investment into that discourse mode is unforgiving. Better to just canter along with dutiful consideration of another project.

At times however the need rises beyond levels of reasonable counter-protest. When a message is misconstrued by a perhaps well-meaning but clearly struggling spectator, their disorientation must be addressed lest it bring down the clarity of other prospective enjoyers. This process is condemned to playing out on the blog because Amazon has long-since deprived authors of the “reply” ability on reviews, leaving us with no venue to directly interact with negative sentiments in a healthy fashion.

Our subject today is a review of Why Conservatism Failed by the Amazon customer known as “U.M.D.” He begins his recriminations with the following paragraph:

“There’s a lot of good information in this book given its short length, and some good suggestions at the end, but seems to really hate Abe Lincoln and goes off on 3 or 4 tangents about how he was the worst president ever for running roughshod over the Constitution and launching a totally unprovoked, illegal invasion of the Confederacy, who were really good, freedom-loving people who were in the process of abolishing slavery already, so there was no reason to start the Civil War, better known as the ‘War of Northern Aggression’.”

This characterization is mostly false, yet it does signal association with the likely Reagan conservative character types who I warned against reading the text precisely because its contents would fall against their entrenched views on American history. The section (presumably he) refers to is designed to pare back assumptions on the Plural Right that Lincoln was some sort of limited government practitioner, which by any fair standard he was not. If anything, my target for derision here is Dinesh D’Souza, a known liar and historical revisionist who serves up prepackaged nonsense to older white conservatives in hopes of assuaging their dislike of being labeled racist by the Left.

Continuing on, there is no question that the CSA was in the process of reducing slavery, as demonstrated by provisions of the South’s constitution which barred the importation of further African slaves. Nevertheless, the text specifically notes that existing slaves were not freed under its auspices. Such shoddy reporting of the book’s content is lamentable, but certainly not surprising.

Our reviewer also appears to be frustrated by the reality of the CSA’s legal system being far more supportive of limited government than the federal behemoth empowered by Lincoln’s political legacy. He glazes over the actual components of the south’s government in order to gaslight folks with sarcasm and resentment. One can recognize the merits of the model without being a staunch advocate of slavery, which I wager would have been dissolved eventually by newer technology and the growing market economy.

After a measure of poorly-constructed weeping over the start of the Civil War, our joyous lad drops his conclusion.

“Distracting as this is, spending 5-10 percent of a 80 page book on hating Lincoln wouldn’t be so bad if the author’s point was consistent, but when we get to the suggestions on how to fix America at the end he suggests the next Republican President act in a unitary fashion, running roughshod over the Constitution in a manner just like Abe Lincoln in order to defeat leftism. He even suggests the next Republican President can suspend habeas corpus in order to deal with rioters, something at the beginning of the book he singled out as one of the acts that define Lincoln as an evil tyrant. I guess it’s okay when it’s our guy abusing executive power, but it’s totally evil when the other guy does it.”

Again, this outraged fellow chose to misinterpret the book as an attack on Lincoln simply because I neglect to tow the established conservative line on the CSA. What we require is nuance, an element lacking in the vast majority of emotions-driven political consumers. Just as Lincoln helped destroy the limited government system by claiming to defend it, modern actors are able to pursue similar methods in reverse, to protect crucial values and freedoms. The entire purpose of “energy in the Executive” as championed by multiple Founders is to safeguard the Republic against hostile attacks, and not exclusively those with foreign origin.

Of course a future conservative president can and should be deft about dispensing with the Plural Left, using whatever constitutional means are available to him. In contrast, quavering souls who screech, “You can’t do THAT” will merely drink their Bourbon and smoke cigars as D.C. burns, happily passing away the last moments of life, climaxing to the thought of Leftists receiving blame for the flames.

Thank you for reading. 🙂

Culturalism · Economic History · Federal Government

The Cult of Conventionalism

economiccommander2 Comments

I hope this will be the last (contemporary) political post made on the blog for a while. As much as the topic is compelling, one cannot escape the feeling of its overall vapidity. We observe representatives voting to object to an election in small numbers, knowing well in advance the act is mere grandstanding to avoid what harsh realities a corrupt system has foisted on the people. They “do their part,” even while the finishing glaze was conjured up weeks ago.

Strangely enough, there is a different kind of electoral moralization going on in D.C. and state capitols around the country: that of defending convention. Not long after the fury blew up on Capitol Hill, empowered libertarian representatives quickly rushed to “defend the Constitution” by joining with Democrats and ratifying the results of an obviously corrupt election. These are the same characters frantically warning about excess spending, surveillance, and endless wars, yet the critical moment is simply too trying for their sensibilities. So instead of taking a principled stand to favor what they believe, the route is one of guarding the system and status quo.

What makes this behavior especially confusing is the purveyors’ own knowledge that they are waging a losing battle by being good town watchmen over modern day malevolence. The reason spending does not come down is because the decision gets devolved across fifty different states, all with various projects and payoffs lined up for fulfillment. Wars are similarly driven by money, and continue to be pushed by the uniparty majority despite public opposition. Such programs are not going anywhere on the basis of libertarian idea-spreading, and certainly no Balanced Budget is forthcoming.

Keeping all that in mind, what exactly do these steady tradition enforcers get in exchange for their complicity? The simple enough answer is as follows: an opportunity to flaunt moral self-righteousness by being “right” because they warned folks in advance. If the rest of us had only listened to the libertarians and conservatives, somehow the cities wouldn’t be burning, racism would hardly matter, and decency might reign supreme. Now that all is ashes, we should turn and recognize our steady friends who wouldn’t allow the structure to collapse, not for all the ideological triumph in the world.

Perhaps an addendum here should speculate as to whether the system defenders cultivate a martyr complex in their minds to feel better about the collapse of convention. It would certainly jive well with the sacrificial themes of those Abrahamic religions they follow, in which the upright are cut down while preaching forgiveness and respect towards their enemies. Thus they can die (or devolve into the political deserts) knowing their honor was bright, and the other side is wrong or sinful.

Now let us pose one final query: should the more radical Rightists somehow seize power in the future, what shall the libertarians and conservatives do? Will they yet lament the collapse of the system, which holds the bulk of their spiritual wealth, or simply revert to becoming grifters aligned to that triumphant cause?    

Like Descartes, I leave the answer to my dreams.

Culturalism · Federal Government

What Happened To Liberal Values?

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Since January 2017, we have been subjected to a deluge of hand-wringing over liberal ideas and constitutional freedoms. Such lamentations have certainly existed before, but never with the same obsessive dedication as in the age of Trump. It is almost as if people believe these principles are suddenly at stake, while under prior regimes they remained safe.

But there is one problem: they have never meant anything, or least not in the way most people think. Sure, one can cry about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, yet neither amount to much unless they are defended, unreservedly. Spectators seem to think we can somehow maintain the general concepts absent any substantial sacrifice, and in the process invalidate all which is at stake. The battle is lost in their thoughts, and thus nobody lifts a finger.

The most evident indictment on this question is that of private property. While liberalism can lay claim to allowing a certain degree of social barbarism in the name of free expression, its adherents have no place to flee on the matter of individual sovereignty over possessions. America was founded largely on this basis, with our Constitution borrowing heavily from the writings of John Locke, perhaps the greatest advocate of property rights known in the Western world. In his own words:

“Every man has a property in his own person.  This nobody has any right to but himself.  The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”

The very notion of being able to own something without threat of feudalistic seizure by some petty monarch has become sacrosanct in the broader liberal world, despite attempts to erode through acts such as eminent domain. Crimes of trespassing are still regularly enforced, and theft is considered a serious crime in most jurisdictions.

Until now. For all that the liberal republican system has promised to safeguard rights, the riots and looting of the last several weeks shows its agnostic opinion of self. Businesses or cars immolate and merchandise streams from the shelves unpaid, as scarcely soft murmurs escape the lips of the liberty-promoters. Police cannot respond, soldiers are warned against reacting, and politicians condemned for trying to bring order. Yet somehow, we are still implored to believe in the existence of these principles.

Even anti-skeptics must admit it is nearly impossible. The very essence of liberal religiosity requires that people can live without fear of losing their “pursuit of happiness” to the enraged mob of our current year, and edgy suspicion grows every day, with atheistic reactions not far behind. A spiritual awakening seems necessary to stem the tide, if only it can come. Of course such a development requires the will to act, and the liberal order has not anything close.

So softly the Republic burns.

Federal Government · investing · Personal Finance

Can Free Market Healthcare Work?

economiccommander2 Comments

One of the silliest debates in the last ten years has been that surrounding healthcare. Progressives screech about the need for broader Medicare coverage, and conservatives extol the virtues of “free market reforms” to bring down medical costs. In both cases, they miss the mark by fixating on the delivery of insurance rather than an elimination of health issues in the first place.

For the purposes of this post, let us consider conservative arguments. They will typically join libertarians in advocating a rollback on insurance regulation and hospital restrictions, along with less government intervention in the economy. Many will note that in 2013, government spending was already 48 percent of the total for healthcare, and yet costs do not seem to be coming down. They might even point to the historical example of Nelson Rockefeller, who tried to expand government coverage of people under Medicaid, but had to abandon the program after it became too expensive.

These are all valid concerns, yet we run up against several problems. To begin with, as long as hospitals find it difficult to deny care to those who cannot pay, fellow travelers will end up footing the bill. Private insurance already acts like a placeholder of sorts for the government in these situations, but they simply amp up premiums on others to support the weaker links. Further complicating matters on the insurance side is the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which granted sweetheart exemptions to the insurance industry from federal antitrust laws, making it harder to prevent price gouging.

At least for the purer conservatives and libertarians, antitrust restrictions are a troubling question, appearing to some as a needless restriction on liberty. Others term them “anticompetitive,” and claim such legislation was only implemented to benefit industry actors who were losing market share. The front is thus not unified, although the House did vote overwhelmingly to approve a repeal of McGarran-Ferguson in 2010, only to see it die in the Senate.

The bigger issue being left out of the free market argument is the effect which lifestyle has on personal health. It’s easy enough to note that people must take responsibility for their own diet and exercise regimen, but this view fails to acknowledge contributing health factors sourced in other areas. If we fail to properly regulate food production, for example, we might well have hog waste getting into the water supply, if not the ham itself. The consequences have been algal blooms and massive fish casualties, yet who knows how many humans might already be affected.

Permitting high levels of added sugar in cereals or snacks is another problem. Sure, people are responsible for their own actions, but children will be capricious over what they want. In some cases, those kids might have been raised consuming junk, and not know any different. The mere availability of unhealthy foods might also result in them being consumed because of convenience, particularly if there is no existing market for healthier alternative in close proximity.

Sensible regulation is an obvious solution, with the EU providing baselines, but conservatives and libertarians will often come out against any further government control – while also demanding free market healthcare. Clearly this poses a problem. If people are eating garbage products because “it’s good for the economy,” then they will likely drive up costs after developing conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Unless care is entirely individualized, with people “only paying for what they need,” and those unable to pay getting denied service, even private sector insurance will end up subsidizing them through risk pools and higher premiums. In other words, everyone gets charged more.

Thus we are left with a conundrum. Either we must overhaul food production and environmental protections to prevent disease in the first place, or make everyone pay out of pocket for their needs alone. As long as insurance plays a leading role however, the latter idea remains a wistful thought.